CONTENTS
Friday, January 28, 1994
Consideration resumed 557
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 560
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 565
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 566
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 569
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 569
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 569
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 569
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 570
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 570
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 570
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 571
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 571
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 571
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 572
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 572
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 574
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 575
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 576
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 576
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 576
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 577
Consideration resumed 578
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 599
Division on motion deferred 607
557
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, January 28, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from January 27 consideration of the
motion for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General
in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured to rise in this House as the representative of the
people of Sudbury and also as Canada's Minister of Health to
expand on a number of themes raised in the speech from the
throne.
On October 25 Canadians from across this country sent a clear
message to politicians that there are certain principles, policies
and programs which must be maintained as part of our national
heritage and our national fabric.
Fundamental among them is our national health system which
for many Canadians represents the essence of our unique
experience as a country.
Our health system remains the envy of people around the
world. Many Canadians are watching with interest as our
American neighbours wrestle with the many problems of
upgrading their own health system. In a way the debate south of
the border has served to heighten awareness in Canada of our
own system, one that we may have come to take for granted.
[Translation]
I am fully aware of the financial pressures on our health care
system. We, as Canadians, face a number of critical choices if
we are to preserve and improve the health system which we all
cherish.
(1005)
[English]
The challenges to our health system are daunting. We cannot
isolate health issues from other public policy issues: economic,
social, environmental and even political. As governments at all
levels search for ways to ensure development and growth, I say
look to the health system, look to the health of Canadians. A
healthy Canada will be a wealthy Canada. The reverse is true as
well, I might add.
[Translation]
Can a child who has not had a proper meal or proper rest
absorb the mass of information required to prepare for the
economy of the future? Can a worker who is dependent on
alcohol or a prohibited substance produce at his or her full
capacity? Can we deny Canadians access to the research and
treatment breakthroughs in the health field which could improve
their overall quality of life?
[English]
The health of Canadians is something that is precious to this
country and so is the health system that has developed to support
it. When we have something precious we must protect it. This
government and this minister fully intend to protect the health
system in Canada for all Canadians.
Our approach is straightforward. We intend to improve the
current system, not by some radical shift in the fundamental
principles, but by the development of creative solutions to the
problems that have arisen as the system has grown and evolved.
I call this approach creating value while maintaining values.
[Translation]
That means that we will stick to the five principles of the
Canada Health Act which have served Canadians so well over
the past quarter century.
Let me repeat what those five principles are since many
members are new to this House and because the principles are so
important to the debates which inevitably will ensue over the
months ahead.
First, universality-Canada's health system must be for all
Canadians.
558
Second, portability-the benefits of our system must be
available wherever in Canada our residents choose to live.
Third, comprehensiveness-it must include all medically
necessary services.
Fourth, accessibility-no Canadian should be deprived access
to the health system, and that means no user fees. This
government cannot accept any measures which amount to a tax
on sickness.
Fifth, public administration-the health of Canadians
represents an important national asset and it must be
administered overall on a non-profit basis by the public sector.
[English]
Even with these principles firmly entrenched there is still
considerable opportunity to improve the overall health system.
Since the health system is such an important national asset it is
essential that we bring Canadians together to work
co-operatively to renew and enhance it for the future.
There is considerable agreement that we need a more
cost-effective and efficient health system and about what it
should look like in the future. However there is little agreement
about how we get there. These are not easy questions and they
require a national dialogue to generate the necessary consensus
to improve the health care system.
This is the thinking behind our announcement to create a
national forum on health to be chaired by the Prime Minister of
Canada.
(1010 )
The Prime Minister's personal involvement signals just how
important we consider this issue to be for our national
well-being.
[Translation]
I know that some Canadians have grown tired of all the
consultations, special task forces, and other mechanisms
established by the previous government to examine issues ad
nauseam. We know Canadians appreciate their health care
system, we know they strongly oppose user fees, and we know
they are looking to the federal government to continue to play a
major role in the health system.
Let me assure you that this government is listening and acting
upon these messages. We do not want to duplicate existing
mechanisms for co-operation. Instead, we wish to create a focus
for a national discussion on a health strategy for Canada which
encompasses all the various viewpoints, including those of the
ultimate users.
We understand that the federal government is not the only
government responsible for the health of Canadians. We cannot
and will not go it alone. That is why I will be discussing this
important initiative with my provincial colleagues when we
meet in Ottawa on February 8 and 9.
I want to emphasize at this point that I am fully aware that
health spending represents on average 30 per cent of provincial
budgets and that provincial governments have made very
significant efforts to come to grips with challenges in this area.
[English]
The national forum will provide an opportunity to highlight
the issues and the difficult challenges all governments face. It
will also help improve the climate for change.
However, governments at all levels cannot and should not
bear the full responsibility for the health of Canadians. The
medical profession, health care providers, the research
community, the pharmaceutical and other health related
industries, employers, employee organizations and consumers
have important roles to play.
We hope that the national forum on health will raise the
knowledge level of Canadians on a number of issues, many
within their own control, and educate the general population on
the possibilities as well as the challenges. Yes, individual
Canadians also have a role to play. While health is a collective
responsibility, it is also an individual responsibility.
We are each our own personal health managers. Many of our
personal choices will determine the extent of our health and our
quality of life. By bringing together all the participants from
governments to individual users in this renewal exercise, I truly
believe our health system can gain without pain.
[Translation]
One area where I believe that there is substantial potential for
co-operation is in the field of health awareness. Right now, all
levels of government are engaged in awareness programs on
such issues as substance abuse and AIDS. Improved
co-ordination among federal, provincial and territorial program
areas would certainly lead to more efficient messaging and give
all Canadians greater return on their health investment.
[English]
Where I live in Sudbury, northern Ontario, the health needs
and the available services vary from those in downtown Toronto,
Montreal or Vancouver. But a good idea developed in Sudbury or
for that matter in Moncton or Red Deer can be of value to all
Canadians wherever they live. There are plenty of good ideas
out there in Sudbury and in every region of Canada. Let me give
hon. members a few examples.
For nearly 20 years there has been a federal-provincial
territorial committee on group purchasing of drugs and vaccines
whose efforts have resulted in real savings to our health care
system. When one member changed the method of supply for
measles, mumps and rubella vaccine from dealing directly with
559
the supplier to bulk purchasing through this group, they realized
a 68 per cent saving.
(1015 )
Three Ontario schools, including Laurentian University in
Sudbury, are establishing undergraduate programs in midwifery
which are expected to save money by reducing the number of
prenatal doctor visits while providing pregnant women with
quality care in the community.
[Translation]
Unique to Quebec are the local community service centres
which provide locally-based health care in an effective and
client-friendly manner. All of these programs are good
examples of what I call spending smarter.
By placing existing innovative programs within a more
coherent framework and by bringing together creative people
with those who must administer and those who must use the
system, I believe we can generate even more ideas which can
add value to the overall health framework in Canada.
International comparisons show us that we do not have to
spend more to produce a better overall health system for
Canadians. For example, thousands of Canadians are sent every
day for medical treatments of various kinds. But how many of
those treatments are really evaluated to see if there are effective
and better alternatives? I believe that there is tremendous
potential for savings in our health system by doing a proper
evaluation of what currently exists.
[English]
I believe that women's health requires special attention. One
of our specific initiatives, as outlined in the red book and the
speech from the throne, will be the creation of a centre of
excellence for women's health.
Traditionally the health system has been regarded as gender
neutral, but most adult women and adolescent girls can give
vivid examples of how the system has a strong male bias. The
women's health issue is an area which I believe urgently needs
more research as the recent forum on breast cancer so
dramatically highlighted. I must add that this is a personal
priority of mine.
Let us face it, there are basic biological differences between
women and men. Gender does have an impact on the distribution
of many diseases across the population. Yet many clinical trials
of drugs and other treatments under-represent women in their
samples or exclude women completely. Not only is it bad policy,
it is bad medicine.
Women do have special conditions, from osteoporosis to
menopause, and they merit equal attention from research to
treatment, to care and prevention. We have to move the health
system forward in this regard, not to the detriment of anyone's
health but to the benefit of everyone's health.
Again, we have many ideas in this area from the establishment
of specific research goals to the development of programs for
groups such as immigrant women and aboriginal women whose
particular needs have not always been adequately served by the
health system.
[Translation]
Any discussion of women's health must establish the
connection between violence in the family and the overall health
of the woman, her children, and others living in the household.
My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has overall responsibility
for this critical area, but my department continues to play an
important role with respect to family violence prevention
through building partnerships with non-governmental
organizations and the provincial and territorial governments.
We will develop a national strategy to address the various
aspects of women's health, and my department will work
diligently, again in close co-operation with our partners, to pull
together all the pieces of this gender puzzle.
The establishment of centres of excellence for women's
health is only the first step in a solution. What we really need is
the basic research and raw data on which to base our future
programs and policies.
[English]
Preventing illness is just as much a health care responsibility
as curing it. One of the unique biological functions of women is
childbirth. Our government is committed to enhancing the
support system for this important period of a woman's life by
creating a pre-natal nutrition program for women at risk. In
Canada there are between 350,000 and 400,000 pregnancies a
year. Of these, 10 per cent of pregnant women are at risk because
of poor health and malnutrition. Poor nutrition is a risk factor
for low birth weight in newborn babies. In turn, low birth weight
is the determining factor in about two-thirds of all deaths among
newborns. Those who survive are at greater risk of developing
serious and chronic disabilities.
(1020)
The costs of this can be startling. For the 21,000 babies who
have an unsatisfactory birth weight, the immediate costs of
medical care can be as high as $60,000 per infant. As their lives
progress they face higher risks of poor health and developmental
difficulties which could sentence them to a life of poverty.
What is the cost of preventing such a fate? We believe that it
runs in the range of $300 to $400 a pregnancy, depending on
individual circumstances. Again, good health policy is sound
economic policy.
560
Healthy children are also very much at the heart of a program
we proposed for aboriginal families living off reserve in urban
centres and in large northern communities. The aboriginal head
start program would provide enriched programs for young
children and include such important elements as nutritional
counselling, physical activity and child care.
However, it also involves parents as both leaders and learners.
The program would be designed and managed by aboriginal
people at the community level and would be sensitive to both
cultural and linguistic realities. We anticipate committing $10
million to this program in its first year, to be expanded to a total
of $40 million in its fourth year of operation.
Successful head start programs can help reduce some of the
effects of poverty by stimulating a desire for learning, by
entrenching a positive self image and by providing for social,
emotional and physical needs of these at risk children.
If successful-and I am very positive it will be-this program
could be extended to other Canadian children in need.
Children are the future of our country and their well-being is
everyone's responsibility. Healthy, confident children can
develop and grow to their potential and all of us benefit.
In the early sixties, when I was a secretary in a doctor's office,
I had to collect the outstanding accounts. I know first-hand how
medical bills can paralyse a family. It has as much devastation
as any debilitating illness. It is the reason why I am so set
against user fees. In my mind, compassion must always come
first. Without it we are simply turning health into another
commodity to be traded and bargained for. That is not my way.
In my world people, from newborns to seniors, come first. I
pledge to this House that the people aspect of health will remain
the driving force behind all of our thinking.
In the months ahead it is our intention to work with all
Canadians to make an excellent health care system even better.
Canadians should expect no less and this government will make
it happen.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Madam Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your
appointment and wish you the very best. I also want to
congratulate the hon. minister on a very fine and well-delivered
speech. I have only had the opportunity to meet this minister on
a short term.
(1025 )
Having been a high school principal for many years I have a
tendency to take a first impression of people. I would like the
members of this House to know that I indeed was impressed with
the minister. I know she is going to be a fine lady to do this job
and can count on a lot of support. I do not envy her. It is an
horrendous task.
However, I have one thing I would like to bring up concerning
user fees. This Chamber is transferring the responsibility of
delivering medical services to the provinces. The province of
Alberta is struggling desperately to save its health care
programs. Under the leadership of Ralph Klein, the Government
of Alberta and the people of Alberta have jointly agreed to
institute some form of user fee that would not affect those who
are most in need.
Does the hon. minister not feel that if we are putting that kind
of responsibility on that province that we should not interfere
with the deliverance of that medical process?
Ms. Marleau: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Wild Rose for his kind words. It is indeed a new Parliament and a
new atmosphere here. I do not recall ever having heard these
kind words in the last Parliament.
I would like to remind the hon. member for Wild Rose that the
actual management of the health care system is within the
jurisdiction of provincial governments but the federal
government does set the parameters. The Canada Health Act
specifies medically necessary services.
I hold very dearly to the concept that user fees are detrimental
to what happens to Canadians. I am going to tell you why. In
many instances when a user fee is charged it becomes a
short-term way of collecting more money but it does not change
the functioning of the health care system. What ends up
happening is that the same people who perhaps have been
abusing the system or not using it properly then feel that they
can continue to misuse or not use appropriately the actual
medical system in place.
Very often those people who needed to access that service
could not because they did not have the amount of money
available to pay up front. It perhaps was a very small fee but for
some people it is a big fee. They do not visit the doctor in the
early stages of a disease and in the end the disease progresses.
They become much sicker and have to enter the hospital. The
whole thing has now cost the government far more because not
only does it have to pay the medical costs, it then has to pick up
all of the other social costs associated with, let us say, a single
parent being admitted to a hospital. It also has to bear the brunt
of the hospital costs which are far higher than the initial doctor's
visit might have been.
From my personal experience, I know that a user fee is the
wrong way to go. It is not the way to ensure that our system
changes to meet the needs of those who really need it.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Madam Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the Minister of
Health on her election of course, but also on her appointment to
this portfolio which is extremely important to all Quebecers and
Canadians.
561
I listened with a great deal of interest to her speech and, as the
hon. member before me said, I really get the feeling that the
minister is concerned about preserving an efficient health care
system while acknowledging at the same time the financial
problems that the government is currently facing. This is to her
credit.
(1030)
I would, however, like to draw her attention to the work being
done in the community. She referred to initiatives aimed at
lowering the cost of providing services. It is a well-known fact
that community organizations are doing some amazing work in
this area.
I represent the constituency of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead and in the Eastern Townships
where I live, there is an agency called IRIS that provides
counselling and home care services to persons with AIDS. This
organization's incredible work is praised by all those working in
the community sector and, of course, by people with AIDS.
IRIS, like most other organizations of this nature, depends on
grants to stay in business. The cost of the services it provides
cannot be compared to the cost of caring for people in an
institutional setting. The salaries paid to workers in the
community-based sector are, more often than not, well below
the poverty level and volunteers are crucial to the operation of
these agencies.
I would like the minister to tell us what importance she
attaches to the community-based sector and what her
government intends to do, not only to maintain but to increase
the level of assistance to community agencies right across
Canada, and to those in my region and my riding in particular.
Mrs. Marleau: Madam Speaker, as you know we are deeply
concerned about funding issues. The National Forum on Health
which will be held shortly will examine many of these
questions. It is absolutely essential that we look at ways of
treating people while using the dollars we have more effectively.
The local community service centres, or CLSCs, in Quebec
have a remarkable history. They do extraordinary work and they
are certainly an example to many others in our country.
Therefore, I hope that we will be able to compare notes and
exchange ideas because I am convinced that they will provide us
with an answer to the financial pressures we are now facing.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Madam Speaker,
my congratulations to the minister of health on her appointment
to cabinet.
The minister may recall that Bill C-91 was passed in the last
Parliament. It was a bill ensuring that drug manufacturers have
patent protection for certain drugs. The minister may also know
that since that bill has been passed the cost of prescription drugs
to Canadians has skyrocketed.
Given the fact that this bill has provided monopolistic
protection for drug manufacturers to charge whatever prices
they see fit to people who really require prescription drugs for
the sake of their health and in many cases are in life giving
situations, is the minister now contemplating a repealing of Bill
C-91?
Ms. Marleau: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question, but let me remind him that the particular bill on
patent legislation is the responsibility of the minister of
industry, science and technology.
What concerns me, though, is the cost of prescription drugs
because it puts an awful burden on our health care system. The
patented prices review board which reviews the prices of
patented drugs has reported that in the first six months of 1993
the prices of patented medicines have decreased somewhat.
This being said, I am still very much concerned with the
prices of non-patented drugs which take up a very large number
of dollars. I am also very much concerned with a statistic
released recently that indicated our usage of prescription drugs
had increased by over 8 per cent.
(1035)
There are very serious problems that we have to address and I
am working with my provincial counterparts to find a solution to
them.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Madam Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise today in this House. I first want to
express my sincere thanks to the people of my constituency of
Laurentides for their support and for the confidence they placed
in me last October 25. The people of Laurentides, surely the
most beautiful riding in Canada, can count on me to represent
them well in this House. I will do my job in a vigorous and
dynamic manner. My actions and decisions will always be based
on the principles of respect, equity and dignity.
Last October 25 the population made a choice reflecting its
profound dissatisfaction with the existing political and
administrative system. The people clearly showed us that they
were fed up with an unproductive system that is too costly and
too complex and that does not meet the needs of a population
looking for major changes. They also demand more power
through their members of Parliament to influence and guide
their government.
Let us never forget that we are the people's representatives.
We must always act as their spokespersons and look after their
welfare. If we want to regain their trust, I honestly think that we
should adhere to that philosophy.
562
We, as members of the Bloc Quebecois, intend to address the
problems clearly identified during the last election campaign.
Our efforts will focus on creating long-term jobs, reducing the
debt, putting government finances on a healthier footing,
maintaining social benefits and, of course, promoting Quebec
sovereignty. Despite what some members of this House are
saying, the people in my riding knowingly elected me as a
sovereigntist member of Parliament. We did not wait till the
morning of October 26 to tell Quebecers: ``Okay, from now on
we want a sovereign Quebec''. That was our message throughout
the election campaign and the people still elected us.
Our mandate is clear. Even if the Prime Minister claims that
he does not want anything to do with the constitutional debate,
we will always remind him that our basic mandate is to help
Quebec achieve sovereignty. We were elected on a sovereignty
platform, without making election promises, without a Prime
Minister's office to table projects.
If the government intends, as it says in the throne speech, to
work vigorously to make federalism meet the needs of
Canadians, we on this side will do the same to promote our
political option that will also certainly meet the needs of
Quebecers.
These needs are numerous and vary for each individual.
However, what people need can generally be summed up as
decent living conditions. The government must do its utmost to
meet these basic individual needs.
Regarding employment, we all know that the government has
just launched its famous infrastructure program. This program
that the Liberals see as the saviour of our economy is clearly
insufficient. It does not bring about any of the major changes
needed by our flagging economy. The government is creating
short-term jobs.
The worker who paves a road or paints a building will find
himself without a job again after his contract is completed. The
government will never manage to create long-term jobs in this
manner. The infrastructure program is only a band-aid solution.
We put ointment on the cut without worrying about the scar. The
program will create 65,000 temporary jobs, while over 1.5
million Canadians are unemployed.
(1040)
The government must strive to find and create sound, original
programs to more effectively fight the chronic unemployment
that has plagued us far too long already. We must act now. In my
riding, which is part of the Laurentides administrative region,
the unemployment rate was 15.1 per cent in December 1993.
Add to that 28,000 income support recipients and this brings the
total of unemployed people to 60,000, out of a workforce of
213,000. This means that 28 per cent of our people are out of
work. That is an alarming figure and a great concern to me. We
cannot hope to make our society a better place to live in when so
many people are unproductive.
Work is an important value and is essential to the good health
of people and societies. It is imperative the government address
this priority. We on this side are prepared to support any sensible
action that would hold the promise of lasting employment.
The road to employment must include manpower training, an
area that currently reflects how poorly the federal system is
working. The workers also need to be able to respond quickly to
market requirements. I would be remiss not to mention the youth
employment issue that we have to examine thoroughly.
Drop-outs and street children are a growing social phenomenon
that demand serious attention. We must lead, guide, motivate
our young people to plan a career that will be rewarding to them.
It is not with the Youth Service Corps, which revives so to speak
the former Katimavik program, that we are going to boost youth
employment while young Canadians are so hard hit by the
present economic situation.
Supporting the efforts of businesses to gain access to new
markets is another good way to increase employment levels. The
government must play a major role at the international level by
developing with the stakeholders ways to spot market
opportunities that can be seized to create longer-term
employment.
Another interesting alternative is work restructuring. If our
economy is sluggish, managing work differently could make up
for it.
The throne speech suggested very few new approaches in that
area. It is marked by a glaring lack of vision and innovative
ideas. Yet, this is an all new government.
As opposition critic for public works and government
services, I have given some thought to the complexity of the
system and how the country should be run.
At first glance, it is obvious that the system is getting out of
control and does not promote effectiveness, as the Auditor
General's reports keep reminding us year after year.
My remarks will of course tie in with my party's priorities in
terms of fiscal consolidation. Our position is clear. We want a
House committee to be set up to review budget expenditures,
item by item, and cut unnecessary expenditures, including some
defence expenditures.
The purpose of the review will be to maximise the return on
investment of every dollar taken out of the pockets of Canadian
taxpayers. We must put an end to squandering, trim the fat,
reduce the number of departments and streamline their
operation.
The message we received last October 25 was unequivocal:
the taxpayers have had it with paying all the time but not getting
their money's worth. As our leader said in his reply, the people
of Quebec are certainly not reaping the so-called federal manna.
563
(1045)
The big Canadian bureaucracy, an insatiable tax collector, is
unable to control its costs, to eliminate needless spending, to cut
fat. The ship is huge and it is sinking faster every day. The crew
cannot plug the thousands of holes which are dragging them
down. For now, Quebecers are on the ship but they have asked us
to start inflating a lifeboat so they can return to dry land. That is
a very realistic request.
Right here in this House, we are able to note wasteful
spending, superfluity and a certain indifference to all that.
Imagine a similar situation in all departments and crown
corporations. Monstrous is the word that comes to my mind.
Just in front of the Centre Block of Parliament, Public Works
and Government Services is now doing masonry work in
mid-winter. A well-built shelter is being heated and masonry
work is going on. Is that logical and sensible? Would it not cost
less to do that work in summer? Who decides? Every day, we see
workers on the roof of the Supreme Court. I know that this work
is done by the private sector, but is it logical and does it make
budgetary sense to plan roofing work for mid-winter? Who
makes those decisions?
We in the Bloc Quebecois all advocate a clean-up of the
federal government. However, these cutbacks must not be made
on the backs of the poorest people in our society, the Quebecers
and Canadians who have been left behind and in these last few
years have had to cut not luxuries but necessities. This is
particularly true for co-operative and social housing programs.
In this International Year of the Family, how can we accept
that some families do not live in clean, well-heated, well-lit
homes? How can we ignore this deplorable situation? How can
the speech from the throne be silent on this question? Of course,
we are promised a residential renovation program. But how will
we renovate homes for the poorest people who are homeless?
The present government seems inclined to follow in the
footsteps of its predecessors under whom, from 1984 to 1994,
the number of social housing units built in Canada dropped from
25,000 a year to zero: what a Tory massacre.
Today, across Canada, some 1.2 million households urgently
need housing. In Quebec, the figures show an intolerable level
of poverty. One household in three, or 404,000 tenant
households, pay more than 30 per cent of their income for
housing. Even worse, one household in six, or 194,000
households, pay more than 50 per cent of their income for
housing.
In New Brunswick, according to the Telegraph Journal for
October 1993, 28,000 people needed adequate housing.
However, the government remains silent on this subject. Every
month, hundreds of thousands of households ask the same
question: How to pay the rent? How do you pay the rent when all
your income is from welfare, unemployment insurance, an
old-age pension or from insecure, underpaid or part-time
employment?
Households cut in other areas, on food, clothing,
transportation and the few recreational activities that are still
affordable. Single people and the ever-growing number of
one-parent families in our society are the most affected by this
deplorable situation. I add to this list the homeless, the young
people who are out on the street and the native people living in
cities.
Do we pay the rent or eat? Does anyone in this House have to
ask himself or herself that question at the beginning of each
month? So why do fellow citizens have to ask themselves that
question? Must we conclude that the Liberals do not care, since
the throne speech is silent on this issue? Will the Liberals
reinstate federal assistance to social housing or not? This
situation is a real shame. The government should be quick to act
and invest in a global social housing program in order to meet
the urgent needs of the poor. In Great Britain and in the
Netherlands social housing units represent 70 per cent of all
rented dwellings. In Sweden, it is 55 per cent.
(1050)
In 1991, only 10 per cent of dwellings were social housing
units. The right to a dwelling is a basic one for everyone,
regardless of their income, their sex, their race, and their
physical or mental health.
The private sector, which is strictly motivated by profits, is
unable to fully respect this right and to allow everybody to have
access to dwellings. The state must play a major role in the
housing sector.
Over the last few years, we have repeatedly seen members of
Parliament cut ribbons to mark the opening of social,
low-income, co-op or other social housing units. These
members had a big smile on their face; however, they refrained
from telling the public that their scissors were also cutting
housing programs for the poor. Indeed, as of January 1994 these
programs are a thing of the past.
I ask the members opposite to go to their ridings to see what is
going on and to realize that some people are living in very
inadequate dwellings. I also ask them to talk to the Minister of
Finance to tell him to restore and improve the social housing
programs which were abruptly ended by the Conservatives.
To get an idea of the urgency of this issue, tonight go to bed
without eating and turn off the heating. You will put yourself in
the situation experienced by thousands of households at the end
of each month. If it is very cold, your skin will gradually turn
564
from red to blue, colours we are very familiar with in this House.
At that point, get up and turn the heating back on, otherwise the
cold will get to you and you could face amputation, with only
two members in your house. Now, this is something we have
seen before.
You will then understand your mistake; you will realize that
your coolness toward the poor has left you totally incapable of
doing anything except implore. Honourable members opposite,
I realize that the red book has become your bible, but other
books exist. For your information, I can tell you that the
Messiah is no longer with us and, in any case, was not from the
riding of Saint-Maurice.
Let me tell you that we Bloc Quebecois members are going to
keep a close eye on you; we are constantly going to pester you
regarding social housing and other social programs. We are here
not only to promote Quebec's sovereignty, but also to protect the
interests of the poor.
The disengagement of the federal government is an inhuman
act. The government uses the public debt to justify unjustifiable
cuts. It keeps telling us, like the Prime Minister did, that we
have to live within our means. There is not enough money. Yet,
the government grants numerous tax exemptions which cost
billions of dollars every year and which profit the rich.
Canadians obviously want changes in this area. We mentioned it
clearly before October 25 and people supported our message on
tax reform.
In the long run, additional funding for social housing will
translate into very significant savings in sectors such as health
and social services and will have a major impact on the
economy, for example as regards job creation.
I am disappointed by the throne speech as regards social
housing and in fact many other issues. We were hoping for new
initiatives from the new Liberal team which was announced
during the election campaign. Unfortunately, originality,
creativity and new ideas do not seem to come easy to that new
team. Quite the contrary. Its program is flat and bland. We are
part of the federal system. Quebecers will soon decide about
their future. In the meantime, we are here to promote
sovereignty and to protect the interests of Quebecers and those
of the poor within our community.
(1055)
I do hope that each hon. member in this House will have a
thought for the poor in his or her riding and in our society.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Madam Speaker, I want to
congratulate the hon. member for Laurentides for her speech and
I can assure her that the members on this side of the House will
certainly have special thoughts for the underprivileged and the
people who need housing.
The hon. member wants to protect the rights of Quebecers and
of all Canadians. She also said in her speech that the Canadian
ship is, in fact, sinking. She mentioned a lifeboat they were
trying to inflate. I find it a bit hard to understand how the
members opposite can claim to act in the interests of all
Canadians when they use their separatist argumentation like a
torpedo to try to sink the Canadian ship. Does the hon. member
not know that her speech is not helping and is not in the best
interests of Canadians?
Mr. Duhamel: He is right, you know.
Mrs. Guay: Madam Speaker, when we say we want to work in
the best interests of the underprivileged in Canada, we mean it. I
maintain that the Canadian ship is sinking and I think the
government managed to do it without our help.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Guay: We are now trying to save the underprivileged
and Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Madam Speaker, may
I take this opportunity to congratulate you, the government and
all other members of the House on their recent successful
elections. I would also thank the residents of Comox-Alberni
for allowing me the honour of representing them in the House.
Comox-Alberni is a large resource based riding on central
Vancouver Island. The key natural resources are forestry and
fishing. In addition there are several retirement communities
located on the east coast of the island, as well as the Canadian
forces base located at Comox.
I thank my family, my wife Karen and my son Cameron, for
without their help I would not be here today.
(1100)
I would like to address some concerns shared by many
Canadians about anticipated actions of the government
regarding natural resources, in particular issues concerning
forestry and the environment.
Forest products are not only British Columbia's main export
but Canada's as well. Forestry is Canada's number one industry
as many members here today will be able to attest in their own
ridings.
For example, in British Columbia the forest sector provided
270,000 jobs, paid $2.4 billion in taxes, and exported $11 billion
worth of products in 1992. However the forest sector is facing
losses both in jobs and in profits and will continue to do so until
a balance is struck between forest conservation and forest
development.
The Speaker: It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to statements
by members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
565
565
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, January is
Alzheimer Awareness Month in Canada. All across the country
organizations involved with Alzheimer's disease will undertake
activities to raise awareness of this terrible illness. There is no
known cause or cure for Alzheimer's disease. It not only affects
the people who have it but it also affects the lives of their
families and friends.
Caring for someone with Alzheimer's at home is challenging
and burdensome. Alzheimer Awareness Month is a time to
demonstrate support for Canadians with Alzheimer's and their
families. It is also a time to acknowledge the many informal
caregivers who are doing such a tremendous job throughout the
country.
I urge all Canadians to support efforts to increase public
awareness of Alzheimer's disease and to research to find a cure.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, the
small village of Les Boules in my constituency was hit by a
terrible tragedy last Tuesday, when five members of one family
died in the fire that destroyed their home. Mr. Michel St-Pierre
and his four daughters, Julie, Claudia, Jessie and Émilie, aged
15 months to 11 years, all died in the blaze. Only the mother,
Martine, miraculously got away. Mr. St-Pierre was well known
in the area for his involvement in municipal politics and his
performance in various sports. The couple also did volunteer
work to help the destitute in the area.
I want to express my deepest sympathy to the friends and
family of Mr. St-Pierre as well as to his fellow citizens. This
loss will deeply affect this small community.
[English]
The Speaker: Order. I know hon. members want to present
their statements, but before I give the floor to the hon. member
for Prince George-Peace River may I suggest that when they
practise their statements they are about 50 seconds, and things
would probably flow more smoothly in the House.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on a matter of importance to all members of the House
of Commons, one which I believe is of concern to many
Canadians. I am speaking of decorum, or rather the lack of it, in
the Chamber.
I applaud my colleagues in the Reform Party, the members of
the Bloc Quebecois, as well as the new Liberal and independent
MPs, for the restraint they have shown and for the example they
are attempting to set for our more experienced colleagues.
Considering the lack of respect demonstrated by some hon.
members, is it any wonder that Canadians take comedians
seriously but think politicians are a joke?
If we are ever to change the attitude of Canadians toward
parliamentarians our greatest opportunity is now. I implore you,
Mr. Speaker, as well as members of the media and the
constituents we represent, to assist us rookie MPs in our efforts
to restore dignity to the House.
* * *
(1105)
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to refute statements made by members of the Official
Opposition who charge that so-called ethnic ghettos are the
inevitable byproduct of Canada's multiculturalism policy.
In fact my constituents and I in Winnipeg North view the
tremendous ethnic diversity of our neighbourhoods as one of
their most endearing and exciting qualities.
The variety of cultures that come together on our streets and
in our schools and offices enhance the character and quality of
life for all residents.
The suggestion that the varied ethnic makeup of an area
necessarily leads to any form of ghettoization is patently false.
The multiculturalism policy is there to help primarily
non-English, non-French and non-aboriginal Canadians on an
individual and community basis to play an important role in the
development and cohesion of Canadian society.
Overall the policy is about the equal participation of all
citizens irrespective of cultural backgrounds and thereby
counteracting isolation and fostering national unity.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, the city
of Winnipeg has the highest percentage of low income
households in western Canada. Twelve thousand households use
food banks every month, almost three times as many as in 1990.
Unfortunately there has been a collective growth in the
number of people using food banks across the country.
566
[Translation]
More than 60 per cent of single-parent families live below the
poverty line. We know full well that children who live in such
miserable conditions are unable to realize their full potential in
school and are more likely to contract infectious diseases.
[English]
While the two-pronged approach to job creation offered by
the government's platform as well as other specific programs is
not a panacea, it will address this lamentable situation and boost
the standard of living of thousands of Canadians currently living
below the poverty line.
Only through the creation of jobs will the quality of life
improve for these unfortunate Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, the comments made yesterday in the House that
suggested multiculturalism creates ghettos are wrong.
Some members seem to believe new Canadians will flock
together in abject poverty if multiculturalism is allowed to
continue. This is absurd. To its credit, the Government of
Canada wants new Canadians to retain their culture and
heritage.
The melting pot philosophy of the United States, which seems
to be what some members want here, is not the answer. Are there
no ghettos in the United States?
As we head into the 21st century this is not the time for
xenophobia. The world is getting smaller and Canadians are
demonstrating how we can all live together without losing our
identity.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
the speech from the throne tells us that job creation is the
government's top priority. Yet, just before Christmas, the
Distribution and Transportation Directorate of the House of
Commons dismissed 10 messengers.
What surprises me is that when the Conservative government
tried to dismiss these same messengers in August 1993, several
members of the present government protested vehemently. Even
the hon. member for Hamilton East, now Deputy Prime
Minister, said at that time, and I quote:
[English]
``For many this is the only family income. The result will be
hardship and misery for the employees, their spouses and
children''.
[Translation]
Even the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said
in a radio interview that it was shameful to offer 20 hours of
work a week to these heads of families with two or three
children. He thought it was just like sending them straight to the
welfare office.
They were promised full-time jobs some time in the future,
but for now, all they have are temporary jobs.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak on unfairness in the unemployment insurance
system.
Some members of the Canadian forces, the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police and public service are paying premiums for
unemployment insurance they will never be allowed to collect.
When they reach a certain stage in their careers these people,
should they retire or be released, have qualified for and will
receive a pension sufficient to make them ineligible to receive
unemployment insurance. Yet at present they are still required to
pay the premiums. Since they can no longer collect
unemployment insurance they should no longer have to pay UI
premiums.
(1110)
I submit the regulations should be changed so that when the
pension entitlements of individuals equal or exceed the
unemployment insurance they would receive, they stop paying
UI premiums. To do otherwise amounts to extra and unfair
taxation.
* * *
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, the Strait Area Mutual Aid Association is a group
of 25 volunteer rescue units in eastern Nova Scotia that responds
to emergencies such as fires, accidents and search and rescues,
all free of charge to governments or citizens. These volunteer
services are absolutely vital to safety in rural communities, but
they are being gouged by the outrageous radio licence fees they
must pay to the federal government.
The previous Conservative government raised the
association's fee from a flat rate of $260 per year to an irrational
calculation totalling over $8,000. This increase ignores the
economic value of volunteer services to the federal government
and it threatens the very future of these services in rural Canada.
567
I call upon the new industry minister to correct this situation.
Volunteer rescue units simply cannot afford these high fees, and
eastern Nova Scotia simply cannot afford to lose their services.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
speak very briefly about one of the towns in my riding. It is
known as Port Perry and it is my home town. This is a beautiful
place on the shores of Lake Scugog, ideal for recreation, fishing,
tourism and other sports.
Recently one of our high school students who travelled out
west for a vacation and to explore Canada, Elaine Lally, was
involved in a very serious car accident and continued
hospitalization was required.
I note our whole community will be out tonight in force to
show our support and make financial contribution to the family.
I believe it is important to realize that in these difficult
economic times, with so much unemployment and other
hardships in our midst, our communities can rally in support
worthwhile causes and not lose insight into the important
aspects of life which I believe unite all Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I was
pleased this morning to hear the minister of health talk about the
national forum on health which will be chaired by the Prime
Minister.
I hope the forum will address the shortage of physicians in
rural areas and the movement of physicians trained in Canada to
the United States. Villages like Keene and Lakefield in the
township of Otonabee in Peterborough riding are already
suffering serious shortages of physicians.
As costs are cut there is a tendency to centralize services. To
obtain dialysis, for example, people have to travel great
distances in great discomfort.
I hope the national forum will bear in mind that a highly
centralized health system that appears cheaper at first sight will
in the end cost more.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to take this opportunity to invite all Quebecers and Canadians to
the opening of the one-kilometre long skating rink set up by the
Association des chasseurs et pêcheurs de
Sainte-Anne-de-Sorel in the magnificent scenery of the Sorel
islands.
Visitors will also get the chance to participate in the Carnaval
de l'acier, one of the 10 most popular winter events in Quebec,
which will be held from February 5 to 14. This year, the city of
Tracy will be especially honoured on its 40th anniversary. Ten
artists will create a gigantic snow sculpture representing the
history and cultural heritage of this community.
Welcome to all in this beautiful setting of Sorel-Tracy which
is equally charming during the winter and in the summertime.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to inform all Canadians about an event that is taking
place in my riding of Athabasca.
The Arctic Winter Games will take place in the community of
Slave Lake, Alberta, from March 6 to March 12, 1994. These
international games are open to athletes north of the 55th
parallel. They will provide an opportunity for athletes from
small, remote communities to take part in international
competition. Many of these athletes will go on to much higher
levels of competition.
The games will be opened March 6 by Governor General
Ramon Hnatyshyn and will welcome teams from the Northwest
Territories, Yukon, Alaska, northern Alberta, Greenland and
Russia, involving 1,465 athletes, coaches and cultural
participants.
(1115 )
The $3.1 million cost of the games will be funded half by the
federal, provincial and municipal governments and half by a
very successful local volunteer fund raising effort.
Please join with me in wishing the town of Slave Lake and all
the athletes great success.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington): Mr. Speaker, while many
of us are familiar with Ottawa's Winterlude, I would like to
inform the House that in my riding of Burlington we celebrate
winter with a big splash as well.
Burlington's family winter carnival extends over three
weekends and began January 23 with an eight-kilometre Robbie
Burns Day race. Organized by volunteers, local businesses and
organizations, the event attracts people from all over the region.
Sponsors include the Burlington Spectator, St. John
Ambulance, the Halton Regional Police Force, Ford Motor
Company, and Energy 108.
568
I invite all members to join with us in events such as the
annual women's snowball-basketball tournament and the
annual high school hockey tournament and enjoy winter.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, at the pre-budget consultations hosted by the Minister
of Finance the government has listened to Canadians saying that
job creation must be the nation's first priority.
When I listen to these people, just as when I listen to people at
the skating rinks, coffee shops and street corners in my
constituency, I also hear a message that says the people of
Canada want job and income security, as well as competence and
fairness in the way government collects and spends taxpayers'
money. The bottom line is that Canadians want to see results that
will restore their confidence in their own as well as Canada's
future.
There are many ideas on the table and the finance minister has
a difficult task ahead of him. The advice he is getting from
ordinary Canadians is: concentrate on creating jobs, provide
greater economic security and put more fairness into our tax
system. He will be doing the right thing and it will benefit of all
Canadians.
_____________________________________________
568
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, last night we
heard after secret negotiations obviously behind closed doors,
that apparently there had been no incident at Kanesatake.
Could the Minister of National Defence tell me why he kept
this meeting between the military authorities and the Mohawks
secret up to the very last minute, after we had been asking the
minister questions all week about this matter and we only got
answers that did not make sense?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs)): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday there was a meeting between the officials of the
Canadian forces and Chief Peltier of Kanesatake, a normal
meeting for information purposes. There is no secret and there is
no crisis.
As I explained earlier in the House, the natives believe that
reserves are sovereign, which is certainly not the position of the
Canadian government. The armed forces have the right to travel
anywhere in Canada.
What the natives want, especially in Kanesatake, is to be
advised when there is a plane or helicopter in the area.
Permission is not an issue, because it is the position of the
Canadian government that although it is our duty to let people
know, we do not need permission.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to
see the minister is now prepared to answer our questions, which
will make things easier all around.
Just to make sure the minister does not change his story again,
could he confirm there was no trace of bullets of any kind on any
of the aircraft, that there was no shooting and that, except for the
army's meeting with the Mohawks, there was no investigation
and there will be no investigation?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the
chief has stated publicly that the matter is closed. I stated that
yesterday. There is no damage to the helicopter or to the planes.
I would like to repeat the position of the Government of
Canada in English. The natives believe that their reserves are
sovereign. I realize, and the hon. member opposite knows that,
the word sovereign is being kicked around on a day-to-day basis
in Quebec. Frankly we do not like the way it is being kicked
around. We do not like the way the natives are being dragged
into the sovereignty debate.
(1120)
We believe that the matter is closed. This was obviously
something of great concern to the natives when the helicopter
landed, and that there are great sensitivities.
The chief has said that even though they believe their land is
sovereign, a position we do not accept, he does not expect the
Canadian forces to ask permission to have any of its planes or
personnel deployed in the area but simply to have notice as we
would do for any local authority whether in the hon. member's
riding or the city of Vanier down the street.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, since the
territory of Kanesatake and all territories inhabited by the
Mohawks in Quebec have the same status as other territories,
could the minister tell us whether, as he probably would do
anywhere else, he is willing to simply give us some information
about the transmitter, the signal that touched off these events?
Would the minister care to shed some light on the subject?
569
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
have answered this question before in the House. The chief is
satisfied.
There was a signal. We had a Hercules aircraft in the area. It
radioed back to Trenton where it was known we had a search and
rescue helicopter at Dorval. It was dispatched immediately to
the area because of the electronic signal on DND frequency.
A search was made of the area. In the meantime the Hercules
had to circle around the area which gave the natives cause for
concern. Obviously it could not land but it had to help the
helicopter pinpoint from where the electronic signal was
coming.
The helicopter landed. The crew made a search and just before
they were finished and had come to the conclusion there was no
downed plane and there did not seem to be an emergency-they
did not exactly know where the signal was coming from but if
they had stayed longer they might have found out-the
individual approached them as I have said before. He said shots
were fired. The crew, feeling the mission was accomplished and
there was no danger to anyone, decided to leave in the interests
of not provoking a confrontation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, we hear all sorts of
terrible rumours about the intentions of the Minister of Finance
who, it seems, wants to pick the pockets of Canadian taxpayers
again.
My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Does he
not think that he should ask the Minister of Finance to spare the
already overtaxed middle class and reach instead for the more
well-to-do?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, a question regarding
new taxes has been raised by the hon. member. The minister has
previously stated in the House that the entire tax system is being
reviewed with a view to getting greater fairness in the Canadian
tax system.
I can assure the hon. member that when the budget comes
down he will see there is a greater fairness in the tax system.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, does the Minister
of National Revenue not find unacceptable that the Minister of
Finance plans to make seniors the next victims of his tax
increases while stubbornly refusing to abolish the tax breaks
which benefit the rich of our society?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, I have answered the
question. We are examining fairness in the tax system and the
Minister of Finance in his budget will look at those subjects.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
Is the Prime Minister now prepared to accept and act on the
need for quick passage of legislation permitting voters the right
to recall?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to inform the hon. member that this idea was tried
once in 1936 by the Aberhart government in Alberta. One of the
members of that government was the father of the leader of his
party. A year later there was a petition to recall Mr. Aberhart
himself. A law was then passed by the Aberhart
government-Mr. Manning Sr. was a member of that
government-to abolish the law retroactively so-
(1125)
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): -if the hon. member has
the time he should call Mr. Manning in Calgary and ask him to
have a little discussion with his father over the weekend and
report to the House on Monday.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. I would point out to the Prime Minister that the
right of recall belongs to citizens in many other democratic
jurisdictions.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House when he might
consider responding to the wishes of millions of Canadians who
believe that they should also have the right to recall MPs who
fail to represent their interests or who betray their interests or
who misrepresent themselves to the people?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
there are two elements I would like the hon. member to consider.
It will cost money to have an election every time the people are
not happy with their member. Suppose they were to recall the
whole Reform Party, perhaps right away. I will look at the
proposition to see if it is a sensible.
I would like to have some information from Mr. Manning Sr.
They tried it and it did not work. When a government is in
power, that government has to make some tough decisions. If
570
there is to be a recall it comes four years later when there is
another election. That is the democratic process.
I meet a lot of Canadians. Many of the candidates for my party
who were defeated tell me that if they had a chance today to run
in an election they might do very well in some of the ridings that
elected Reform members. Unfortunately we do not have recall
and for the stability of Parliament is it a good idea?
There was an incident in this House and the member is no
longer a member of our party. Incidents of the same nature
occurred in the past with every party in this House. I do not think
it is a very practical idea. Again, I repeat, that English
precedents are very important in common law, and the precedent
occurred within the Manning family.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker.
If the Prime Minister is not prepared to support recall, how
does he propose to restore voters' confidence and their respect
for their Parliament?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
that is exactly what we are doing. We have done a lot of things to
bring back respect for this institution. One of the ways we have
done it, for example, happened in the House this week.
Everybody says the mood is much better, there are fewer
catcalls, or whatever, from members.
We have had two debates of a type that did not exist before;
one on Bosnia and the other on the cruise missile. Everybody,
including the leader of your party and the Leader of the Official
Opposition and the leader of the NDP all congratulated the
government for its initiative in bringing back respect to this
institution.
We will undertake many more measures like that in order to
gain back the confidence that this House deserves from the
Canadian people.
The Speaker: I know that the Prime Minister, being a veteran
of many years in this House, will always direct his comments to
the Chair and I really appreciate it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Public Works. Since 1986, the
federal government has steadily withdrawn from the social and
co-operative housing sector, leaving the poorest of our society
in totally unacceptable housing conditions.
Does the minister intend to fulfil the commitments he made
during the last election campaign by establishing non-profit
social and co-operative housing programs?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her important question.
(1130 )
I had a meeting with ministers of housing across the country.
We discussed their concerns as they relate to social housing.
However I remind the hon. member that social housing is not
only the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada but also
provincial governments, municipalities and other stakeholders.
We are providing $100 million over a two-year period under
RRAP to provide some needed assistance for low income
Canadians. We have fiscal restraint and fiscal measures with
which we have to deal, along with provincial governments and
municipalities. Within that framework, we will try to arrive at
some moneys.
I do not want to mislead the hon. member into thinking that
large sums of money are readily available to go to the issue that
she raises here today.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister agree that not only do social housing programs
contribute to improving living conditions of low income
families but that a renewal of investment in social housing could
also contribute to overall economic recovery?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite
correct.
I had discussions with the minister of housing in the province
of Quebec regarding the possibility of consummating a deal
between the Government of Canada and the province of Quebec
so that we may be able to piggy-back, if you will, some moneys
we have to facilitate greater investments in that province and get
a better bang for the dollar both provincially and federally.
My discussions with the minister, Mr. Ryan, are continuing
and I hope to be able to have something in the very near future
that will contribute to that objective.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister and also concerns democratic
reform.
In his annual report, the Auditor General identified the
confidence convention as a major stumbling block in the reform
of the budgetary process.
571
In view of the government's commitment to carefully
examine and consider the Auditor General's recommendations,
will the Prime Minister inform the House that he will relax the
confidence convention and allow free votes in the upcoming
budget?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
this has nothing to do with how one makes a budget.
Voting after the budget is one thing. How to prepare a budget
is something else. If the Minister of Finance reveals what he will
do while preparing the budget, he would be forced to resign.
Some ministers in England have had to resign. In Canada
there have been a few controversies because there were
indications of what was to happen. Some people might buy
shares or speculate on what the government will do.
Confidentiality is to make sure that nobody profits from the
upcoming budget through speculation. We have to do that,
otherwise somebody can get rich at the expense of the work of
this House.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, with all
due respect to the Prime Minister I am asking about the
confidence convention and not confidentiality.
[Translation]
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. In his
report the Auditor General said that Canadians want to feel that
members of Parliament may vote freely, and they expect more
free votes. How does the government intend to respond to that
feeling regarding free vote and streamline the budget process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the issue of confidence in the government's budget policy is a
fundamental one for any Parliament. If members were allowed
to vote freely on parts of the budget, we would no longer have a
government. The government must assume its responsibilities;
it is up to the House to decide whether or not it has confidence in
the government. No one is obliged to vote for the government.
Even on this side, we have seen people do so. But, if they bring
the government down, they know full well that elections will be
called immediately after. I believe that the budget issue is a
question of confidence in the government. The budget is first
discussed with MPs, but once the Minister of Finance has tabled
a budget approved by cabinet, it becomes a fundamental
question of confidence in the government.
* * *
(1135)
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): My question is for the
Minister of Transport.
Citing economic reasons, the Department of Transport
decided in 1984 to close the radar control facility at the Quebec
City airport, in spite of a 15-year long struggle for recognition
of the right to work in French in Quebec air space.
So far, the department has been unable to break the will of
those who work in this area and the radar control facility is still
in operation.
Since this decision was made by the former Conservative
government, is the minister prepared to overturn it, just as his
government overturned the decision in the case of Pearson
airport in Toronto?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the question raised by my hon. colleague obviously relates
mainly to security and the ability to be understood in one's own
language.
Let me assure the hon. member that these two criteria will
always be met in so far as the service at the Quebec City airport
is concerned.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, since
economic reasons were cited for this decision, has the minister
considered closing other radar control facilities located in closer
proximity to their regional control centres, as is the case in
Ottawa and Calgary?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
we are now in the process of reviewing the country's entire air
traffic control system. I can assure my hon. colleague that the
same criteria will be applied, whether it be in Quebec City,
Calgary, Moncton or Vancouver.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister responsible for Infrastructure. The infrastructure
program as proposed obligates the provinces and municipalities
to match federal dollars.
Since all provinces, many municipalities and certainly the
federal government are burdened with an immense long-term
debt, does the minister have any plans to treat with fairness
those municipalities who choose not to add to the debt load of
the taxpayers by not participating in the program?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
there is no obligation on the part of any municipality to
participate in this program. But I must tell him that we are
inundated with requests from municipalities for information
because they want to be a part of the program.
In their meeting with the Prime Minister on December 21 the
10 provincial premiers agreed to participate in this program.
572
They all want to be a part of it because they recognize the
synergistic effect of bringing together three levels of
government, and providing these infrastructure programs will
help get people to work now.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary
question. My colleagues and I were elected largely because we
represent the conviction that reduced government spending
leading to reduced debt and reduced taxes is the real way to
generate increased economic activity and produce ongoing
prosperity and jobs.
What answer does the minister have for my constituents who
are adamantly opposed to more government borrowing?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
we are not going to borrow more money to produce our $2
billion for this program.
We have said time and time again, and it is in the red book if
the hon. member wants to refer to that document, that we will do
it through reallocation. We are not going to add to the debt. We
are not going to add to government spending. We are going to
reallocate because we believe that getting people back to work is
a high priority and it is a matter of setting high priorities.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
Members from both sides of the House undoubtedly
remember the now famous Charlottetown saga that led to the
October 26, 1992 referendum. In Quebec, that referendum was
held pursuant to Quebec's Referendum Act.
The previous government made a commitment to reimburse
the Government of Quebec for the cost of the referendum,
namely $26 million.
Can the Minister tell this House whether he has honoured the
previous government's commitment to reimburse this $26
million? If not, can he tell us what is happening with the
negotiations on this?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, if I understand correctly the background to this
question, I do not believe that the previous government made a
formal commitment to reimburse these costs.
(1140)
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, the minister should check this statement. Whether
there was a commitment or not, and we maintain that the
previous government did indeed make such a commitment,
would it not be fair to reimburse Quebec since Quebecers have
already paid through their taxes for about a quarter of the cost of
the referendum held in the rest of Canada?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, I will certainly check the records to see whether the
previous Prime Minister gave his agreement, but I am confident
that there was no formal agreement.
We are still reviewing the request from the Government of
Quebec. There are a number of legal precedents to consider, in
particular a case indicating that when the Quebec government
decided to hold its own referendum within the province, it also
had to assume all related responsibilities. This issue is still
under study and we will be able to give a more detailed answer
soon.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
have good news for the House. The Conference Board of Canada
has released its index of business confidence which as members
know is regarded as a leading indicator of economic activity.
The index shows a jump of 10 per cent to a level of 150.8 for
the final quarter of 1993, bringing the index to its highest level
since the first quarter of 1989.
My question is directed to the acting Minister of Finance. Can
Canadians consider this most welcome news as a harbinger of
the end of the recession?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth. It allows me
to state that this indeed is good news and that there will be some
substantial improvement in the economic standing of this
country. It is clear that the government's commitment to
implement its infrastructure program, its commitment to
develop the Canada investment fund and to improve the access
to capital by small and medium size business has been very well
received by the business community in this country.
573
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, this is not about such good news. The people of Port
Moody-Coquitlam are demanding answers. Michael Drake, a
convicted child molester, has once again been released into our
community.
Drake was charged in 1992 with sexually assaulting a two and
a half year old girl in Bellingham, Washington. He jumped bail
and was convicted in absentia.
Drake has just been released until his deportation case
resumes on February 16. Until then a menace to our community
is free to come and go as he wishes.
My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration. Being ultimately responsible for this case, what
course of action does the hon. member plan to take in order to
ensure that this convicted child molester is immediately
deported?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I just want to share with the
member and the House the frustration we all feel when
individuals such as the one the member mentions pursue access
to immigration programs.
I want to assure the member and all Canadians that this
government will have a fair and progressive immigration policy.
But to be fair and progressive we must be tough in applying the
law across the board so individuals who are a threat to the
community, to Canadians or to the system clearly do not fall
through the loopholes.
I assure the hon. member that I will use all the powers granted
to me under the Immigration Act, remembering the fact that
privacy laws preclude me from going into specific details of this
case or any other case.
(1145 )
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, would the minister please respond with a yes or a no as
to whether he will discuss this case with the U.S. authorities and
demand that they have Michael Drake immediately extradited.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern of the
hon. member and the party she represents.
I want to reassure her that this government and this minister
feel equally as passionately about defending our borders and our
system.
However, privacy laws preclude me from entering into a
debate as the hon. member wishes me to do. I simply reiterate
my concern and the shared feeling of frustration and indignation
many Canadians feel. While it is a minority of the cases in the
overall program let me reassure the hon. member that since my
appointment to this position I have moved quietly to deport
individuals I feel have contravened the law and are not in the
best interests of Canada.
I will continue where meritorious to do that, but I do not want
to enter into areas of debate that our privacy laws preclude me
and other members from doing.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the President of the Treasury Board.
We recently learned that, over the past five years, the federal
government spent millions of dollars, some $85 million to be
exact and an estimated $18 million in 1992-93 alone, on a series
of promotional videos on windsurfing safety, life as a Canadian
forces officer and searching for Santa Claus, to a name a few.
You will agree with me that such a waste of public funds is really
unacceptable in view of the pitiful state of government finances.
My question is as follows: Is the President of the Treasury
Board prepared to give this House the assurance that, since
taking office, the new Liberal government has put a stop to such
squandering of public funds?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
am not going to give a ho ho ho to that question.
I assure the hon. member that I will look into those various
areas of expenditure that the past government has inflicted upon
the people of this country that are indeed wasteful.
Something we want to be a hallmark of this government is
frugality in expenditure. We want to ensure that we get value for
the taxpayers' dollars and that we spend those taxpayers' dollars
efficiently and effectively and not in a wasteful fashion.
It is very important in terms of the programs this government
wants to put forward. I assure the hon. member I will look into
the matters he has specifically raised today.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplemental. Considering that each dollar saved by trimming
government spending is in fact $1 that can be applied against
provincial health and education costs, what would the President
of the Treasury Board think of an in-depth review of all
government spending, item by item, to be carried out by a
committee of this House?
574
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
the estimates will be presented to this House after the Minister
of Finance presents his budget.
There will be opportunities at that point to look at all the
expenditure levels with respect to the kinds of programs and
services the government provides.
Again I would assure the hon. member that all of us in this
House on all sides have the interest of ensuring frugality with
respect to government expenditures and the efficiency and
effectiveness of using the taxpayers' dollars.
I welcome his intervention and desire to play a part in making
sure that happens and I am sure we will work together to achieve
that.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The Ottawa Sun reports this morning that the Prime Minister
and leaders of the other two parties that once existed in this
House struck a secret deal so that they could continue receiving
their extra salaries after the writ was dropped last year right
through the election campaign. Normally any extra salary over
and above the basic MP salary is cut off when the writ is
dropped.
(1150)
Will the Prime Minister explain to outraged Canadians this
abuse of their tax dollars and make public a repayment schedule
of those tax dollars paid to him as a result of this secret deal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): I would like to
say to the hon. member that before talking about a deal he should
have some proof.
I never heard about it. I was campaigning. I received the
payments that the governor sent to me. I do not know what the
precedents were on that but there was no deal. Nobody ever
talked to me.
To reflect on the leader of the NDP suggesting that she was
part of a deal or that I sat down with the Prime Minister to make
a deal is absolutely false. It should be withdrawn. There was no
deal and we received our payments as usual.
For myself, I do not know what the precedents are and nobody
ever talked to me about it. If it was not right, I would be
delighted to pay it back. But to imply that there is something
wrong and impute motives as the member does to the leader of
the NDP is completely wrong. For myself, I was not even aware
there was a problem.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: It is wrong.
Mrs. Finestone: Sit down. Show a little respect.
Mr. Marchi: What about the first question.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Shame on you.
The Speaker: Order. The question posed which I permitted
the Prime Minister to answer should have been answered by the
representative of the Board of Internal Economy.
With what transpired during the campaign, I do not have any
information that anything untoward transpired, but if the hon.
member has a question in this vein again, I would direct the
question to the representative of the Board of Internal Economy
who is in the House now.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, may
I then as a supplementary ask the representative of this
committee to furnish an explanation to this House in the
forthcoming week?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
in the absence of the spokesman for the committee, the member
for Saint-Léonard, I would like to inform the House that I have
obtained information.
I am informed that what the then commissioners of internal
economy did before the last election was based on precedents
dating back for several elections and there is nothing different or
untoward.
Therefore I think the hon. member should withdraw totally his
allegations and innuendoes which are totally unfounded and
mistaken.
The Speaker: I would like to get advice on this for myself. I
will be discussing this with my clerks and I will make a
statement on this the next time the House sits.
* * *
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
The minister met yesterday with representatives of Grand
River Enterprises, the Assembly of First Nations and the people
of the Six Nations of the Grand River regarding a tobacco
manufacturing licence that they requested to help create 200
jobs in my riding.
I am wondering when the minister might be in a position to let
my constituents and this House know when these people might
be getting their manufacturing licence.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, it is certainly correct that the group, Grand River
Enterprises, has applied for a licence and that it is under
consideration at the present time. They applied on January 7.
There was some information lacking. We have asked for more
precise details.
575
I met with the group yesterday. I believe we had a useful and
productive meeting. However I am in no position at the present
time to announce that a licence will or will not be granted.
Within two and a half weeks would be the time I would expect.
My officials however assure me these things sometimes take
longer than ministers expect. They say it could possibly take a
week longer than that.
* * *
(1155)
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
The aluminum industry is presently going through a crisis
brought about by massive selling of Russian aluminum on the
world market. Producing countries are trying, so far without
success, to reach an agreement with the Russians. In the event of
failure, Americans might impose countervailing duties on
imports from all countries. Our industry, which employs 20,000
workers in Quebec and Canada, exports 75 per cent of its output
to the United States. Countervailing duties would have
disastrous consequences for the industry.
My question is this: Given the importance of this industry in
Quebec and Canada, what measures is the government going to
take to prevent a confrontation between the various aluminum
producing countries?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, we
are well aware of the problems in the aluminum industry. Many
companies are affected in Quebec as well as Canada. We are
hoping that the talks that are going on in Brussels right now will
come to a favourable conclusion.
[English]
There will be a continuation of the discussions with respect to
an international accord on aluminum. It is our hope that
voluntary reduction in Russian exports will be the outcome of
these discussions.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): A supplementary, Mr.
Speaker. Some aluminum producing plants in Canada are
presently importing cheap Russian aluminum, then upgrading it
for resale on the international market.
Is the minister contemplating the possibility of imposing
countervailing duties on such imports of aluminum into
Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, this
is purely speculative. At the present time, we are still hoping for
an international agreement, and this is the favoured solution.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
On January 26 the government advised this House and the
Canadian people that when it made 33 appointments to the
Immigration and Refugee Board, members of my party
applauded. This is not correct. My party did not support any
such appointments.
In the recent election campaign all recognized parties in this
House ran on platforms promising to eliminate excess
patronage.
Could the minister explain how his decision in this case was
any different from those made by the previous government?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, if the member checks the
statements of some of his hon. colleagues, he will find the facts
to be very different.
Also, it was unprecedented. The positions for the Immigration
and Refugee Board were gazetted and 300 applications were
received. For the first time ever I had the chairman of the
Immigration and Refugee Board evaluate all 300 individuals.
Any other resumes that came through my office or the Prime
Minister's office or from members of Parliament on both sides
were sent to the same Immigration and Refugee Board chairman
for evaluation.
We consulted with non-governmental organizations, lawyers
and various advocates. If the hon. member looks at the
comments, not by members of my government but by members
of communities across the country, they were applauding that
for the first time government has kept a promise. Our Prime
Minister promised that we would reintroduce integrity and
confidence as the benchmarks for appointments not only to the
Immigration and Refugee Board but also to the other boards and
commissions under this Parliament and this government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, a
little earlier during Question Period the Prime Minister referred
to two debates.
In fact, last Tuesday there was a constructive debate in this
House on the situation in Bosnia. However, the government did
not take advantage of this debate to put forward its own position,
and we still do not know whether the government is in favour of
maintaining Canadian troops in Bosnia or endorses a unilateral
576
withdrawal, as the Prime Minister suggested just before he left
for Europe two weeks ago.
My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence:
Can the minister tell us in the House today what the
government's position is on our peacekeepers in Bosnia?
(1200)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we had a debate on the subject in the House. We listened to the
views of hon. members, and we are to make a decision by the end
of March, when we will have to renew our mandates. We have
two mandates, one expiring in March and the other in April, and
we have to make a decision.
In light of this debate, which was very useful and
demonstrated the problems that exist, the government will
analyse the situation and we will make our decision in due time,
but there is no hurry for the time being.
We are monitoring the situation very closely. In fact, thanks to
the progress made since our visit to Brussels, Canadian troops
stationed in the Srebrenica enclave are about to be replaced by
Danish troops. Everything is all right for the time being, and a
decision will be made at the appropriate time.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, from
the newspapers we can see that Canadian troops in Bosnia are
experiencing serious problems. However, during the debate, the
Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party made their positions clear.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister why he is reluctant to
adopt a clear and unambiguous position on this matter.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
just informed the hon. member that the debate ended this week
and that it was a useful debate. Before making this kind of
decision, we also have to consult with our allies who are over
there. The hon. member's party supported maintaining troops in
Bosnia, and we appreciate their position. One thing is clear: we
intend to finish our mandates, one of which expires at the end of
March and the other in April. This means we have plenty of time
to make a decision. We are in touch daily with our allies who
also have troops stationed in that troubled part of the world, and
we intend to make a decision at the appropriate time, by the end
of March.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
In the mid-1980s, in response to spiralling house costs in the
greater Toronto area, both the RCMP and CSIS introduced a
housing subsidy or commuting allowance for its employees.
These subsidies are still being paid today. However for the past
two or three years the cost of housing in the Toronto area has
been considerably less than in the greater Vancouver region. Yet
neither the RCMP nor CSIS employees in Vancouver are
eligible for any subsidies.
Will the minister either eliminate the subsidy if it is no longer
needed or at least ensure that all employees of these agencies are
treated in a fair and equitable manner?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for her question. I will be happy to take it
as notice, get further information and get back to her about it as
quickly as possible.
* * *
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, on Tuesday last during Question Period, as reported at
page 300 of
Hansard, in response to a question from the hon.
member for Wild Rose I stated:
-I was asked to give a conference at Harvard University-on very short
notice.
What I should have said was that the events surrounding the
planning of trips were unfolding rapidly and made it necessary
to adjust my travel arrangements very quickly.
It was never my intention to mislead the House and I regret
any inaccuracy in my previous answer.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to take a few moments in this House to pay tribute to Jean-Louis
Leduc, who was the member for Richelieu from 1979 to 1984.
Mr. Leduc was a close friend and an unconditional supporter of
the present Prime Minister. I recall that he was a zealous
participant in my riding in the leadership races involving the
Prime Minister.
(1205)
Mr. Leduc was my main opponent in 1984. I must admit that it
was a tough fight, but a battle of ideas, with a man who had the
greatest respect for others. He had political opponents but no
enemies. He died during the last election campaign following a
long illness.
I also knew him well as a teacher. We both taught at the
Fernand Lefebvre Comprehensive School. He was a wonderful
communicator and a matchless storyteller. He knew how to give
his teaching a regional touch and to convey to his students his
affection for the beautiful Sorel-Tracy region and the whole
577
Richelieu constituency. Jean-Louis had his own style and
always found a way to deal humorously with a serious subject.
I remember meeting him before the election. He had been in
the opposition for nine months and then he was campaigning
again. He came to say hello to us at the school and I asked him,
since we were great friends: ``Well, Jean-Louis, will you have a
special strategy for this election campaign, since it is taking
place in winter, in February?'' He said: ``Yes, I will put on long
underwear''. That answer shows his style, always humorous. He
was also an outstanding communicator with his friends and with
his students.
I will never forget my last visit to him, during the referendum
on the Charlottetown accord. I had a chance to spend nearly half
an hour with him and his wife and I greatly admired his courage
and determination in going to vote. Even though he had trouble
moving, he insisted on doing his duty as a voter, and that
referendum was the last time he was able to vote.
I would like to offer my sincerest condolences to the Right
Hon. Prime Minister, to his colleagues in the Liberal Party, to
his wife and to his son.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Leduc was a member here, for a few months in the
opposition and then on the government side. He was a wise man
and, as his successor said, a most pleasant companion. I doubt
that many members in this House were as friendly with
everyone. He was not very partisan. He was a good supporter but
not the kind to pick a fight. He was very dedicated and had a
particular wisdom. He was perhaps a little more mature than
some, and every time he spoke, both in this House and in caucus,
he was always wise, thoughtful and reasonable. I think that he
served well the people of the Sorel region, the hon. member's
riding, and also that he served his community well both as an
elected member and before. When he passed on I am sure that
those who knew him very well had the feeling that a gentleman
had just left this world.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, in
recognition of Mr. Leduc's service to Parliament, we would like
to send our regrets and extend our deepest sympathies to Mrs.
Leduc, their son Michel and the entire family.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr.
Speaker, I knew Jean-Louis when he served in this House from
1979 to 1984 and I would like to remember him briefly.
He was a great believer in oral tradition, someone who liked
to recount the history not only of his region but of his country.
He had a rather difficult childhood. He was orphaned at an early
age and had to work very hard. Jean-Louis had one ambition in
life, namely to become a member of this House, and he fulfilled
this goal in 1979.
(1210)
Like the Prime Minister, I too remember very well that he was
a great storyteller. His stories related to everyday events and
could be told in public. He could capture an audience's attention
because he was a great communicator and had a great ability to
convey ideas.
A staunch federalist and Liberal supporter, Jean-Louis was
always ready to espouse the federalist cause. I recall that during
the 1980 referendum he was very active in his riding and worked
hard here in caucus for the no side.
He had been a teacher once and had been actively involved in
the church, in his region and in his community. I remember that
he was criticized once for securing the funding needed to paint
some of the churches in his riding. He was criticized, mainly by
those in opposition at the time, for using federal funds for this
purpose. I wondered if Jean-Louis should really have been
criticized for creating jobs in his region, jobs involving
renovations and church repairs.
In conclusion, I would like to convey my deepest sympathies
to his wife Réjeanne and to their son Michel. On behalf of my
colleagues in the Liberal caucus and all those who knew him, I
wish his family well. May they find comfort in the knowledge
that their lives have been enriched by this great man who served
as the member for Richelieu.
_____________________________________________
577
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by people from my
riding and particularly by residents of the Pierre-Bernard Tower
and 6400 Duquesne Street.
The petition states: ``The undersigned ask Parliament to
forego any social housing rent increases and to lift the freeze on
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's budget to
allow for the building of new social and co-op housing.''
578
[English]
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.
The Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
578
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.
The Speaker: The member for Comox-Alberni has the floor
with seven minutes remaining.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would
request that I be allowed the full 10 minutes to carry on with my
debate as the first portion of my debate will have been forgotten
by all the members in the House.
The Speaker: I believe we are going to remember the first
three minutes as they were excellently presented. I know the
hon. member will just take his seven minutes as allocated.
(1215 )
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some
concerns shared by many Canadians of anticipated actions by
this government regarding natural resources. In particular, there
are the issues concerning forestry and the environment.
Forest products are not only British Columbia's main export
but Canada's as well. Forestry is Canada's number one industry
to which many members here will be able to attest. For example
in British Columbia the forest sector provided 270,000 jobs,
paid $2.4 billion in taxes and exported $11 billion of products in
1992.
However, the forest sector is facing losses both in jobs and in
profits and will continue to do so until a balance is struck
between forest conservation and forest preservation.
In the throne speech the government stated its commitment to
jobs and to sustainable development. The government is to be
commended for this initiative. However, I have some difficulty
with statements made prior to and during the election campaign
regarding these issues.
To give some background, on April 13, 1993 the government
of British Columbia announced the long awaited land use
decision for the Clayoquot Sound area on the west coast of
Vancouver Island, an area within my riding.
The provincial government made a very difficult but well
balanced decision that enhances environmental, economic and
social values for the area. However, I find it disturbing that
before and during the election campaign last fall the Liberal
government on several occasions stated that if elected it may
expand the boundaries of Pacific Rim National Park to include
the Clayoquot.
I find this disturbing from a number of points of view. The
first is the lengthy and involved process utilized to arrive at the
Clayoquot decision itself.
During the 1980s it was recognized by many that the level of
logging in and around the Clayoquot was too high and was not
sustainable. In an attempt to balance all resource uses in the
Clayoquot, a community based steering committee was
established and charged with formulating a sustainable
development plan for the area. The steering committee had a
broad base. It included mayors of the three communities
involved, native groups, environmentalists, logging companies,
unions and several provincial ministries.
When the three-year Clayoquot Sound process ended there
was general agreement on most aspects of the strategy. On the
contentious issue of land allocation, namely the creation of new
parks with a subsequent reduction in area available for logging,
10 of the 13 groups at the table reached a consensus.
This consensus allowed for a doubling of the area to be set
aside or to be preserved. It is a reduction of the area available for
logging from the previous 81 per cent to less than 45 per cent.
This consensus now ensures that 55 per cent or more than half of
the old growth forest in the sound will remain unlogged forever.
This is a made in B.C. decision. It is a decision made by
British Columbians about resources that are clearly under the
jurisdiction of British Columbia. I ask the Liberal government
now to respect that decision.
This issue extends beyond regional concerns and as such I
strongly encourage the hon. Minister of the Environment to
familiarize herself with the process that was used to arrive at a
decision because I firmly believe the same open and public
process can be used in other contentious areas to arrive at a
consensual decision.
I request that the government give credence and support
toward such a balanced process when considering controversial
land use for environmental issues.
579
Another point that I find disturbing concerns jobs. In the
Clayoquot, as a result of the compromise decision, there has
already been a loss of over 600 forest sector direct and indirect
jobs. During the recent election the government ran a very
successful campaign built around the issue of jobs and it is to be
congratulated.
However, my concern now is whether this government should
proceed on a path of including the Clayoquot within Pacific Rim
National Park. The impact on the forest sector alone would
amount to a loss of 4,200 direct and indirect forest sector jobs.
(1220 )
On October 25 the Canadian public made it abundantly clear
what action it will take collectively toward governments that do
not live up to their promises and in this case jobs. I would
suggest that the Canadian public and in particular the
constituents within my riding of Comox-Alberni would be
more than upset with a government that campaigned on a
platform of creation of jobs and then once elected immediately
did a complete about face and put 4,200 people out of work.
Frankly this would be a most unwise decision on the part of the
government.
Another area requiring consideration should this government
proceed with expanding Pacific Rim National Park is one of
compensation to the province of British Columbia. I am sure we
are aware that natural resources, in this case timber, belong not
to the federal government but to the province.
Therefore should this government proceed with what would
amount to expropriation of the timber resource within the
Clayoquot, while at the same time bearing in mind that the
provincial government would be most unlikely to enter into an
agreement that would cost the government lost revenue, the
federal government would then owe the provincial government
compensation. Lost stumpage revenue in the Clayoquot will be
substantial. It would be roughly $2 billion. That is not $2 million
but $2 billion.
At a time when the federal government is deeply in debt I
believe that Canadians would have great difficulty in
understanding the wisdom and logic of a government that
commits an additional $2 billion to expand an already existing
and large national park.
Finally I would like to address the subject of forest practices
within the Clayoquot. There is no question that the Clayoquot
decision involves the nature and extent of logging. The way
logging was carried out a decade ago is no longer acceptable to
many people. As a result the province of British Columbia is
currently in the process of implementing a new forest practices
code which will change the way that logging is carried out in
British Columbia.
This new code will substantially reduce the size and extent of
clear cuts, allow for green up before adjacent areas can be
logged, ensure reforestation is promptly carried out, monitor
road building practices and ensure that streams are not-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Your time has expired. I
open the session to questions and comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Madam Speaker, I am
glad that some things the hon. member for Comox-Alberni
said give me an opportunity to participate in the debate.
Quite rightly, he invited the government to try to maintain a
balance between the protection of forested areas and economic
development. In theory, I think, we recognize that some forested
areas must be preserved because of the very important
regulating role that forests play in our environment.
However, on a more local basis, we sometimes forget the
principles put forward in our theoretical debates. It is always
difficult to find the right balance between forest preservation
and economic growth. We tend to give up hope and to get
emotional when we talk about deforestation in the Amazon. We
blame Brazil for not protecting its forests, but here in Canada,
we also put aside environmental considerations when faced with
economic problems. I invite the government to always try to
keep the right balance between forest conservation and
economic development.
[English]
Mr. Gilmour: Madam Speaker, I can only agree with the
member. I believe the biggest thing that this country faces is
how we do a land use allocation of our many resources. I believe
this is paramount. We should be finding out which areas are the
best to preserve, which are the best for urban development and
which are the best for agriculture. If we do not have this land use
allocation and decisions then we get these piecemeal
environmental debates that tend to tear this country apart. This
is a wonderful country and across it are many different
ecosystems. We need to have an allocation that puts a priority on
each area so that this country is all protected.
(1225)
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
speech of the hon. member and his concern for a balanced
approach to forest resources.
However at one point he said that timber resources belong to
B.C. and not the federal government which obviously represents
the people of this country. Technically under the British North
America Act my hon. friend is correct.
The facts of the concerns raised by groups in this country with
respect to Clayoquot would indicate that a great many people in
Canada share the idea of our aboriginal peoples that the land
does not belong to anybody. It belongs to all of us.
580
I think my hon. friend cannot have it both ways. He cannot
reserve the timber resources of B.C. and ask for compensation if
we consider that the mines and factories of Ontario and so on, as
have other industries in B.C., contributed to the federal treasury
and contributed to the well being of all Canadians
Mr. Gilmour: Madam Speaker, the member is correct that
under the British North America Act resources belong to the
province. However they do not belong to the province, they
belong to the people within that province.
We are talking about the allocation of natural resources. It
goes back to what I was saying. We have to strike a balance. If
we do not strike a balance then we are putting one segment of
society against another. We need to find the land use balance.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Madam Speaker, at
the outset I really would like to congratulate you on your
accession to the throne, as we put it. As my friend and my
colleague and as someone who I know will bring dignity and
respect to the chair and to the role you are playing, I wish you
well, good health, and good judgment. I would like you to accept
the sincere wishes of all your colleagues in that regard.
As we begin this new mandate and at a time when I am
entrusted with new and challenging responsibilities, my first
thoughts go to my fellow citizens in Mount Royal and I wish to
express to them my deepest respect. Once again they have put
their trust in me to represent them in this House and I want to
thank them for their support, confidence and friendship.
[Translation]
It is an honour for me to represent the riding of Mount Royal
in this distinguished place. Mount Royal will be the focus of my
daily activities for the next four years as it was during my first
two mandates.
Just looking around me in this House, I can tell how much
change there has been and how much progress we have made.
The people of Canada have chosen to represent them men and
women from a variety of political parties. The make-up of this
House reflects much more accurately than before the
sociological reality and rich diversity of our country.
When I was first elected to this House in 1984, I was one of
only 26 women. Today, 53 women are sitting in this 35th
Parliament and, I am proud to say, 36 of these women are from
my party. There are still too few of us, but it is an improvement,
a big improvement. Also, never in its history has this place seen
such a varied and fascinating cross-section of races and
cultures. This new reality is the result of several factors.
(1230)
First of all, I want to thank and to congratulate our Prime
Minister who, in the last election, made it a point of honour to
encourage and support the candidacy of women and members of
ethnocultural communities. His resolve and tenacity have been
rewarded.
[English]
We must also recognize the leadership of our Deputy Prime
Minister, the member for Hamilton East, who has worked very
hard to seek out and recruit women of great talent to represent
Canadians in this House, and you will note that throughout the
course of the next four years.
There is no doubt that the contribution of women and more
members from different ethnocultural communities will bring a
perspective to the proceedings of this Parliament that is more
representative of the nation as a whole.
I must say that I am humbled and challenged by the
responsibilities the Prime Minister has chosen to give me as
Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and for the Status of
Women. These new responsibilities fit well with my past
experience as I have spent the better part of my life working for
equality for all, for minority rights, for freedom of expression,
for freedom of religion, for freedom of the press and more
recently for the rights of linguistic minorities in Quebec and
throughout the rest of Canada. I intend to continue these efforts
as a Privy Councillor.
Madam Speaker, I became involved in politics somewhat like
you did as a matter of fact, first in the voluntary sector and then
moved on, because I believed that the political realm belonged
to all citizens. It is here in this place that the policies are made
that affect the lives of each and every one of the citizens of
Canada.
Today, governments must deal with very complex issues, with
change, but they must do that in partnership with Canadians.
The accelerated pace of change in the ongoing process of global
restructuring will have significant implications for all of us, and
in particular for policymakers, as we sit in this House.
As we deal with the forces of change, one of the key elements
that will need to be weighed and better managed at all levels will
be that of the cultural mix and gender equation. We must ensure
that the needs and concerns of women are integrated into the
development of all our policies and programs and are reflected
in our institutions. Women can and must be full partners in our
society, both economically and socially.
We will reach that goal not only through legislative change
and government initiatives but also through changes in the
Canadian attitude, for each and every one of us have a
contribution to make. Canada will continue to prosper only if we
make full use of all our citizens.
581
The bottom line is building a fair partnership and working
together. Our government is going to work with openness and
with transparency. We will be accessible. As a matter of fact we
are not going to need too many lobbyists. We will listen to
Canadians and provide them with the means to be informed. We
want them to be involved in the discussions and the decisions
concerning every aspect of their lives.
Under past Liberal governments women have made great
strides. This administration, under the strong leadership of the
Prime Minister of Canada, is committed to building on that rich
heritage. The willingness of the government to address the
concerns of women is clearly reflected in the throne speech.
We know that Canadian women and men will not be satisfied
with words alone. From now on we will simply put and follow a
critical path, and that path is action, action and action.
(1235)
The speech from the throne is indeed our blueprint for action
and change, with many positive initiatives for women. It sets out
the early priorities from the red book for this session with
specific legislation and specific initiatives to follow.
Economic independence is critical to women's equality and a
strong economy is the key to that independence. We have
therefore put job creation and economic growth at the forefront
of our plan.
This government intends to build on the creativity and
intellectual talents of all Canadians, women and men of all
backgrounds, in furthering Canada's economic growth.
In the short term the infrastructure renewal program will
create immediate direct and indirect jobs and long-lasting
benefits for all Canadians. Women will be participants in and
beneficiaries of the infrastructure program and will have a role
to play in encouraging municipal infrastructure projects which
include the physical improvement that women need for safe
homes and safe streets.
I urge women to speak to the mayors-and, by the way, many
of our cities have women sitting as mayors at their helm and
some of those women now sit in the House of Commons-across
this country about the selection of the projects.
[Translation]
The government will focus its efforts in the long term on
small and medium sized businesses which account on their own
for 85 per cent of the new jobs created in recent years. No less
than 30 per cent of these businesses are run by women and their
success rate is twice as high as that of their male counterparts. I
do not want to brag, Mr. Speaker, this is the plain truth.
It is also very important to realize the impact of our
ethnocultural communities on small business. Thousands of
entrepreneurs of all ethnic backgrounds start up small
businesses. They work hard and, like women, they are
innovative and their success rate is very high.
Not only have they created jobs for themselves, but they have
also provided work for thousands and thousands of other
Canadians. All the progressive initiatives the government is
proposing in support of small business will inevitably go a long
way to redress social injustices and promote equal opportunity
for all Canadians.
For example, the throne speech provides for a training
program for small business managers. We will also facilitate
their access to the Canada investment fund and to the Canadian
technology network. We are committed to reducing the
regulatory and paper burden on small businesses.
[English]
Believe me, those are heavy and difficult obstacles to success.
[Translation]
The youth service corps and the national literacy program will
help young women as well as young members of our
ethnocultural communities acquire the required skills and
experience to find a job and achieve financial independence.
[English]
I, and I think we in this House, believe in greater equality of
social conditions for all Canadians. We will therefore be
conducting a review of our social security system to ensure that
it is responsive to the economic and social realities of the 1990s.
I will work with my cabinet colleagues to ensure that the
voices of women, immigrants and visible minorities are heard in
these consultations on the modernization and restructuring of
our collective social security system and in the job market.
I am, as I believe all my colleagues in this House are, deeply
committed, certainly on our side of the benches anyway, to the
principles of the Canada health care system and so is our
government. The national forum on health, chaired by the Prime
Minister, will provide an opportunity for Canadians to be
involved in a national dialogue on the future of our health care
system. There is ample evidence that our system has not given
sufficient attention to women's health issues. I know you will
agree with this, Madam Speaker. That will change now. We will
work with all our partners to create a system that includes a
greater focus on the health and well-being of Canadian women
in the context of women's different attachment to the work
market, their social and economic reality.
582
(1240)
The centre of excellence for women's health and the Canada
prenatal nutritional program are two immediate initiatives that
will have an impact on women's health.
All it takes is an orange, an egg and a quart of milk to make
sure that low birth babies do not become more and more a part of
the problems that women have to face in this society. It costs
very little to see that the situation is improved.
A major preoccupation for Canadians is violence. In
particular, violence against women and children concerns us all.
Addressing all types of violence is a priority for our
government.
On November 18 I announced the results of a federal study
conducted by Statistics Canada which revealed that 51 per cent
of women had in their adult lifetime been victimized by a man.
Those of us who have worked with women and within women's
groups have long suspected that high level of abuse.
Anecdotal before, clearly identified now through the very
narrow lens of violence as defined in the Criminal Code, this
reality is chilling. I know that our partners, the men in this
society and in this room, will enable the kinds of legislation that
can fight this kind of pervasive and unacceptable behaviour.
It reduces the quality of life. We must find ways to overcome
these obstacles which limit access by women to full and fear free
participation in the economic, social, cultural and political life
of Canadian society.
I said then that I would address this issue. I intend to be true to
my word and I know my colleagues will support that. We will
take a number of initiatives in the fields of public relations,
elimination of pornography and removal of abusers from the
home.
Abused women should have the choice as to whether they
wish protection so that they can stay in their home or whether
they wish to seek support and refuge in another place.
All these issues will be considered as my department, Status
of Women Canada, works toward creating a non-violent society
for all Canadians. I count on the support of all members to
enable that to happen. This will be done in collaboration with the
Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is going to be a very
busy man, as is the Solicitor General.
I am going to work with my provincial and territorial
counterparts, with all other federal departments and with our
partners in the public and private sector.
Another area that deserves our attention is the situation of
aboriginal peoples. We know they face discrimination. The
needs of the aboriginal women have long been neglected and the
lives of the younger generation will not improve without proper
access to education.
The aboriginal head start program and post-secondary
education assistance for these students will be the foundation of
the future independence and economic well-being of the
aboriginal communities.
Finally, we will work to reinforce social justice and equality,
two of the core values that underlie Canadian society. In a
country founded on democratic principles, there cannot be
degrees of citizenship or special status for some and not for
others.
At a time when we have to compete with nations around the
world, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that our
collective prosperity depends on our capacity to discover and
use the skills, creativity and expertise of all Canadians. Our
diversity, both social and cultural, is not a stumbling block. It is
a building block for our nation.
(1245)
New measures will be taken to combat racial discrimination
and prejudice. The Canadian Human Rights Act will be amended
and the Canadian race relations foundation act will be
proclaimed. The new race relations foundation will bring
Canadians together to foster a sense of shared identity and
purpose. It promises to be the focal point for the promotion of
social equality and mutual respect.
I am particularly pleased that the court challenges program
and the law reform commission are being reinstated. The
restoration of these two programs are the legal mechanisms for
making our justice system work and accessible to all Canadians.
Initiatives to deal with hate crimes will also be introduced.
Hatred based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation has
no place in Canada. We are all part of the same society. Each
person of every background and culture brings to this nation
unique experience and talent and we profit from them.
To quote the speech from the throne: ``Job creation and
sustained economic growth require an investment in people''.
That means all people. ``This investment in all Canadians is
what Canada is all about''.
For years we have welcomed numerous immigrants to our
shores in the hope that by building a new life in this great and
rich country, those women and men would also contribute not
only to the fabric but also to the richness of our society. We have
not been disappointed. A unique Canadian identity has been
forged, drawing upon this wellspring of talent and potential.
Every sphere of Canadian life has benefited and been enriched.
In Canada we stand firm in our convictions that people need
not abandon their culture in order to join us. We believe that all
cultures enrich us as individuals and as a nation. This is the
Canadian way.
I said at the beginning that the speech from the throne is a
blueprint for change. It is also, if I may say, a very tall order. As
one great Canadian has said: ``We have work to do''. However,
work and challenge surely do not scare our Prime Minister who
has been at the forefront of change for the last quarter century.
583
His passion for Canada, its unity and its future are only matched
by his high standard of honesty and his powerful desire to serve
Canadians and all creeds.
[Translation]
We must follow the lead of our Prime Minister and act with
courage, determination and perseverance to ensure that the
major changes we have put forward to improve the quality of life
of all Canadians can be achieved in a spirit of harmony and
goodwill.
[English]
Finally, I urge my colleagues of all parties to join with me and
the government to ensure that together we can implement this
substantial plan of action. Fighting against discrimination,
promoting social justice and equality of opportunity is not a
partisan goal for any of us in this House. It has to be and is a
basic and essential principle for anyone who has been granted
the confidence and the trust of the people who now sit in this
House to make it a reality.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I
really enjoyed that speech. There were parts that I thought were
particularly good. The admonitions to all of us in the House to
fight inequality and discrimination are well taken and I think she
will find widespread support on all sides of the House for those
kinds of sentiments.
(1250)
Many of us who sit at this end of the House come from a
region of Canada that was deliberately populated by an
immigration program that brought a lot of immigrants into
Canada at a specific time. Therefore there is a lot of support for
an immigration program and a wide acceptance of a large variety
and degree of different backgrounds. I applaud those sentiments
and I think they are well taken.
I particularly liked the comments about no special status.
There is a large degree of support in western Canada and in my
riding for the idea that there is no special status, that all people
are Canadians regardless of their race, colour, language or
background. That concept has wide acceptance.
What I would caution the minister about is how we fight
inequality and discrimination. She should use with much
caution this idea of an affirmative action plan. In Ontario
Premier Rae tried to move into a realm where he was going to
force something on to people they felt was unacceptable and he
had to back down. The reason is that people want to be treated
equally, not with special status.
That is my caution to the minister. I would ask her to comment
on the idea that affirmative action sometimes does not bring
about the result that I know she is trying to achieve.
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for his question. The issue is one that has been troubling
to me for a number of reasons.
As the mother of a son and a daughter who were given equal
access to education and to a sense of equal worth, I can tell him
that until very recently my son would have done well, but my
daughter would not have had the same opportunities, would not
have had the same pay, and would certainly not have been given
the same kind of treatment.
The purpose of an affirmative action program, if that is what
you are referring to, which is found in section 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, looks at mechanisms to remove
discrimination that has been endemic within our population.
I believe the way that legislation was pursued was totally
unfair and uncertainly unpopular with me. I believe that
fairness, equality of access, equality of opportunity based on the
merit principle, based on ability, is the focal point.
We still have ongoing discrimination. There is racism. There
is homophobia to be found in our society that must be combated.
That is why the programs of the multiculturalism department are
so valuable. That is why they are worth any kind of investment;
monetarily, intellectually or with the commitment and
involvement of people in our communities.
We all know the insidious hatred that is out there and the
misunderstanding in the minds of some people has a negative
impact on moving toward, as you and I believe, an equal and fair
and open society that is built on trust, understanding and respect
for difference.
Treating people differently does not mean they are being
treated outside the parameters of equality. Women's entry into
and attachment to the workplace is very different from that of
men because they have the procreative role that renews our
society. They are in their childbearing years. They are in and out
of the workplace and have that different attachment. We also
have the fact that whether we like it or not women are the
caretakers of elderly families, of their mothers and their fathers.
They are sort of sandwiched in between. Whatever policies are
adopted with respect to the job market, pay and the organization
of the time within the job market must reflect women's reality as
different from men. However I would never want to say that I
will hire only a woman or only an ethnic minority because that is
what fits the target market. I would say that given equal merit,
because there has been this systemic discrimination on equal
584
principle, I would certainly tend to hire that person who has
suffered discrimination under section 15 of our charter.
(1255)
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, like the
Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of
Women, I am pleased to see a greater number of women in the
House of Commons. I personally think that if, in the past, the
number of women had been higher in this place, Canada would
probably be a different country and would have faced the
economic and human problems differently. I therefore invite all
the women in this House, regardless of their affiliation, to
sometimes rise above party lines and form a common front,
because I believe that men need to see such a demonstration.
I am also very pleased to see a number of members
representing different cultural communities. I think this also
reflects the nature of our country, which is a good thing in this
House.
I appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for Mount
Royal and I really hope that she did not not just make a speech. I
am not insinuating anything, but I know that the hon. member is
tackling a very big problem. She will undoubtedly need a great
deal of courage and also a lot of support from both sides of the
House.
I believe she should concentrate her efforts on two aspects:
the economic independence of women and zero tolerance toward
violence. Too often still, in fact every day and every week, the
newspapers are full of intolerable stories about women. We
often see that men who wield some power, for example judges
and policemen, and who have to deal with unfair situations or
violence to women, react like men.
I have two questions. First, regarding the economic
independence of women, I find it hard to see how women will fit
in the infrastructure program designed to create jobs. The
Secretary of State suggested that women should make
proposals, but it is not certain that they will be the ones who will
build the infrastructures, and I am a bit disappointed by that.
Second, the Secretary of State also referred to the protection
of minorities. Given the fact that she represents a riding from
Quebec, does the hon. member intend to explain outside
Quebec, in the other provinces, how the fate of the anglophone
minority in Quebec is different from that of the francophone
minority in the other provinces?
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for his comments. There is no doubt that I count on the
support, not only of the women from all sides of the House, but
also of the men, because without the support and help of our
male colleagues, we will never succeed in improving the status
of women and in showing that their cause is a just cause.
I truly appreciate the comments made by hon. member and I
hope that his colleagues will indeed give me their help and
support. I also noted that there are three women in his caucus
whom I know very well, since I have had the opportunity to work
with them during the last parliamentary session and also in
Quebec.
(1300)
I am convinced that when a women's caucus is set up in this
House-which is something I will try to do soon-that caucus
will help me, because its members will share my ideas on equal
access for people, men and women both, whether on a economic,
cultural, social or political level.
As for your questions on economic independence, I must say
that when we think of public works, we only think of the
so-called non-traditional work for women. But there are women
who are just as capable as men. Some men are strong, but others
are not so strong. Therefore, it is possible to find women who
can work in these projects.
Let us not forget that on the eve of the 21st century, we have
all kinds of technological support. Who uses the little computer?
Who is behind the scenes? It is always women. And I have to say
that you need women in order to promote infrastructure projects.
Basically, what I meant to say when I asked women to go and
talk -
The Acting Speaker (Mr. LeBlanc): I would ask the hon.
minister to end her sentence, but I must point out that questions
and comments are now over.
[English]
Mrs. Finestone: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just
want to assure the members opposite and my colleagues that
first the infrastructure program does include and will benefit
women even if they just fix the parking lots and the lighting in
our subway systems across this land.
With respect to minority rights, I assure that equality of
opportunity, equality of access and the merits of bilingualism is
something I will talk about across this land. I have done it in the
past. I have been a guest speaker for the francophones in
Saskatchewan and Alberta and I will continue to do so. I will
also speak to the rights of anglophones in Quebec as integral to
the whole Quebec picture.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, may I take
this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment. I see
there is a change in the Chair again. I have already congratulated
Madam Speaker. I do wish the both of you the very best in this
35th Parliament.
As I stand here today I want everyone to know how proud I am
to have this opportunity. My very special thanks goes out to the
Wild Rose voters who put their faith in me last October 25. I
would also like to thank those who worked so hard to get me
585
elected. A special thanks to my wife Dot for her faith and love
during the campaign which remains with me today.
I am proud to be a Canadian by choice. When I arrived in
Alberta 26 years ago along with my wife and my one-month-old
boy I knew in a very short time that Canada was the place that I
wanted to call home.
When I took my oath of citizenship in 1974, that was one of
the highlights of my life. I never dreamed for a second at that
time that I would have the honour to sit in this Chamber as a
member of Parliament. However now that I am I pray that I
might always speak the voice of some 45,000 that put me here.
Today I take pleasure in doing just that by addressing the topic
of justice. As I recall and think about the values and the
principles upon which this great country was founded, I have to
ask myself what happened. Why is it today as we hear the voice
of Canadians all across the country crying out for justice that
their voices seem to be going unheard? Why is it when I walk to
this place each day past the Department of Justice building that I
feel the key word of justice has lost its meaning in this country?
Justice appears to be in the minds of thousands of Canadians as a
word that applies only to the rights and the protection of the
criminal while the rights and the safety of law abiding potential
victims goes completely unaddressed.
(1305)
I believe that the government must immediately set its focus
on the latter group. It should stop listening to the voices and the
pressures of small interest groups crying out for criminals and
refocus on the victims with a message that violence in this
country will no longer be tolerated. People have the right to feel
safe and be safe in this great country and we must aim for that
goal.
The red book along with the throne speech alluded to the idea
but I would suggest that it does not go nearly far enough in many
areas. I admit I coughed once during the throne speech and may
have missed something but I listened to about 10 or 15 seconds
on justice.
I would like to offer some suggestions. Is it known that in the
last five years 32 people have died in this country at the hands of
23 repeat offenders who were paroled from our penal system?
This is the number that I know about. I really do not know what
the true number is but that is how many I know about.
If we had a plane crash and 32 people died then this House
would stand and mourn. If we had 32 people die on a bus or train
collision then we would stand and mourn. When hear about 32
people dying at the hands of repeat killers we continue to do
nothing. It is time to wake up and address this problem. If even
one person had died from the hands of a repeat killer then as far
as I am concerned that is one too many.
My suggestion based on the thousands of other comments
from people would be to stop automatic parole. The frightening
thing is that there will be approximately 80 more early parole
hearings for first degree killers during the life of this 35th
Parliament.
I quote from one of these repeat offenders: ``The only thing
crazier than me is the system that allowed me to kill again''.
This whole affair suggests to me that there is an element of
incompetence that exists in our parole board, possibly through
patronage appointments. Let us fix this incompetence problem
and let us fix it now.
I have worked with young people for 30 years of my life, as a
teacher, guidance counsellor and a junior high school principal.
Since my election I have attended several meetings with parents,
community members, school administrators to discuss what to
do about the violence in schools.
Most of us here will remember the days of spitballs, getting
out of line and chewing gum. These present day meetings are
addressing drug abuse, rape, assault and murder. We have
certainly come a long way. Yet when we have legislation such as
the present Young Offenders Act there simply is no deterrent.
Our judicial committee has made a submission regarding not
just our views but the views of thousands of Canadians who have
given input through our recent task force of changes that must be
made to the Young Offenders Act.
(1310)
We encourage the Minister of Justice to seriously consider
these changes which would bring accountability, restitution and
punishment back to the forefront in dealing with criminal youth.
Most of all it would return justice in dealing with acts of crime.
We further suggest based on the voice of the people that
non-citizens of Canada convicted of a serious crime be
immediately deported. Never again should there ever be another
Charles Ng in this country. When I hear the minister of human
resources say that thousands of Canadian children live in
poverty and I think of the millions of dollars we spend to protect
the likes of Charles Ng, I am flabbergasted.
I could go on for hours discussing the many things the people
of this country want changed. However one change that must be
implemented is the opportunity for the people to voice their
concerns through a national, binding referendum on capital
punishment.
Enough is enough. Now is the time to do something that will
truly make this country a safer place to be for our law-abiding
citizens. Let us not procrastinate or pussyfoot around any longer
with these problems as the last three or four Parliaments have
done.
In conclusion, I seriously believe there is not one member of
the 295 in this Chamber who has not heard the cry from his or her
constituents to do something about the justice system. We have
586
heard the people speak. It is our duty to act upon that voice and
begin working immediately to return the word justice to our
country.
Only this morning in Question Period we heard that a sexual
perpetrator of children has been released and is roaming the
streets in British Columbia. He is a non-citizen. Why are we not
rounding that individual up and getting him out of this country?
We do not need him in Canada, nor do we need the likes of him.
We could do it today, but it is my understanding that he has been
released until February 16. What could happen between now and
then?
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services):
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his passionate
address with respect to a very important issue.
I have three brief questions that would perhaps help the
discussion. He pointed out if my memory serves me correctly
that 32 people have been killed by 23 individuals who had been
paroled. As he indicated, even one death is one too many. Does
he know how many overall have been paroled? In other words,
these 23 parolees he speaks of are what percentage of all
parolees? I do not know if he has that information.
There is another point I want to raise as a question. He
indicated a need to improve the system. Of course all colleagues
from all parties would agree that that is so. In fact, we made a
commitment to do that in our electoral platform and it was
repeated again in the speech from the throne.
Is he indicating that better appointments and better rules are
necessary? I thought it was a suggestion that appointments
would be the main ingredient there.
Finally, I had an independent study group of qualified
individuals look at rates of crime in an attempt to see whether or
not they correlated with capital punishment. In other words, in
countries where there is capital punishment and in those where
there is not, was there a correlation between rates of crime? It
varied up and down. Sometimes it was yes and sometimes it was
no.
I was wondering whether or not the hon. member had any
credible studies which showed that if there were to be capital
punishment in this country that all of a sudden violence-quite
apart from the violence that the state of course would become
involved in-would decrease.
(1315 )
Mr. Thompson: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member for his questions.
Regarding determining the percentage of people released
from the penal system who kill again, we have just begun that
process. It is a difficult thing to get our hands on. We have
identified who they are and so far our research shows that 32
people have died at their hands. As we continue I know that
number will grow.
With regard to appointments, if we are going to have a parole
board the last reason for appointment to a parole board should be
that they were the good old boys or good old girls with some
political party, doing political favours. Yet that seems to be the
impression Canadians have. It certainly is the impression I have
about some of them. I am not saying they are not qualified and
cannot do the job. I am saying that there ought to be a better way
of selecting these individuals and making certain that those who
are appointed to that board know what they are doing.
The first thing we have to do is get an understanding that there
is no such thing as automatic parole. Section 745 of the Criminal
Code is one that must be repealed. Twenty-five years has to
mean 25 years and 15 years has to mean 15 years.
On the issue of capital punishment, I am not sure what the
stats are. I am saying that people out there are crying for justice.
Let us give it to them and let them decide through a national
binding referendum.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Madam Speaker, just a short
comment. Congratulations to the hon. member for Wild Rose, a
marvellous name for a constituency and for a very impassioned
speech.
I would like to point out that as we look through the total
throne speech there are only very short references to all the
important aspects this government will be focusing on.
We had the pleasure of having almost every single minister
stand up in this House and broaden their perspective, including
the Minister of Justice yesterday. I point that out to the member.
If he did not hear it yesterday I hope the hon. member will read
the speech by the hon. Minister of Justice, his lengthy
dissertation on all his points of focus, many of which were
mentioned in the hon. member's speech today.
Mr. Thompson: Madam Speaker, very briefly I do know of
several members in the present government who feel exactly the
way I do. I would be pleased to work alongside them.
I also know that we cannot continue to talk, talk, talk,
rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. Let us get to work. Let us get the job
done now.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West): Madam Speaker, it is
indeed a pleasure for me to speak for the first time in this great
Chamber and to congratulate you on your appointment to the
Chair.
I would like to begin my remarks by thanking the people of St.
John's West for their support on October 25. I am greatly
honoured to serve as their member of Parliament and I look
forward to working with my constituents over the next four
years.
587
My riding represents a mix of both the old and the new. In St.
John's West the fishery is the largest industry and has been a way
of life for the past 500 years. At the same time there are many
small businesses in the district, some of which are at the leading
edge of high technology research. Others are traditional types of
businesses which have been employing people for many years.
The people of my district are honest and hard working. They
count back the generations of people earning a living from the
sea. Business operators recall years of good and bad times.
Newfoundlanders have a reputation for sticking together and
finding solutions and I have just found that my colleagues in this
place also stick together.
Today the people of St. John's West face a number of
problems. The decline in the fishery has had a devastating effect
on most families in my district. Small business operators are
trying to cope with a decrease in sales and the burdens caused by
the GST and other taxes. Young people were looking to the
future, only to see despair.
(1320)
During the election Liberals campaigned on a platform of
hope and opportunity. The decline in the Newfoundland fishery
has struck at the very heart of our province. Under the previous
administration foreigners were stealing our fish and laughing at
us overseas, while our fisher people at home took empty nets and
came home with empty boats. Short-term political concerns
were given priority over the long-term health of the industry.
The people of St. John's West were not satisfied with the way
the former government dealt with these important issues and
that is why fisher persons and plant workers in my riding voted
for a Liberal government.
In the throne speech the government made special mention of
the challenges facing the east coast fishery. At this time, I would
like to say thank you to our Prime Minister who has
demonstrated such foresight and wisdom in the appointment of
his ministers, in particular the appointment of our very
knowledgeable and capable Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. A
fellow Newfoundlander and colleague, his reputation for
working hard is well known and I can personally vouch for the
long hours he dedicates to his work.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been hard at work
dealing with foreign overfishing, with measures directed toward
rebuilding fish stocks and providing income support programs
for those who are displaced by the close out of the fishing
industry. The road to recovery in the fishery will be a difficult
one but the people of St. John's West are up to the challenge and
are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.
I look forward to playing my role as member of Parliament in
working with the minister and my colleagues in helping our
number one industry come back to the levels it once enjoyed.
Also in my riding we have what was once considered to be one
of the most affluent areas of our province. That area is a town
called Argentia. This town is now facing a bleak and uncertain
future as the U.S. navy prepares to close its station in that
community. The American presence has been a daily fact in
Argentia for about 50 years and their pull-out will have a lasting
impact on the local economy.
The people of Argentia did not lie down and give up when the
American announcement came two years ago. They have been
working hard to create opportunities in their own community.
The ``Agenda for Argentia: A Study on Re-Use'', is a testament
to the town's determination to prosper. Negotiations are
presently under way with the Americans on issues relating to the
U.S. naval station and I have met with our ministers on the issue
to ensure that these concerns are addressed.
The federal government has already provided funding for the
consultant's report on the future use of station facilities. I was
pleased to announce recently on behalf of the minister
responsible for ACOA that an entrepreneurial training program
would be implemented. A key recommendation of the
consultant's report was the long-term redevelopment of the port
facilities at the station. Such redevelopment would provide
needed jobs in an area of increasing unemployment. These
efforts will help ease the transition for Argentia.
Today I want to again assure the people of Argentia that they
can count on my support as they explore development
opportunities.
A decision by Marine Atlantic recently to reduce its
scheduled ferry service from North Sydney, Nova Scotia, to
Argentia is another blow to the town. The six-week reduction
will have a double impact on Argentia. The shorter season will
mean that fewer truckers and tourists will come to visit the town,
to eat in the local restaurants and to buy fuel. It will take money
out of the local economy. As well, the shorter season will mean
less work for Marine Atlantic employees and a greater reliance
on unemployment insurance throughout the fall and winter.
This is a backward move by Marine Atlantic and I would call
on the company to reverse its decision and I would call on this
government to encourage it to revisit its plans for the area.
(1325 )
Small businesses in St. John's West face many challenges.
The long recession has hurt sales. Then in 1991 came that
infamous tax, the goods and service tax, a tax to end all taxes. It
was imposed by the previous government and has created a
paper burden that many business administrators and operators
find impossible to deal with. In addition, the high interest rates
588
followed by the previous administration limited funding
opportunities for small businesses.
Small businesses are vital to the future prosperity of the
residents of St. John's West. Most jobs created in the province of
Newfoundland are created by small businesses. As a business
operator, I know firsthand the difficulties faced by this sector.
During the election I listened to the pleas of small business
owners asking for some relief from the problems they
experienced.
The Liberal Party has given its promise to help small
businesses. I am pleased to hear, in the speech from the throne,
the government's determination to fulfil its commitments in that
area. The Canada investment fund will also help high
technology companies secure funding for product development,
improving market access and obtaining long-term capital.
The Prime Minister's commitment to replacing the GST is
greatly appreciated by the business people in St. John's West.
The GST has been a disaster that has either driven businesses
underground or simply forced them out of business altogether.
As I have said before, it has increased the paper burden and costs
to businesses and forced many to lay off staff in order to reduce
their costs. This is an unacceptable situation and I am very
pleased with the government's determination to correct it.
Business operators from St. John's West will have an
opportunity to participate in a study on a tax to replace the GST.
Businesses were not consulted the last time, but they will
certainly be consulted by the government this time and by our
Prime Minister.
The government's commitment to improving the literacy
skills of Canadians is a great step forward. There are people in
my district who are not able to take advantage of training
programs because they lack the basic math and reading skills.
Renewed funding for the national literacy program will enable
the people of St. John's West to make better use of government
training programs.
The theme of the Liberal Party during the election was
creating opportunity. Before the election Canadians felt
frustrated with their government. They felt out of touch and felt
that their government was not listening to them.
On October 25, Canadians and the people of St. John's West
spoke with a loud, clear voice. The government has received the
message and it will listen to Canadians. The new Liberal
government will provide the people of St. John's West with the
opportunities they need to earn a decent living and prosper in
this great country.
Once again I wish to thank the people of St. John's West for
their overwhelming support. I look forward to the next four
years to be their voice in this great Canadian House of
Commons.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Before going to the
questions and comments portion, I would like to apologize for
making a mistake on your riding. My list was not in order.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Madam Speaker, I would like
to congratulate the member for St. John's West for her maiden
speech in the House of Commons. At the same time, I would like
to congratulate her and the people of St. John's West for electing
her to the House of Commons. As stated previously by the
secretary of state, I welcome all the new women in the House of
Commons. It will be a pleasure to work with you for the next few
years.
I visited the province of Newfoundland on a couple of
occasions. It is one of the most incredibly beautiful provinces in
this country. I know the people of Newfoundland are going
through very difficult times, especially in the fisheries industry.
Through my experience of going from door to door and talking
with families who had a family member unemployed, I know the
amount of despair being felt by each household. Yet the level of
unemployment here in central Canada, as a member for central
Canada, is not nearly as high as what the province of
Newfoundland, and in particular the member's riding of St.
John's West, is experiencing.
(1330 )
I would like to ask the member for St. John's West if the
people of her riding have a sense of hope. Do they see that
Canada is going to be able to pull out of this recession or
economic morass we appear to be in? The fisheries industry is
certainly down, but are they prepared to move in other directions
and re-establish themselves in other distinct fields within
Newfoundland?
Mrs. Payne: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for her comments and her questions. At this time I
would like to extend an invitation to her to return to
Newfoundland.
I have to say that during the election one of the common
themes was the need for employment. Almost every constituent
I met asked if this government would provide more
employment.
They were very happy with the new infrastructure program
that our Prime Minister put forward in our red book. They are
certainly looking forward to having that put in place. As a matter
of fact I have already met with some of the people on the
municipal councils in my riding and they certainly are very
willing to participate. I do not think there is one community
council that is not looking forward to participating in that
program. They are certainly looking forward to having greater
access to jobs and job opportunities.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Madam Speaker, I too
would like to congratulate the member on her speech,
particular-
589
ly on the passion she brings to it. I think her constituents
obviously are going to be served well.
I am interested primarily because I have some very wonderful
friends from Newfoundland living in my constituency and I am
looking forward to the opportunity to travel to Newfoundland. I
have had the opportunity to be in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick
and Prince Edward Island but have not travelled to your island. I
am very much looking forward to that.
The hon. member mentioned an income support program. I
think I would support the concept of an income support program
depending on its definition. I would support that by contrast to
what seems to have been going on in terms of the unemployment
insurance program.
In recent programs on television, I have noted that there are
times when one day is considered to be a week and we get into
the so-called 10-42 program where people can work for 10 days
and get 42 weeks of unemployment insurance.
I wonder if the member would agree that it would be better to
come up with some kind of specific income support program for
the people who are particularly disadvantaged by the collapse of
the fishery rather than continuing to work with a band-aid
approach with respect to unemployment insurance.
Mrs. Payne: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
I have to say that we have quite a number of people from
western Canada in our province, particularly working on the
Hibernia project, which I am sure the member is familiar with.
As to the member's comments with regard to the income
support program, I have to agree that when this program was put
in place by the former administration it was poorly conceived
and implemented. I do not think that is any secret to anybody in
this House or in the previous House.
I believe the hon. member probably made a mistake when he
said a 10-day program, or 10 days of work to qualify for a year
of unemployment insurance. I think the hon. member might
have meant 10 weeks of work which is so in some cases.
We certainly do support a better support program for the
fishermen who have been displaced by this terrible tragedy in
our province and I think we should work toward that goal.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to
Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, my very first
duty is to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy
Chairman of Committees of the Whole House. I am happy to see
you in the Chair now and I hope that your term of office will be
long and very happy.
(1335)
[English]
I also congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address
in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for
Bruce-Grey and the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.
Both as new members of the House did a credit to their
constituents and all their electors by the speeches they gave in
moving and seconding the address. They were excellent
presentations. They clearly spoke from the heart about the
beautiful parts of the country they represent. I congratulate them
thoroughly for what they have done.
My third obligation is to thank the electors of Kingston and
the Islands who once again have done me the honour of electing
me to represent them in the House. I enjoyed my first five years
in Parliament immensely. I am very grateful the electors have
seen fit to choose me once again to represent them. I look
forward to doing so on a different side of the House this time and
I hope more effectively than last. I certainly will work as hard as
I did last time and will continue to work in their best interests in
Parliament, and indeed for the best interests of Canadians as a
whole.
I thank the Prime Minister for giving me the opportunity to
serve as a parliamentary secretary, particularly to the
government House leader, the dean of the House and one of its
most distinguished members of this House. It is a privilege to
work with him. I look forward to my continuing work as
parliamentary secretary, at least for the next period of time.
For those of us who sat in the Chamber for the last five
years-and I am sure I could extrapolate from that and say for
those who were here for the last nine years-the election results
could hardly have been a surprise. We sitting in opposition at the
time watched a government that stumbled from blunder to
blunder. I know the evidence of its errors and of its failures was
amply borne out in the electoral result and of course was borne
out by the fact that the Progressive Conservative Party, which
was once one of Canada's great national parties, was destroyed
electorally in the election on October 25 last year.
The seeds of its destruction were sown in the course of the
Parliament that had carried on since the election in 1984. As a
party it consistently ignored the wishes of the people of Canada
and persistently did its utmost, it seemed, to betray the trust that
had been placed in it as a government, in that it was elected on a
certain platform which it failed to deliver on.
We have seen a significant change, I submit, in the political
climate. The Liberal Party of Canada which won the last election
came forward with a platform that was reasonable, clearly
acceptable and offered a real possibility that it could be
implemented. That cannot be said of all the promises of all the
other parties. The argument was made and made forcefully
throughout the campaign that in putting forward the red book the
Liberal
590
Party was offering a policy alternative to Canadians, one that
was reasonable and that could be implemented. In other words,
it was a believable program.
Everything the government has done so far since it took office
in November has been in fulfilment of those promises and has
indicated to Canadians that it is a government committed to
fulfilling its promises and that it is able to do exactly that
because its promises are reasonable. I know that some of them
will be difficult. We know that financial circumstances are
worse than predicted, but the government is committed to trying
to solve the problems that it was elected to solve and will
continue to do that.
What were those problems? What were the problems that we
were elected to resolve? There were two. I know the Reform
Party likes to harp about the deficit. We acknowledge that is a
problem. I call it problem number two. However the first and
foremost and most difficult problem is that of unemployment in
Canada.
Unemployment has reached what I would call crisis
proportions because it has removed hope from Canadians. It has
removed it from principally two categories of Canadians: first,
our young people and, second, older workers who have lost their
jobs and have no hope of getting another one. They have lost
them prior to retirement age, prior to pension time. They have
real despair with a lack of income and a breakdown in the normal
earning pattern that their lives would have given them had
things carried on in the usual way. It was a complete change in
expectation. It was a totally unexpected downturn in events in
terms of their prospects.
(1340)
Most people who are working can manage some period of
unemployment, but they do not expect to be out of work
permanently for years just because their job has disappeared.
That is what has happened all across the country as a result of the
prolonged recession we have been through, a recession which I
need hardly remind members was induced by the previous
government. The previous government boasted about how it had
induced that recession because it thought the best thing was to
slow the economy down.
Here we are with these two groups of unemployed people. I
turn particularly to the young people because, as many members
of the House will know, Kingston is home to two of Canada's
universities: Queen's University and the Royal Military
College. I have spoken of this before in the previous Parliament
and I am pleased to be able to do so again today.
There are thousands of graduates from these universities.
RMC graduates fortunately at the moment still have
employment in the Canadian Armed Forces, but the graduates
from Queen's University are finding it extremely difficult to get
jobs. I am sure there are members of the House who have had
applications for employment from people across the country,
people with masters of arts degrees and people with doctorates
who are unable to get another job and will take a low paying job
in order to get work. It is happening all the time.
I told this story many times during the election campaign. On
a drive back to Kingston one night about a year ago I stopped at a
gas bar. The young woman who was working behind the cash
recognized me when I put down my credit card. She asked if I
were not the member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands
and I said yes. How did she know? She had two degrees from
Queen's University, a bachelor of arts and a bachelor of
education, and she was selling gas. She could not get any other
job. That is a national tragedy; that is a national disaster.
It is a tragedy for her because she is unable to get work for
which she is well qualified. It is a disaster for us because we
have invested big money in her education and now we are unable
to get it back in terms of tax revenue. She should be working at a
good job that pays a good wage and paying taxes so that we can
afford to keep other people in school longer and we can provide
for the sick and the helpless in our society who need money.
Instead she is in a very low paying job, probably at minimum
wage, and not contributing to society in the way that she has
been trained to do.
That is a disaster for us. It is happening all around us and all
the time. In its election platform our party committed itself to
changing that around and creating jobs for people and keeping
people at work. That is the fundamental mission the government
is committed to. It has to be committed to it. Members of our
party are working to achieve that goal.
I know that the members of the Reform Party say: ``You have
to be able to represent your constituents; you have to have free
votes''. I have no concern about voting for policies that support
the principles enunciated in the red book. Indeed I consider it
my duty to support those policies. I suggest to hon. members in
the Reform Party that they have a similar obligation. They ran
on a platform. Throughout the campaign I was pressed to read
and look at copies of publications that enunciated Reform's
solution for all of Canada's problems: all the deficit cutting
figures, all the reductions in government expenditure that was
going to bring salvation to Canadians.
I disagreed with them, and I said so. I expect Reform members
in the House will support very strongly the policies put forward
in those documents. If they do not support them there will be
people to call them to account, because that is what they were
elected to do. If their constituents decide in their wisdom later
that those policies were the wrong ones and tell them so, what
are the Reform members going to do? Are they going to listen to
their constituents or are they going to stick by their promises? I
predict if the cuts in the Reform package were made and their
591
constituents objected, there would be howls and cries from their
constituents and they would want to change their minds.
(1345)
In my view we have an obligation as a party to support the
principles and policies we were elected on. Our policies were
clear. Our policies were set forth in the red book. I know it is
much talked about, and some laugh at it, but the fact is that it was
the only major policy document issued by any political party in
the campaign that comprehensively dealt with the issues. It was
the benchmark by which every other party's platform was
measured. I can safely say, given the numbers in the House, that
it was clearly the best. None of the others measured up anywhere
near to the standard set by the red book.
We have that set of policies that will guide the government in
its work. We have heard speeches from many of the ministers in
the course of this six-day debate. They have all spelled out in
detail other policies that were given in sketch form in the red
book. Those have been made manifest in the House and indeed
to the country.
Members of the opposition say they want details. I suggest the
details have been provided. The budget will provide further
detail.
This is a government on the move. It has established its
priorities. It has made its commitments and it is living up to
them. I am very pleased to be a part of it and to support it.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Madam Speaker, I begin by sincerely
thanking the hon. member for so lucidly explaining to us our
duties and obligations to our constituents as if we really did not
understand them at all.
With respect to his thesis on the relationship between taxation
and jobs I would respectfully submit that if governments could
create jobs and if raising taxes and increased government
revenue would create jobs, his university student with two
degrees would have two jobs.
We have had 20 years of wildcat government spending,
attempts by governments to manage the economy and to give
jobs to people where there were no jobs to be had. It is time to
discard this old and discredited philosophy and realize that we
cannot continue to selectively bleed portions of the corpse of our
country to bring in more and more revenue until we finally
finish off everything.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia for his comment. I
felt it was time to give him a lecture on his duty to his
constituents because almost daily we get a similar lecture from
members of his party. I thought it was time to correct the
imbalance and perhaps give a more accurate statement of those
principles.
However, that aside, I also suggest to him that the matter of
revenue is not the only issue involved in deficit reduction. I am
sure he would agree with me when I say that if more people are
working government revenues increase. When a person goes
back to work who was previously either drawing unemployment
insurance or welfare, the person starts paying taxes again which
increases government revenue. At the same time the person
stops drawing unemployment insurance or welfare which
decreases government expenditure. That helps bring about a
fiscal balance between revenue and expenditure on the
government side.
We stated throughout the campaign that our aim as a party was
to create jobs so that Canadians who were costing the
government money start paying the government money. We
would then achieve a greater balance. It is quite simple. It is
simply a matter of ensuring that it happens. It does not all have
to happen by lavish expenditure of public funds. There are other
ways of achieving it. Encouragement and inducements can be
given to people in business to hire people. Inducement can be
given to small business, which is our principal job creator, to
hire people.
(1350)
If these things happen and Canadians start spending their
money and buying more consumer goods then more people will
be employed. It follows as night follows the day. If more are
employed then more pay taxes and fewer draw from the
government treasury in other expenses.
That is how one brings about fiscal balance. We can cut and
chop until the cows come home but every time one cuts and
chops without doing something to get people to work then one
throws more people out of work. If that keeps happening then
there are fewer and fewer paying taxes so how do we get the
revenue?
There is something that has never been costed in the package
of the Reform Party. I challenged the candidate in Kingston to
come up with this but of course Reform does not want to because
it would be so damaging to their case. Can they tell us how many
jobs will be lost because of the cuts they are proposing? That has
never been explained. How much revenue would the
government lose with the cuts they are proposing? That has
never been explained.
If that revenue is taken off, the deficit stays big. The chops
will not reduce the deficit. It will grow under those changes.
That is the problem with the Reform agenda and the Canadian
people saw through it and they voted this party into office. That
is why the Reform Party is sitting on that side of the House.
Their agenda frankly was unbelievable.
592
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Madam Speaker,
since this will be my maiden speech in the House, I would like to
take this opportunity to congratulate all members on their
election. It would have been nice to see more members opposite,
because it may be the only time I have cause to congratulate
them. The Bible says that on the seventh day, God rested, but I
see my colleagues opposite start resting on the fifth.
If all members of this Parliament are imbued, as I am, with a
desire to serve our constituents, during this session we should be
able to put in place all that is necessary for genuine economic
recovery. Economic recovery is essential for this country and
even more so for my riding.
Voters in the riding of Matapédia-Matane expect a lot from
their federal member. At the beginning of this mandate, my
constituents are delighted they finally have a member who will
be able to speak his mind, and speak it more often, in this House
and in the riding.
I also want to take this opportunity to offer my constituents
my full co-operation and thank them for their support. I will do
everything in my power to give them what they are entitled to
expect of a federal member, especially a sovereigntist member
in Ottawa.
In fact, voters in Matapédia-Matane made a very clear
choice on October 25. My opponent, whose party is on the
government side today, received the full support of the party
machine, but voters made a clear decision. Once again, I want to
take this opportunity to thank them.
For me, to participate actively in politics is part and parcel of
my longstanding commitment to my community. I believe in
this wonderful region, in the energy and determination of the
people who live there, and that is the main reason for my
commitment.
My presence in the House today as a member of the Bloc
Quebecois also arises from an act of faith in the sovereignty of
Quebec. To be sovereign means to be free to do things one's own
way and it also means to be in charge of one's own economic and
social development.
People in the riding of Matapédia-Matane have the energy
and determination to take charge of their own lives. People
consult each other and share the tools they need to develop the
impressive potential of their region, whether we are talking
about forestry, tourism, mining or other sectors of the economy.
The men and women of this riding have set up consultation
tables where they share their experience.
(1355)
In my riding, we have industry and business people who
believe in that region and who do their share for the
development of that new social contract. It is with those people
that I want to work. It is for those men and women that I came to
this House.
So, my goal is twofold: the development of my riding and the
sovereignty of Quebec.
Let me introduce you in a few words to the riding of
Matapédia-Matane. I live in a community of about 5 000
people that have provided the Church with three bishops who are
still alive.
They are His Grace the Archbishop Louis Lévesque, who was
born in Amqui, His Lordship Belzile, who is now in Africa, and
His Lordship Dumais, who has just been appointed to the Gaspé
diocese. He is a friend and I am very proud of that. Perhaps a
new Guinness record has just been established in my riding.
The main resource in my riding is forestry and, because
people believed in them, we managed to keep several villages
from closing in the early 1970s. Forest business owners got
together to establish a management company and used known
forestry methods to develop their forests. They were so
successful that twenty years later, in 1993, the Canadian
Forestry Association bestowed upon the 17 MRC municipalities
of the Matapédia Valley the title of forest capital of Canada. I
take this opportunity to congratulate its president, Mr. Daniel
Lamarre, and all his team.
The commitment towards forest management as an economic
development tool for ensuring the survival of the small
communities of my riding is well underway. We owe it to those
workers and owners who once believed that it was possible for
them to continue living in their communities.
On the north shore of the Gaspe Peninsula, there is also a
fishery industry. It is going through an unprecedented crisis, and
it needs help. Everyone here has heard about the delicious
Matane shrimp and has feasted on them.
In that part of the riding there is also aquaculture, a
fast-growing industry which shows considerable promise,
because of the constant crises in the fisheries.
There is also the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, in
Sainte-Flavie, where they carry out interesting and much
needed research on sea products. By the way, the institute is still
waiting for funds to finish the breakwater in order to dock its
research boat. Unfortunately, funds for this project were
reallocated by the former government. It is costing the institute
extra money each year to dock the boat elsewhere.
In Mont-Joli, the regional airport has been waiting almost ten
years for millions of dollars. Let me says that I will keep asking
for those funds.
In my riding there is a shipyard managed by a very dynamic
team of women employing a highly skilled labour force. That
industry is also going through a crisis. It too needs help.
593
The tourist industry is big in the riding of
Matapédia-Matane. We have ski resorts with a skiing season
longer than anywhere else east of the Rockies, and using only
natural snow. Come and see us some time, come and ski with us,
hon. members.
I could not fully describe the riding of Matapédia-Matane
without mentioning its wildlife. Hunters and fishermen come
from all over Canada, and from abroad to practice their
favourite sport. Our salmon rivers, like the Matapédia and the
Matane rivers, are renowned worldwide. All these sectors must
be recognized as part of our regional economy.
Matapédia-Matane used to be an agricultural riding, but
unfortunately agriculture is waning. There are fewer
opportunities for the young generation since farms have become
small and medium-sized businesses or large corporations. Fine,
you say! Perhaps. However, it is far from easy to find people
willing to assume such a heavy financial burden. The way things
stand now, young people simply cannot respond to the
challenge.
(1400)
In the past, even though they worked hard, our ancestors knew
very early that there would be someone to carry on. Nowadays,
there is no one willing to carry on because the burden is much
too heavy. So people auction off their farms. What a pity! Lands
with high quality topsoil lay fallow and are invaded by weeds or
spruce. Even well-established and hard-working farmers have
enormous problems.
Both the GATT and NAFTA have given rise to many concerns!
The removal of export quotas creates others, for those who
unfortunately have to work endless hours over the years. While
farmers in the past were a great source of pride to rural
communities, they are now disappearing before ours very eyes.
Instead of giving out millions of dollars worth of
unemployment benefits in my riding and others within Quebec
or Canada, is a responsible government not supposed to fight for
and get globally a fair price, an equivalent value for our farm
products? For years the Liberals and the Conservatives have had
no consideration for the rights of small communities. Is this
government going to keep neglecting those farmers? They start
by overtaxing them, then they shut down their post offices and
they deprive them of their means of communications by closing
down television stations, and so on. I will ask for a new review
of the case of Radio-Matane.
In my riding, there are some cattle farms. Yet, no
slaughterhouse is to be found within 250 kilometers. Is this not
unbelievable? So much for the village, so much for the city. Is
the minister of Agriculture well acquainted with rural areas? Is
he really concerned with the real problems? Villages such as Les
Méchins, Saint-Charles-Garnier, Petite-Matane, Val-Brillant,
Saint-Damase, Saint-Noël, Sainte-Jeanne and Sainte-Irène are
charming areas that have a right to survive and where people
have the right to work. It is a matter of dignity. Yet, for more
than 20 years, these small villages have had problems.
The question I am asking myself and my colleagues in this
House is whether people in these small villages still have the
right to live at home. As long as these rural people pay taxes to
the federal government, I will fight for them. That is why they
elected me. They are not getting their due. These men and
women have spent their lives in forestry, fishing or farming;
they spent all their energy to raise a family and now, at 55, tired,
exhausted and even sick sometimes, they have no pension fund.
Should they be considered as pariahs of our society? No, Madam
Speaker!
I will plead for those men and women who have preserved true
family values, values so important that 1994 will be the
International Year of the Family. I will also fight for the young
people, a human resource of great richness, for those young
people who have to leave their region after high school or, in
some cases, after college. Unfortunately, most of them never
come back.
I ask all the members of the House to be more receptive, more
understanding of the rural way of life. The same thing could
happen to forestry in the near future. The former government
had announced it was withdrawing from the subsidiary
agreement with Quebec on forestry and from the forest
development program in eastern Quebec.
(1405)
The non-renewal of these two programs will affect more than
18,000 foresters in eastern Quebec. In the lower St. Lawrence
region, more than 50 per cent of private woodlot owners take
part in development whereas that figure is about 12 per cent for
the province as a whole.
During the campaign, the Liberal Party acknowledged the
positive impact of these programs and promised it would
examine its financial contribution and bring it back to previous
levels. I will personally see to it that they fulfill that
commitment. The Minister of Natural Resources can count on
my co-operation. These programs must be re-evaluated and she
must consult all stakeholders. It is those involved in the area
who can best advise her.
At a time when, on a global scale, there is so much talk of
sustainable development and the protection of ecosystems I can
assure this House that, in my riding, forestry workers are ready
and eager to meet the challenge.
More that 20 years ago, pool management came to my riding.
Two thousand producers are still on the waiting list to take part
in this collective effort.
594
The area set up the necessary structures to carry on. We have a
forestry school and a research centre in Causapscal. Our
workforce is better qualified and increasingly competent.
When the previous government decided to make cuts in those
two programs, it did not understand that putting money into
private woodlots yields returns far in excess of the initial
investment.
Investing in forestry is investing in the industry's future.
Investing in private woodlots is bringing raw material closer to
the processing industry. Investing in private woodlots is
ensuring the survival of dynamic small businesses, but also the
creation of thousands of jobs in rural communities. Investing in
forestry is investing for the long term in an industry which has
always brought pride to this country and the 370 Quebec
communities it supports.
Can the government ignore the efforts made by the forestry
producers in my riding, who have done so much to promote
forest development? Now is not the time to let them down. On
the contrary, now is the time to streamline those programs to
increase their efficiency. We must support the full development
of the forestry industry, in Quebec and Canada. To stop
investing in private woodlots would mean the certain death of
all small remote communities.
We must increase research into new technologies, and speed
up their transfer to those who really need them to make our
industry more competitive on the world markets.
We must develop new products which will bring to the regions
new small businesses which create so many well-paying jobs.
Resources must be processed locally. We no longer want to be
drawers of water and hewers of wood. People in my riding
deserve much more than that.
We must develop new markets for these products. And last but
not least, we must aim at quality. People in my riding know what
quality is.
Those are the very realistic mandates that we, in this House,
can give ourselves. It is what my constituents are asking.
Men and women in the riding of Matapédia-Matane want to
be actively involved in meeting the challenges of the 21st
century.
Experts agree that if a major effort is not made in the next five
years to rescue the forestry industry in Canada, it will be too
late. This means that what was once a flagship Canadian
industry will drag down in its fall hundreds of thousands of jobs,
and hence hundreds of small communities depending on
forestry.
(1410)
I was deeply disappointed that the speech from the throne did
not even mention the natural resources sector.
Let's not forget that we do not inherit the land of our fathers,
we borrow the land of our children. I believe that the people of
my riding, those of Quebec, British Columbia and the Maritimes
need help to make our natural resources more and more
productive and more and more profitable.
Mr. Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Since this is the last day, I thought I had the concurrence of the
Liberal and Reform parties to allow for speeches of a full 20
minutes and that for the next three speakers we would forgo the
questions and comments period so that all those who are on the
roll for this afternoon could address the House.
Is the hon. member agreeing, as the member for Beauséjour
seems to be?
Mr. Graham: Yes, I agree, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Do I have unanimous
consent to end the questions and comments period?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased to stand in the House representing the people of Nepean
and starting my second term along with you.
In the last few days I have heard many members speak of how
beautiful their ridings are. I am sure they are all beautiful. I am
not going to claim Nepean as being the most beautiful riding in
the country but I will claim that its inhabitants are the most
beautiful people in the country.
Over the years I have represented the people of Nepean first as
a 10-year municipal politician and before that as an 11-year
employee of the city of Nepean. Now I am their federal member.
I have been representing the same people for 26 or 27 years. It is
a very great privilege for me to be again representing them. I
want to thank them for giving me this great honour to be in the
Parliament of Canada.
One of the things that we members of Parliament have to do is
be very flexible. I was not on the Speaker's list to speak today
but our whip said: ``Could the member for Nepean please be put
on the Speaker's roster''. I had to suddenly scurry around, get
some notes together and sound reasonably intelligent. I hope I
can do that and keep members awake at the same time.
When listening to Canada's Governor General deliver the
speech from the throne on January 18, I was struck that just
about every area where changes would take place would not only
have a positive effect on the country as a whole but they had a
595
very specific interest to the people who I represent in the city of
Nepean.
While I was a municipal and regional councillor a few years
ago, as I mentioned, I chaired the region's health committee. I
am pleased this government considers preventing illness is just
as important as caring for people with illnesses.
This government is committed to the Canadian health system
as we know it, one that is cost effective and sensitive to the
needs of all Canadians. To show just how serious we are in this
area, the Prime Minister will personally chair a national forum
on health. We are cognizant of the fact that health care is under
the purview of the provinces, and yet at the same time we know
that the Canada Health Act clearly outlines the federal
responsibility.
(1415)
I was especially pleased this government recognizes there are
gender differences in the health area. We are creating a centre of
excellence for women's health to ensure that women's health
issues receive the attention they deserve. As well, prenatal
nutrition programs for low income pregnant women will be
created and expanded.
I would like to express to the 37 women in the Liberal caucus
how delighted I am to have them as colleagues in the House of
Commons. They represent a diversity of backgrounds,
reflecting the true Canada. At the same time, I welcome the
women in the other parties, the Reform Party, the Bloc
Quebecois, the New Democrats and the independents. I
welcome them all to the House of Commons. I look forward to
getting to know them better as members of this House. I believe
that regardless of party, we as women have a common goal in
ensuring that our gender is properly represented in this country.
This government will address the staggering problem of
poverty among aboriginal children through our specific head
start program. This is something I am very excited about. It is
something that has been absent forever and it is something that
should cause us all to hang our heads in shame, that we have
allowed this to go on as long as it has.
During the election campaign the Liberal Party in our red
book-and we all love to quote the red book-stressed the
importance of job creation and economic growth. The speech
from the throne again stresses its importance. As I went door to
door in Nepean during the election campaign, just about every
household had a story to tell, and they were not happy stories. It
might be a son or a daughter or a husband who had been laid off,
or a university or college graduate unable to find employment. I
was greatly bothered by this. The despair they felt with the
economy and high unemployment deeply affected me.
It is very important to me that this government continues to
view job creation as its main priority. Yet I do not know of
anyone who is not concerned with this country's indebtedness.
We have to get the economy moving and get people back to work
and at the same time we also must address our indebtedness. For
these reasons and despite extremely difficult fiscal restraints,
the Liberal government has chosen to undertake a major
co-operative program of infrastructure renewal in this country.
As I mentioned before, when I was on municipal council I was
also on an organization called the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities. I was a director representing the regional
municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. This is an umbrella group
representing approximately 900 Canadian municipalities. The
organization for years had been petitioning the federal
government to be part of a tripartite agreement in infrastructure
renewal.
When I was elected to Parliament in 1988 I, along with my
colleague from Ottawa Centre, formed a national Liberal task
force on infrastructure. We travelled the country and met with
individuals. We met with the business community and we met
with the civic leaders, inviting their opinions on such a tripartite
agreement.
We as co-chairs presented our report to the Liberal caucus and
it was as a result of our findings along with the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities' recommendations that the
infrastructure program was put in place.
Why do I make this point? I am not making it to blow my own
horn or to bring attention to myself. I am bringing this point
forward to you who are backbenchers or to you who are in
opposition-and I am still a backbencher here-I want you to
know that every person in this Parliament can make a difference.
Never be afraid to stand on your feet and say what you really
believe you can do in this House, because you can make a
difference. You have got to keep pressing it.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Gaffney: The federal contribution to the infrastructure
program will be very tangible and very significant. We are
providing the provinces and municipalities with a total of $2
billion over the next two years. For the most part the federal
contribution will be matched equally by the provinces and
municipalities. This will provide for a total joint program of $6
billion and that is a very significant sum of money.
(1420)
Another issue that had a major impact on me during the
campaign concerned women at home. These were mothers who
stayed at home. Over and over again it was repeated to me at the
door by mothers who choose to stay home with their children
596
that they were not being given equal status to their counterparts
who are mothers who went out to work.
There were two or three particular areas. One was with regard
to child care. The mum who was at work was able to claim this
on her income tax. The mother who stayed at home was not able
to claim the child care on her income tax. The woman who went
to work was able to pay into the CPP. The woman who was home
was not able to and thus was not able to collect a pension. There
are inequalities in the system that we must recognize. We must
work to negate those inequalities.
I heard from small businesses about how they are
overburdened with taxes. The amount of paper work just
consumes far too much time, effort and money.
We heard about the banks and how they were just putting the
arm lock on businesses and not allowing them to expand as they
should. We know that they create 80 per cent of the jobs in this
country. We know there are approximately 800,000. Would it
not be wonderful if all of them could each hire one person? We
must work with our investment institutions to solve the
problems of inadequate capital in small and medium sized
business.
The other evening I was at a dinner and the guest speaker was
the human resources director for a local high tech company. He
said the universities today are not graduating engineers suitable
to his high tech company or they are not graduating enough
engineers. They were going to the U.K. to hire engineers for a
Canadian high tech company.
I find that absolutely disgraceful. I hope that our government
will work with our schools, colleges and universities to ensure
that we are putting out engineers or whatever profession is
needed in the market today. The market is changing from day to
day so our universities must make sure that our young people's
education is headed in the right direction.
It has been a real pleasure to speak here on such short notice in
this House of Commons this afternoon. I thank you very much,
Madam Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to
address this House and take part in the debate in reply to the
throne speech. I want to start by congratulating the Speaker and
all those who sit in the Chair in this great chamber.
I would also like to congratulate in a very special way the
Prime Minister and our government on the contents of the throne
speech. It was clear from day one that the government intended
to follow through on the commitments made to Canadians
during the election campaign in its famous red book.
A day rarely goes by without someone in my riding contacting
me to request a copy of this celebrated document, this famous
red book. It has become, if you will pardon the expression, a
bible of sorts on how to restore the confidence of Canadians in
government.
I admit that when we made this document public during the
election campaign, I was a little worried, as were many
candidates, about the risk we were taking by laying out our
agenda for all to see.
But the wisdom of the leader of the Liberal Party, today the
Prime Minister, in deciding to approach the Canadian electorate
in such a way has been confirmed. Canadians took a close look at
our platform.
(1425)
And they said: yes, generally we like what we see. I know that
not everyone agreed with every aspect of our program, but they
told us, yes, here is an election program. Finally, someone has
the courage to tell us what they intend to do, and we are prepared
to trust people who are open and have nothing to hide.
Therefore, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister once again
for taking this stand.
[English]
I also want to thank the electors of the riding of
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for their support during the last
election. They have chosen to return me to this place, which is
very special for me and for all those who are here and indeed for
our electors.
A former Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker, once said there
was no greater honour for a Canadian than to have this privilege
of representing his or her fellow constituents in the highest court
in the land, the Parliament of Canada.
I agree with that. I espouse that theory and I will attempt again
to live up to those expectations of my constituents who have
chosen to send me to this highest court in the land.
[Translation]
The makeup of the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is
somewhat unique. My riding is home to some 100,000 people,
65 per cent of whom are Franco-Ontarians. Francophones thus
make up the majority linguistic group in my riding. They are not
assimilated. Nor have they lost their language and culture. In
fact, 92 per cent of my constituents were born in Ontario. They
have preserved their language and culture, despite what some of
the members opposite might claim from time to time.
[English]
Of the other constituents of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
approximately 35 per cent are English and about 5 per cent are of
other languages and cultures.
In Glengarry-Prescott-Russell there is the township of
Cumberland. I had the opportunity of serving the people of that
area since 1976 since I was first elected at the municipal level. I
was re-elected to represent them in 1978 and in 1980. In 1981 I
had the honour and privilege of sitting in the Ontario legislature
and in 1984 I was elected to this House of Commons. I was
597
re-elected in 1988 and again in 1993 to represent the people of
my area.
I owe a special thanks to the people of Cumberland township
who allowed me to begin this career of public service.
[Translation]
I also have the honour of representing the counties of Prescott
and Russell and for those of you who are somewhat familiar with
the region, Prescott County was part of New France prior to the
Constitution Act of 1791. The Township of Longueuil used to be
the Longueuil seigneury before the Constitution Act. As those
members on the other side who are historians know, there was
also a seigneury in Kingston, the Frontenac seigneury.
[English]
I also have the honour of representing the people of
Glengarry. Glengarry is a very special place in the history of
Canada. It was there in 1784 that Sir John Johnson came from
the United States with the United Empire Loyalists, or as they
were known in those days the empire loyalist refugees.
That is what they were. They were people who took refuge and
who came back to be under British dominion and who left the
Mohawk Valley, came north across the St. Lawrence River and
established the community of Williamstown. Williamstown in
Glengarry was named after Sir William Johnson, the father of
the founder of the community Sir John Johnson to whom I have
already referred.
They established that community where the Northwest
Company was subsequently established. The people of
Williamstown then went on to explore other parts of Canada.
They were people like Simon Fraser, Thompson, Johnson, and
Alexander Mackenzie. They all lived in Williamstown in
Glengarry. I am very proud to have the honour and privilege of
representing such an historical place as Glengarry. I offer a
special tribute to the people of Glengarry county.
(1430)
There is a building in Glengarry where Sir John Johnson made
a request of Governor Haldimand at Quebec for a special
designation for his part of the colony which was then Quebec.
He wanted a special region to be founded where the people
would be able to have English laws under which they would live.
This is because after the Quebec Act the Quebec civil code
existed and land tenure was of the seigniorial kind and so on. He
wanted his residents to have English customs, laws and land
tenure.
I would make the argument that he wanted to establish a
distinct society for the anglophones who had just moved into
that part of what was then the colony of Quebec. He got it. It was
called the Constitution Act of 1791 that established what then
became the province of Upper Canada and it occurred right there
in the village of Williamstown in the great county of Glengarry
that I have the opportunity to represent.
The people from Scotland then came as a result of the
highland clearances when the English barons decided to clear
the highlands of Scotland to make room for sheep. Many people
again became refugees. They crossed the ocean and came to
Glengarry county to join with the United Empire Loyalists to
form that great community that still exists.
Still today there are some few people in Glengarry who speak
Gaelic. In many cases, of those who do not speak it, one would
swear from their accent that they still do.
[Translation]
I have the very special honour and privilege of representing
that area. I also have the honour of representing the native
community of Akwesasne, a community which has been in
turmoil, and still is, because of cigarette smuggling.
Some may say that it is nobody's fault but their own if
Akwesasne natives are facing that problem, but that is not true.
They too are victims. Consider the young resident of Akwesasne
who was coaxed by the criminal element into carrying
shipments of cigarettes across the Saint Lawrence River to earn
$100, $200 or $300 a day and then buy a car or whatever else
young people dream about, especially those who are out of
work. He and others like him are victims of this smuggling
business. Let us never forget that.
The smuggling problem is an extremely serious one.
Yesterday, a minister in the Ontario Cabinet said that it was the
kind of problem that existed only in Quebec. With all due
respect, that is not true. Nearly 40 per cent of cigarettes in
Ontario, not Quebec, are sold illegally. One out of every four
illegal cigarettes in Canada travels through my riding, across the
Akwesasne River.
[English]
Finally, every single day 1,000 cases of cigarettes enter
Canada in my riding alone at $1,000 profit per case. That is a
million dollars a day that the criminal element makes.
Tomorrow morning when we all wake up we can think of it in the
following way. Last night the criminals made another million
dollars in eastern Ontario by profiteering at the expense of all of
us and at the expense of those whom we represent.
(1435)
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Madam Speaker, in response to the throne speech I would like to
congratulate the government on its commitment to introduce
598
measures to enhance community safety and crime prevention.
During the election campaign my constituents considered that
criminal justice reform was one of the major issues. My
constituents made it quite clear that they expect this Parliament
to bring greater protection to society.
I believe it is safe to say that all Canadians will not settle for
anything less. Now that the government has raised the people's
expectations that there will be change, this government must
take action to meet their promises. Canadians must see that this
government is serious about enhancing community safety. They
will not be satisfied merely with new initiatives. Canadians
want results.
While we welcome the government's commitment to
introduce measures to combat the high level of violence against
women and children, we hope the government is dedicated to a
strategy based on reducing all forms of violence no matter the
gender or age of the victim.
My constituency contains large numbers of retired
individuals and teenagers. Members of these groups have
expressed their concerns about becoming victims. They feel
particularly prone to random and senseless acts of violence.
While I encourage the government to proceed with its measures
to combat violence against women and children, it must not lose
sight of the fact that all violent crimes must be condemned and
prosecuted with equal vigour.
In my maiden address to the House on Tuesday I mentioned an
unfortunate growth in criminal activity was accompanying the
rapid growth in my constituency. However the increase in crime
seems to be far exceeding the growth in population. An example
of this increase can be shown in the homicide statistics for the
city of Surrey. Over the last two years there was a total of 27
homicides in Surrey. Over the previous five years there were
only 24.
I will not dwell on the numbers other than to say that they are
cause for concern. But numbers do not even begin to tell the
story of violent crime. One of the most disturbing aspects of
some of these homicides were that they were teenagers killing
other teenagers.
I can tell this House it is not easy to listen to the parents of
young victims of murder. Yet in my brief career as a member of
Parliament I have had the occasion to meet with two parents who
lost their children to violent crimes. I have to acknowledge the
courage they had to come to me and talk to me about what it is
that needs to be changed so that other Canadians do not have to
have their children in the same situation.
Teenagers have been killed for their hats, their jackets and
their running shoes. Others have been killed because their
killers did not like the way they looked at them.
One father I met lost his son in one of these senseless killings
in 1992. He, however, is fighting back. He and a group of his
colleagues have formed the organization CRY, Crime,
Responsibility, Youth. This organization has been among the
most vocal groups calling for amendments to the Young
Offenders Act. Despite the non-partisan philosophy of the
organization CRY the recommendations of the group are quite
similar to my party's position on reforming the Young Offenders
Act. Changes must be made. The law has to be tightened up and
violent teenage offenders have to realize they cannot hide
behind the act.
The problem with the Young Offenders Act is inherent in the
act itself. Most Canadians can accept the premise that a 14 year
old who has shoplifted a piece of candy should not go to jail nor
have a criminal record. However these same Canadians do
believe there should not be such leniency for a 14 year old who
shoots the store clerk while robbing the cornerstore.
Another incident that illustrates the ineffectiveness of the
Young Offenders Act occurred in my riding late last year. On
Halloween evening two off-duty Mounties were attacked and
beaten by a gang of teenagers. In December a teenager visiting
our area was stabbed at a local convenience store. One of those
apprehended in the stabbing was awaiting trial for the
Halloween attack on the Mounties. When this information
became public I was inundated with calls from my constituents
expressing their outrage at a judicial system that would allow
this to happen.
(1440)
I promised them that I would strive to bring changes to the law
to prevent this from occurring again. I intend to keep this
promise. The Young Offenders Act needs significant changes.
Even the young offenders admit that the act is a joke.
The government says it will introduce measures to combat the
high level of violence against women and children. However
right now teenagers charged with violent attacks on women and
children are being able to hide behind the Young Offenders Act.
Young offenders convicted of violent attacks on women and
children have received insignificant sentences because of the
act. If the government is to live up to its commitment of
protecting women and children, it is going to have to change the
act.
I acknowledge the comments of the Minister of Justice
yesterday that changes will be made. I and my colleagues look
forward to working with him in making sure that those changes
will indeed address the real problems.
The Young Offenders Act has certainly become a lightening
rod for people's anger with the failure of the criminal justice
system. However it is by no means the only piece of legislation
that needs to be amended. Changes are necessary to the Criminal
Code to allow for recognition of victim's rights. It is time for the
victim of criminal activity to receive priority from our justice
system.
599
Another area that must be addressed is the entire issue of
parole. Supposedly severe sentences have frequently amounted
to little more than slaps on the wrist because of the parole
system. This has become particularly evident with the recent
stories of individuals convicted of first degree murder and
sentenced to life, 25 years without parole. We now find that no
parole for 25 years can somehow mean parole after 15.
When capital punishment was removed from the Criminal
Code, Canadian police officers were assured that they would be
protected. They were told there was a general deterrent effect in
an automatic life sentence with no parole for 25 years for the
murder of a police officer. Our police officers are now finding
that those individuals who killed their fellow officers may now
get out after 15 years.
As my constituency is the home to the largest RCMP
detachment in the country, I would like to be able to assure these
men and women that Parliament will pass whatever legislation
is necessary to protect them.
Almost one year ago the Standing Committee on Justice and
the Solicitor General of the 34th Parliament presented its 12th
report entitled ``Crime Prevention in Canada: Toward a National
Strategy''. The committee listed a series of recommendations
dealing mainly with the development of a national crime
prevention policy. The step is a positive one and perhaps long
overdue.
However this is a long range plan. These crime prevention
strategies may have an impact, but when? Will it be this year,
next year, five years down the road, or maybe even ten years?
Canadians do not want to wait. They do not want to hear about
initiatives. They want results. I do not think that the crime
prevention policies are going to provide the results in the short
term.
In the long term we have to identify the root causes of
criminal behaviour. We also have to develop effective means
and measures of treating criminal behaviour. We have to
continue to experiment and to try to address these issues.
Canadians are not prepared to accept the status quo until
solutions are found. They want to feel safe in their communities
today. They want the government to take immediate steps to
accomplish this. The best way to accomplish this is by keeping
violent criminals off the streets of Canada. While this may not
be the most conducive means of rehabilitating criminals, we
have to recognize that protecting the lives of Canadian citizens
is paramount to the rehabilitation of violent criminal offenders.
My caucus colleagues and I are quite prepared to assist the
government in developing policy that will provide Canadian
society with protection from violent criminal activity.
Canadians are expecting this protection. This government has
promised it and now we have to provide it.
One area where government may not expect as much
co-operation from us is its plan to restore the court challenges
program.
(1445 )
Our party has a fundamental problem with a government that
gives out scarce taxpayers' dollars to special interest groups so
that they can turn around and sue the government. This program,
which appears to be an infrastructure program for the legal
profession, does not make sense in today's economic reality.
The government's position on justice reform has potential as
long as the government attaches the right priorities. If it fails to
acknowledge the priorities, the Reform Party will continue to
lead the fight for society's right to be protected.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Madam Speaker,
when I rose to first speak in the House earlier this week I
acknowledged your appointment to the Chair and extended good
wishes to all of my colleagues here. Given the very serious
nature of that peacekeeping debate, my focus was on a world far
away. I commented from my heart on a rupturing world order.
My thoughts today however spring from the heart of my
political experience, and that is my riding of Calgary Southeast.
Calgary Southeast is a large urban riding made up of 20 small
communities complemented by a setting of parks and rivers
under a brilliant blue prairie sky, which I really miss today.
Calgary Southeast is unique because it is a riding of difference.
Its different business needs cover everything from large
manufacturing and transportation operations to small mom and
pop cornerstores. Its economic profile is different because it is
home to some of the wealthier residents of Calgary as well as
some of its most impoverished. However, the concerns of my
constituents are neither defined nor confined by these
differences, because they freely cross the income brackets.
The throne speech only briefly commented upon a plan for
social reform to be completed within two years. This has great
relevance for those differences I mentioned earlier within the
riding. One could say it is a halting step for change when leaps
and bounds are needed.
It would seem by the time the government gets around to
implementing any changes the 1990s will be more than half
over. Leadership is required but not to take us back to the
standards of the 1980s, because our current economic situation
just will not allow that. Our social security net can no longer
continue to be championed by proponents of the status quo.
Quite frankly, it fails the legitimate needs of Canadians as we
move into the 21st century.
The challenge I bring here today is to re-think universality
and what it means. I use the word challenge because I do not
600
have to impress on anyone the fragility of our social programs as
we face a staggering federal deficit and debt.
There is a continuing and increasing sense of panic in our
business communities and among the constituents I represent. It
is rather like the panic you would feel if you suddenly found
yourself unable to pay for this wonderful dinner you had just
eaten at a city restaurant, after having been encouraged and
invited to take whatever you wanted from the menu. Just
imagine that the dinner is over, the last coffees have been poured
and the waiter brings the bill. You have no cash. So you give the
waiter your credit card, but he comes back saying that it is over
your credit limit. You try to write a cheque but the waiter will
not accept it.
So how do we explain this crisis in terms of a country? More
important, how do we explain this crisis in terms of people?
I was elected on a platform that offers hope to all the people of
Canada. But I can tell you one thing: No one is prepared for
rhetoric any longer, nor for promises that cannot be kept. To
realize that I only have to go back to my election campaign. I
met so many voters on the doorsteps who were fed up,
disappointed, either out of work or worried about job loss, or
who were just plain mad.
(1450 )
I know from these neighbourhood experiences that politics
and politicians had better move toward major social change and
do it fast. There has been much talk, profuse public professions
of social concern for those who are less able to care for
themselves: the sick, the old, the unemployed and the poor.
This leads me to believe that the legitimate role of
government is to do for people whatever they need to have done,
but cannot do at all or do as well for themselves individually or
through non-government organizations.
With our mounting debt, the provision of government funds
for various groups and organizations is no longer an option. As
this reality becomes accepted, organizations are lowering their
dependency on the public purse and indeed are taking pride in
being able to sustain themselves as associations providing
valuable community service without the need for taxpayers'
dollars.
I can give an example. One couple in my riding has dedicated
themselves to just such an idea. About a year ago, they
co-founded a centre for recovering drug and alcohol abusers.
This centre differs from other programs in that it provides a
haven for these people for a three month period while they find
themselves moving back into the mainstream of society. The
need for a centre of this type is very great and there is now a
large waiting list in Calgary for the services that this centre
offers.
There is no immediate possibility for expansion as operations
are dependent solely on the fund-raising abilities of this group
and after they have taken care of their operations there really is
not very much money left over at all. However, my constituents
are proud that they are making a positive difference and that
they are doing it independently of government funding.
I also believe that Canadians have a personal and collective
responsibility to care and provide for the basic needs of people
who are unable to care and provide for themselves. We can no
longer afford, either morally or financially, to provide all things
to all people.
This notion of universality has bred entitlement over
assistance for those who really need help to care for themselves.
As an idea, universality has a major economic impact because it
continues to feed the national debt, now a half trillion dollars. It
is time for a new definition that does not include social
programs being run by bureaucrats.
Canadian society is founded on the principles of fundamental
justice. Therefore a new approach is to consider rational and
compassionate care for the poor, the sick, the aged and the
young, ensuring that 100 per cent of those who need help will
receive it 100 per cent of the time.
I remember door-knocking during the election campaign and
being asked over and over again about the Reform's plan to
include old age security reductions as it moved to balance the
budget. It was a hard thing for people to understand, but I
explained that our plan called for a reduction and gradual
elimination of those old age security payments to homes whose
family income exceeded the national average income of
$54,000.
Many people in my riding could never have imagined having
money like that. If they did they said they would gladly forgo
some it to assist those less able to care for themselves. However,
entitlement has blurred the lines of real need and we find
ourselves with an idea that is out of date and financially
unworkable.
I believe in the common sense of my constituents. Nowhere is
this better exemplified than by a group of seniors living in a
Calgary Southeast provincially subsidized housing complex.
They came to know me pretty well during the campaign because
I would often stop by there and have coffee with them. They
represent one of those groups who I see will need continued help
and support through targeted social spending.
The last time I had coffee with them was just before the
election. I was asked: ``Will you come back and have coffee with
us, Jan, after you're elected?'' They had pretty positive sense
there. ``We want you to speak for us, to remember us, and to stop
by once in a while so that we can see that you have not changed
and that you are still the same''. They expect no less than what I
601
consistently offered, the truth and a commitment to try which is
what I offer here again today.
(1455)
My experience with the people in my riding tells me that
compassion must play a large role in the delivery mechanisms
that support social services to Canadians in need.
In closing, I would like to say that our compassion, coupled
with rational decision-making, will make the difference. It is
simply a matter of acting on our vision. When you dream great
dreams as big as this country the good happens and this is what
captures the heart.
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau): Madam
Speaker, as a preliminary matter, I would like to add my
congratulations to the Speaker and the deputies. On a personal
matter, I would like to thank my wife and family for their
support and hard work during the recent election campaign. It
was their efforts basically that brought me into this Chamber.
I would also like to thank all my hard workers and the people
of Timmins-Chapleau for giving me their overwhelming
support in the election. I can assure them that now as a member
of the highest court in this land, I will do my utmost to serve
them and this government.
I would like to tell you something about myself, Madam
Speaker, and something about my riding. First of all, I am a
young man born of immigrant parents. I was born and raised in
the western community of Unity, Saskatchewan. My parents had
emigrated from Germany and they farmed there. My friends
from the west will recognize and remember where Unity,
Saskatchewan is.
I received my primary and secondary education there and in
the latter part of the 1950s I came east. I attended the University
of Ottawa law school and graduated in 1962. At the conclusion
of that I established my practice in Timmins, Ontario, where I
have been to this date.
It was during the course of my university days here at the
University of Ottawa that I had the good fortune of meeting my
wife who was teaching school in Hull, Quebec. She is from
Notre-Dame-du-Laus, Quebec. I am sure my friends to the left
will know where Notre-Dame-du-Laus, Quebec is. At the time
that I met her she could not speak a word of English and of
course I could not speak a word of French.
We have now been married for some 33 years and I have
learned some French, by no means perfect, but my wife has
perfected the English language. Fortunately our children, all
four of them, are perfectly bilingual. As a matter of fact our
youngest daughter, who graduated from the School of
Journalism at Carleton University in 1990, is now doing her
masters at the University of Montreal.
That is basically who I am and where I came from. Of course I
practised law in the city of Timmins since 1962.
Timmins-Chapleau is a very diverse ethnic riding, but
basically has about a 45 per cent francophone population. The
rest of the population are of various nationalities: Finnish,
Italian, English and so on.
The base economies of the riding are mining and forestry.
Without these economies there would be no reason for any
human habitation in Timmins-Chapleau. As we all know,
mining and forestry is a large part of the total Canadian
economy, but since 1987, particularly in the mining sector, it has
been all but gutted because of the policies, or lack of policies, of
the previous government.
(1500 )
The mining industry is in a very serious decline. The ore
reserves are almost at their depletion point. The mining industry
advises us that unless we do something to revive and revitalize
the industry, in a matter of four to eight years we will have
another situation such as we have in the east coast fishery.
I attribute a lot of this to the previous government for cutting
the flow-through shares initiated by the Liberal government in
1983. That program made available a large amount of capital for
exploration. That capital has dried up since 1990. Now we are
told by the industry that the total amount being expended in
exploration is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300 million,
whereas to keep up mining reserves in the country we need a
minimum of $800 million a year expended on exploration.
I noted in the throne speech specifically there was no mention
made of mining. On October 15, during the course of the
election campaign, the Liberal government released its very
progressive and comprehensive mining policy. I know that
everyone is happy with it and that it must be implemented. It is
our task now at hand to implement the policies that were stated
by the Liberals in October 1993.
It is my contention that a good place for the government to
begin is by reintroducing flow-through shares. Aside from some
abuses that took place under the program we know that it
produced the capital required for exploration in the country.
Since that program was gutted in 1990 all our capital has been
going out of the country to Chile and other parts of the world
where exploration has increased. This has been to our detriment
and has resulted in the depletion of our ore reserves.
If the program were reintroduced by the government it would
re-establish and regain the capital so urgently required for
exploration. Although there have been critics of the program
who said it was a run on the treasury, there are studies
suggesting that the program was revenue neutral.
Let me give an example of what flow-through shares
produced for the country. In 1988 in Val d'or, Quebec, there was
a discovery made in the township of Louvicourt as a result of
flow-through financing. That was a world class metal ore
discovery. In the last two and a half years the company has spent
602
some $350 million to prepare the infrastructure to mine the
property. I am advised that by July of this year the mine will be
in full production. There have been many other discoveries, but
that world class discovery alone will more than pay tenfold for
anything that the flow-through shares may have cost the
treasury over the time the program was in existence up to 1990.
(1505)
It is my hope that, if not in the next budget, some future
budget will include the reintroduction of that program with
modifications so that abuses can be eliminated.
We have a lot of work to do in the mining sector. The people in
mining have been working very hard. They have told us what the
problems are. It is now up to the government to address those
problems and to implement the policies in our mining statement
on October 15, 1993.
I want mention something about the forestry sector because it
is another part of the basic economy of Timmins-Chapleau. It
contributes largely to the Canadian economy. I am advised that
in the last three or four years the pulp and paper industry people
have suffered great losses, some $2 billion to $4 billion. They
certainly have my support, and I am sure many people will
support them, in their efforts to delay the implementation of
effluent discharge reductions that were to take effect in 1995 by
two years.
I know my time is up and that I will have many more
occasions to speak. I will address those matters later.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Madam Speaker, this is the
first opportunity I have had in this House to congratulate you
and your fellow speakers on your great success and to wish you
good luck in the difficult task awaiting you.
[English]
Let me take this opportunity, in my first time speaking in this
35th Parliament, to say thank you to those who have helped me
be here today to speak on behalf of the people of Ottawa West
and, just as important, to speak on their behalf in terms of what
is good for our country.
I want to say a particular thanks to my family who has for
many years put up with a mother in politics. It certainly affects
one's family life. It certainly makes it difficult, but it has helped
me learn over the years as well how self-sufficient children can
be when they are left in a bit of benign neglect.
Above all I thank the voters of Ottawa West who have again
placed their confidence in me to come here to play an important
role on their behalf in the future of our country. It is a good time
as well to pay tribute to a former colleague in the House, the
Hon. Lloyd Francis, who for 30 years won the seat of Ottawa
West every second election and eventually served as its Speaker
before his retirement.
As we begin a new Parliament I think back to five years ago
when I walked in here for the first time and the first time I stood
in the House to speak. In fact the first time I walked into these
buildings, because these buildings are an important symbol for
the nation, I had a tremendous sense of being part of a long
history, of owing to many generations of Canadians who have
sat in these seats before us the wonderful country that we enjoy
and of owing another debt as well, that is a debt to the
generations yet to come. When other parliamentarians sit in
these seats decades and generations from now hopefully they too
will have reasons to be proud of the country we in the 35th
Parliament have helped to leave for them.
(1510)
It is traditional in one's first speech in the House to speak of
one's constituency and to relate it to the country. I suppose what
is most important to me in this Parliament is that I represent a
constituency in the national capital region. That is a fact about
my community I have been proud of as long as I have lived here,
and that is my entire life. We have a very special sense of
responsibility in this region to the nation.
I have perhaps not felt it as poignantly as I have until last
week when I sat in Parliament opposite an Official Opposition
with a declared, avowed and loudly expressed purpose of
changing dramatically the nature of this country, of removing
from the country I have known and loved for 50 years a province
that is essential to what this great country is all about.
I feel a special responsibility in Parliament to say that I am
here to represent my constituents of Ottawa West. I am here as a
member from the national capital region. I am here to speak for
my country. That means I am also here to speak for its people.
It is important that we talk about dollars because they are the
way we achieve the things we wish to achieve, but as we talk
about dollars we must not forget that a country is really about
people. I think of my own constituents and the messages I heard
from them during the election campaign.
I represent a very mixed constituency. I represent many very
poor people. I represent many quite wealthy people. I represent
many unemployed people. I represent many women trying to
raise children on welfare. I represent many public service
employees, although not as many as most people in the Chamber
think. They are only one out of five jobs in this region whereas
two out of three of them are scattered across the country.
Members will find them in each of their own ridings working
hard to serve their constituents as well. Nonetheless they are an
important component of my constituency.
603
I represent a riding where a third of the adults are over the age
of 65. The concerns of seniors in Canada are certainly a major
concern of mine. I represent many small businesses, individual
or family owned businesses, and a number of companies that are
right in the vanguard of where our economy is heading in the
high technology field. I represent the hopes and aspirations of
all those people.
I sensed in this election as never before a distrust in our
Parliament, a distrust in our institutions, a distrust in one
another and a deep agony about our future. I look at this
Parliament as a time for not only recovery of our economy but
renewal of our nation. I look at it as a time of restoring our faith
in one another and our faith in the future we have together.
I believe we do that by renewing our commitment to one
another, by renewing our commitment to those young people out
there who are fresh, eager and well educated but with no jobs to
go to. I do not want to look back in the year 2000 and say that
people who were young and unemployed in 1994 are still
unemployed. The problem is that they are not young any more.
I want to give those mothers raising their children on welfare
a chance. Too often I have been involved in trying to get them
training programs, knowing how eager and how anxious they are
to make a better future for themselves and their children and
knowing that they are trapped in social programs whose design
is no longer capable of helping them to become self-sufficient.
I want to make a difference in terms of how we spend our
money and how we run our economy so that it leaves our
children and our grandchildren with air they can breathe, water
they can drink, and earth they can grow their food in.
(1515 )
Finally I want to make a contribution in Parliament to one of
the major commitments of this government; a more open,
participative type of decision-making. I suppose it comes from
long years in municipal government but I believe the more we
listen to the wisdom of the people, the better decisions we make.
I hear this talk about free votes, about referendums and recall
of members of Parliament. The people of Ottawa West sent me
here to represent them and their points of view. They also sent
me here to help continue the dream of a nation called Canada.
They sent me here as well to listen; to listen to the voices of the
north, the west, the east, rural communities, urban communities,
mining communities, fishing communities and to blend their
voices with the voices of Canada. As we do in our caucus every
Wednesday morning, we listen to each other and at the end of the
day come out with plans and programs we believe are good for
this country, not just good for me, my neighbour, my friends or
even my constituency, only good for this country.
That is why they sent me here. That is why I am here. I am
excited by the new voices I hear in this Parliament. I am excited
by the new voices I hear in my caucus. I am excited by the
opportunity of being on the government side of the House, to
truly make a contribution in a more participative, a healthier and
a more productive society, a society in which again we are
committed to one another and not only to our own self-interest.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Madam Speaker,
since this is my maiden speech, I would like to congratulate the
Speaker on his election and all members of his team on their
recent appointment to their distinguished positions.
I would also like to thank the people of my riding of
Trois-Rivières for having elected me as their representative in
this House last October 25. The riding, with a population of
about 62,000, includes seven municipalities, namely
Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières-Ouest, Pointe-du-Lac,
Yamachiche, Saint-Sévère, Saint-Barnabé and part of
Saint-Thomas de Caxton. Located halfway between Montreal
and Quebec City on the north shore of the majestic St. Lawrence
River, my riding is highly urbanized but its western part
includes very beautiful farmland.
Founded in 1634, some 360 years ago, under French rule, the
city of Trois-Rivières is not only the major centre in the riding
but also the regional capital of the Mauricie-Bois-Franc region
stretching from the city of La Tuque, to the north, to
Victoriaville and Drummondville, to the south.
Trois-Rivières is the site of a university with growing
influence, two colleges, one diocesan centre, three hospitals
serving the surrounding area, three television stations, four
radio stations, a deep-water port, as well as a regional airport. It
was long considered the pulp and paper capital of the world.
However, with the decline of that industry, Trois-Rivières has
been suffering and its unemployment rate now hovers between
13 and 14 per cent.
Trois-Rivières also boasts two historic educational
institutions, currently serving as high schools, namely the
Ursulines' College founded in 1700, whose well-preserved
main building has become a major tourist attraction, and
Saint-Joseph Seminary of Trois-Rivières where I completed my
classical studies just like the former Quebec Premier and MLA
for Trois-Rivières, Maurice L. Duplessis, and the current
member of Parliament for Saint-Maurice and Prime Minister of
Canada.
604
(1520)
I would also like to take this opportunity to once again express
to the Prime Minister my sincere congratulations on his election
in the riding of Saint-Maurice adjoining that of Trois-Rivières
and assure him of my co-operation on any regional issue that we
may have to resolve together in the best interest of our
respective constituents.
As the Official Opposition critic for Industry, I would now
like to address a very important issue for Quebec and Canada,
namely industrial development. The Minister of Industry is in
the House.
Job creation must be based on a consistent industrial policy
that will allow the Quebec and Canadian economy to stay
competitive. The government's throne speech contains vague
statements about helping small and medium-sized businesses
by working with financial institutions to improve access to
capital for these businesses. What they need is concrete
immediate action and not policy statements. Small and
medium-sized businesses have been hard hit by the recession
and the single-minded inflation-fighting policy pursued by the
Bank of Canada. It is a well-known fact that, during an
economic slowdown, banks tend to turn their backs on small and
medium-sized businesses.
In Quebec, small and medium-sized businesses generate 46
per cent of all private sector revenue, 1,200,000 jobs or 46 per
cent of private sector employment, and 52 to 54 per cent of
private sector salaries.
Quebec has always been especially sensitive to the needs of
small business. Many small businesses that started off in their
founder's garage have now become global enterprises, like
Bombardier, Cascades and others.
The problem is that Canada does not have a consistent
industrial policy. It is in fact impossible for Canada to adopt
such a policy because economic conditions vary from one region
to another. This situation locks the government into a piecemeal
strategy suitable only for damage control and partial solutions.
However, it insists on retaining economic powers that the
provinces need in order to develop their own industrial policy.
We saw it clearly when the Quebec government tried to put in
place its industrial cluster strategy. To carry out this strategy,
the Government of Quebec did not have the powers it needed,
like occupational training and unemployment insurance, to
name only these.
We must admit the obvious: Canadian federalism does not
work. Quebec can only achieve its full economic potential if it is
sovereign. Only then will it have all the economic powers to
implement a real industrial policy.
I think that I can already hear our federalist friends telling us
that Quebec sovereignty would mean isolation and turning
inward. Nonsense, Madam Speaker. Quebec is a trading nation:
about 40 per cent of its gross domestic product is exported to
Canada and other countries. Why would it turn in on itself?
Indeed, Quebec could even improve its access to its Canadian
partners by becoming sovereign. The Minister of Industry
himself said in his speech in this House last Friday that the rules
governing interprovincial trade were rather like those of the
GATT in the late 1940s, and that under NAFTA, it was easier to
deal with the United States than with the other Canadian
provinces. That means that a sovereign Quebec could trade more
easily with the Canadian provinces. We are in favour of opening
international markets and Quebec was a great supporter of the
free trade agreement and of NAFTA.
(1525)
Quebec industry is active in leading sectors like aerospace,
telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology in
general, where Quebec is at the forefront of technology and
compares favorably with any country in the world.
Nevertheless, some Quebec industries have some catching up to
do to remain competitive.
These industries are usually labour-intensive-textiles,
furniture, clothing-and will have to adapt to face foreign
competition resulting from the GATT and NAFTA. The negative
impact of globalization of markets on companies and on workers
in these industries must be minimized. We would have wanted to
find in the speech from the throne conversion or modernization
measures to help these industries remain competitive in a world
of global markets.
Let us talk about industrial conversion. While the Liberals'
red book made a big issue of it in the election campaign, there is
not a word about it today or in the speech from the throne or in
the speech by the Minister of Industry in reply to the speech
from the throne. In this context, the danger facing us is that the
federal government will show the same disregard as it showed
by failing to help manufacturing companies adjust after the free
trade agreement with the United States was signed.
Nevertheless, the red book said, ``The end of the Cold War
puts at risk. . .thousands of high-tech jobs. A Liberal
government will introduce a defence conversion program to
help industries in transition from high-tech military production
to high-tech civilian production.'' Since then, not a word. This
lack of action by the government regarding assistance to the less
competitive sectors which will be affected by NAFTA and the
GATT is not a good omen for the reconversion of military
industries.
It must be realized that the end of the cold war has already had
a major impact on the level of employment of that industry, both
in Quebec and in Canada. According to the research group on
military industries, in the five years between 1987 and 1992, the
605
military industry in Quebec lost 48 per cent of its total sales, as
well as 11,000 direct jobs. This puts numerous businesses in
high tech sectors such as aerospace and telecommunications in a
precarious situation. These businesses urgently need help to
develop civilian applications for their products.
Take for example the case of the MIL Davie shipyard, in
Lauzon. This company, which specialized in building warships,
is now threatened with closing. In fact, it has already been
forced to lay off 600 workers since the beginning of 1993. If
nothing is done, this shipyard could well be forced to shut down
after it delivers its last ship to the Canadian Navy. Yet, the
company has undertaken a process to enable it to switch from
military to civilian production. Under the circumstances, in
order to survive, MIL Davie in Lauzon desperately needs the
federal contract to build the Magdalen Islands ferry along with
some assistance to design a new multipurpose or smart ship.
This is the exclusive responsibility of the federal government.
Given the current situation, the construction of a high-speed
rail link along the Quebec City-Trois-Rivières-Windsor
corridor is extremely important since this undertaking could
have a considerable impact, from both an economic and
technological standpoint.
In the throne speech, the government pledged to eliminate
overlap and duplication in the different levels of government. In
the industrial sector, the need to streamline programs and
eliminate duplication is particularly glaring.
According to a paper commissioned in September 1991 by the
Treasury Board Secretariat-so it must be accurate-on overlap
and duplication of federal and provincial programs, overlap is,
listen to this, Madam Speaker, a major problem affecting
industrial sector programs. The vast majority of these programs
have not been not legislated, but rather have been established
pursuant to the federal government's spending power. The
National Research Council, the Federal Business Development
Bank, financial aid programs and business services programs, to
name but a few, fall into this category. And these are facts
contained in a federal government report.
(1530)
The situation is serious. In its brief to the Bélanger-Campeau
Commission, the Quebec section of the Canadian Manufacturers
Association wrote: ``The confusion caused by this duplication
leads to a massive waste of energy, time and resources and
creates a permanent climate of uncertainty, while industries
expect their government to maintain a stable climate and
establish clear rules so that they can make plans for their
development.''
Madam Speaker, it is not only the waste of public funds,
which is itself a serious problem. Our businesses'
competitiveness is being undermined because they must work
their way through a bureaucratic maze. The services that we
offer to our businesses must be subjected to a
program-by-program, in-depth review. The federal
government must understand that massive decentralization of
the main economic levers is in the national interest of Quebec
and Canada is needed and that it must stop interfering in areas
where the provinces are better able to meet the needs of the
population.
In the throne speech, the government also makes a
commitment to present legislation to increase the transparency
of the relations between lobbyists and the government. We are
waiting with great interest to see what it will do in this regard.
I cannot conclude this speech without addressing, even if only
for a few minutes, the basic reason for my presence here in this
House. I have been fighting for Quebec's sovereignty since
1961. I have been both a player and a witness in the evolution,
sometimes difficult, sometimes dramatic, of Quebec's
sovereigntist movement for the last 33 years.
I would therefore like to pay tribute not only to those who
have worked behind the scenes but also to the main pioneers
who, from the early 60s, have succeeded in persuading
thousands of Quebecers like myself of the merits of Quebec's
political sovereignty.
I am thinking of Raymond Barbeau, founder of the Laurentian
Alliance, of André D'Allemagne, founding president of the
Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale (R.I.N.), of
Marcel Chaput, a former federal civil servant, leader of the
R.I.N. and founder of the Quebec Republican Party, of Pierre
Bourgault, who became president of the R.I.N. and dissolved his
own party to join, in the best interests of the cause, the Parti
Québécois, newly formed in 1968 by René Lévesque, the great
unifier who made the sovereigntist movement credible.
We must not forget another visionary Quebecer, Marcel
Léger, who died last year. He set up the Quebec Nationalist
Party, for which I ran in the riding of Trois-Rivières and which
as early as 1984 offered Quebecers, especially sovereigntists, an
alternative to the federalist forces to represent them in Ottawa.
At that time, Quebecers preferred to try once again to renew
Canadian federalism.
The speech from the throne says that the government will
work vigorously to ensure that federalism meets the needs of
Canadians. Madam Speaker, I will not hide my surprise from
you on reading such a statement in 1994, as if it were something
new.
However, Quebecers and Canadians have tried just that for 30
years, to ensure that federalism meets their needs. In the past 30
years, they have set up four royal commissions of inquiry to try
to do that: in 1963, the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission on
Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which already recognized the
existence of ``two solitudes''; in 1977, the Pepin-Robarts
Commission on Canadian Unity, hastily set up following the
election of the Parti Québécois in Quebec; in 1981, the McDo-
606
nald Commission on Economic Union, which advocated more
centralized control of power in Ottawa; in 1991, the Spicer
Commission on the Future of Canada; and also the
Castonguay-Beaudoin-Dobbie Committee in 1992. They all
tried unsuccessfully to renew Canadian federalism ``with
honour and enthusiasm''.
(1535)
After 30 years of discussion and Constitution conferences,
after spending thousands of hours and several hundred million
dollars, after producing a mountain of reports, all we came up
with was a miserable little agreement, the Charlottetown
Agreement, which was rejected by everyone, but for
diametrically opposite reasons.
We have come to a dead end trying to renew the Canadian
federation. However, what the Bloc Quebecois is proposing is
quite simple; sovereignty, that is the exclusive right within its
territory for Quebec to pass legislation, levy taxes and be
represented abroad, a right enjoyed by every other sovereign
state.
The Bloc Quebecois has not come here to destroy a country,
but to build a new one, the state of Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to
speak on the speech from the throne. I feel it is perhaps one of
the most important we have had in this century.
The previous government was able to postpone major
decisions, things that needed to be done to bring this country to
the point where it could reach its true potential. The people
recognized that it had failed them. That is why it has only two
members in the House of Commons at the present time. We can
never forget that the people want good government. They want
responsible government and they want their members of
Parliament to give them the Canada that they envision.
We talk about unity. The single most important thing to
provide unity in this country is good government. I predict that
good government will hold this country together as nothing else
will. If we can deliver what is in the speech from the throne, if
members of this House can work together, then we can give to
the people the government they want. We can also give back to
ourselves and this House the prestige and the dignity that so
befits this institution. Unfortunately this has not been the case in
recent years. Largely it is because members of Parliament
brought it on themselves.
We must look at what Canada needs. We need to deal with the
debt and the deficit. Certainly when we have an economy that
pays 35 cents of every dollar for no other purpose than paying
the interest on the debt it must seem to Canadians of low and
middle income, and indeed to Canadians who do not have any
income, as an obscene use of funding. The people of this
country, so many of whom are in need, are not having their needs
addressed.
We must deal with the economy, but we must remember that
we are here for the people of Canada. As stated in the speech
from the throne says, we must look at providing a social system
that meets the needs of the nineties. That is not to say we take
away what Canadians need. It means that we look at our system,
discover its needs and what Canadians need, how with our
technological age we can better deliver the system and how we
can generate, not only work but enthusiasm for Canadians in this
decade.
Taking a life is a very serious thing. I want to say to this House
that wasting a life may not seem as serious but it is very serious.
That is what is happening to our young people who do not have
jobs. They are going from one part-time job to another. In many
cases this is the most they have to look forward to. This is a
tragedy in the country that the United Nations said was the most
beneficial and best country in the world in which to live.
(1540)
We have a lot to do. We have a lot of self-searching to do. We
must reduce the debt and the deficit but we must keep in mind
the people of Canada.
In my area in Atlantic Canada there has been an absolute
collapse of the ground fishery. All of us in this House are
cognizant of the unemployment we suffered before this
happened. However, add another 35,000 to 45,000 people who
have lost their employment to that serious situation that existed
before and it will give some idea of the devastation with which
we are faced.
We cannot walk away from that. We cannot walk away from
those people and their needs or from the aspirations of the youth
of Atlantic Canada. We cannot walk away from the aboriginal
people who are looking to this government and to this House of
Commons to meet their needs. They have been asking for
solutions for many years. We cannot abandon the people of
Davis Inlet. We cannot abandon the people of northern Ontario
who live in substandard housing.
The aboriginal people are a vital part of this country and we
must work together to make sure that their living conditions and
their future is something they can look forward to as we hope we
will be looking forward to ours.
We cannot ignore the environment. We do not know what
caused the devastating downturn in our ground fishery. It may
very well be environmental conditions. It could be a melting of
the polar ice cap which changed the temperature of the water.
607
These are the situations with which we are faced today. They
have been postponed and then put on to us. However, we in this
House cannot postpone them in turn because the time to deal
with them is now. There is nowhere else to push these problems.
We have to deal with them. We must again look to working on
the deficit and the debt and also keep in mind that there are
things with which we must deal now.
We must also look to the needs of people today with respect to
crime prevention and safety on the streets of this country. This is
a major concern.
I want to say that, until one evening, I did not realize how
serious the fear was for women in this country who are walking
on the streets. On that evening I worked until around 10 p.m. and
then I walked down Sparks Street. I tried to cross Elgin Street
before the light changed so I started to run. There was a lady
ahead of me and she heard these running footsteps behind her.
She turned around and I saw a look of stark terror on her face
because she knew there was a man behind her who started to run.
The fact is that women in this country get off from work in the
dark and take the bus at this time of year. When they get off the
bus and every time they pass a tree or a hedge or another
building they do not know who is behind those trees, hedges or
buildings. Are the elevators safe in which they are going to
travel? This has to be addressed.
We have to address the problems of the youth in this country
and the youth crime that is so evidently displayed. We must deal
with the criminals and the victims. We must start at the very
beginning to address and anticipate what is causing crime in this
country. The first part is dealing with the criminals and the
second part is dealing with prevention. These two go hand in
hand. These two are absolutely necessary. It has been said that
for every $1 we spend on crime prevention we save $7 in
incarceration and expense in our justice system.
These are formidable challenges for members of this House of
Commons.
(1545)
This is our opportunity to show Canadians that although we
are faced with difficult decisions we can deal with them because
as a unit, members from coast to coast to coast share a concern
for Canada and its people.
We cannot talk about people in one region without talking
about people in all of Canada. That is because the common
thread in this country is the aspirations and present needs of
these people and their children. These needs that seem to be
unique to one neighbourhood have the same uniqueness in
another. That means there is a common bond and there is no
uniqueness. There is the common thread of personal safety and
aspirations for their children. We all have the same joys and
sorrows.
I therefore hope that all the representatives will have the same
determination to put this country on the road to prosperity with
the vision that Canadians hold for it.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 3.45 p.m., it is
my duty in accordance with Standing Order 50(8) to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to
dispose of the motion.
The division is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion, the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(6), the division stands deferred until 6 p.m., Tuesday,
February 1, 1994.
[English]
It being 3.48 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 3.48 p.m.)