CONTENTS
Friday, November 18, 1994
Consideration resumed of motion 7972
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7977
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 7986
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 7986
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 7988
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 7989
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 7991
Consideration resumed of motion 7995
Bill C-276. Motion for second reading 8005
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 8007
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8010
7971
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, November 18, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, I am now ready to rule on the
question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Red Deer on
November 15, 1994 concerning media disclosure of portions of
the content of the report of the Special Joint Committee
Reviewing Canada's Foreign Policy prior to the report's
presentation to the House.
I would like to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter
to the attention of the House and the hon. member for Kingston
and the Islands for his intervention.
[Translation]
I wish to state at the outset that I view such matters very
seriously, and I expect all members to do the same. The work of
committees is very important and can only be successful if
members can function knowing that their deliberations in the
preparation of their reports can be kept confidential until
presented in the House. All those involved in committee activity
must know that they, along with the members of the committee,
bear the responsibility to ensure that such committee matters are
kept confidential.
[English]
If our parliamentary system is to work efficiently and
effectively committee members must be able to function
without the fear that the fruits of their investigations will be
disseminated to the public before they have been finalized and
before the House has had an opportunity to see the product of
their labours. This is why committee reports are confidential
until tabled and why to break this confidentiality is a breach of
privilege. This is not a new problem and as the hon. member for
Red Deer noted I have commented on it in this session.
The hon. member quite rightly pointed out referring to
citation 877(1) of Beauchesne's sixth edition that the premature
disclosure of a committee report constitutes a breach of
privilege.
This unauthorized release of committee information is indeed
a contempt of Parliament. I must therefore commend the hon.
member for having respected our traditions by refraining from
commenting on the report before it was presented to the House.
However now that the report has been tabled the member will
have opportunities both inside and outside the House to explain
his party's views on the contents of the report and to correct any
misconceptions which may have been formed by the member's
silence.
(1005)
[Translation]
The member has also cited section (2) of Beauchesne citation
877 which notes that for a question of privilege to be prima facie
in these circumstances, it must be more specific that a blanket
accusation against the publication of a confidential document by
the press. This citation is based on an extensive ruling given by
Speaker Jerome on June 23, 1977 at pages 1203 to 1210 of the
Journals.
I appreciate the hon. member's attempt to tie his argument to
this portion of the citation. However, in carefully reading
Speaker Jerome's ruling, it is clear that the point he was trying to
make, and this is important for us today, was that it is necessary
to look at our conduct in this matter. This, I feel, can only be
done if specific allegations are raised about the conduct of a
specific individual or group of individuals, as the Speaker ruled
in 1977. Indeed, when similar matters have come before the
House in recent years, most notably in 1987 and 1988, the
practice has been to pursue the issue only when a specific
individual can be cited.
[English]
In 1987 it was alleged that a member revealed information
about in camera committee proceedings. The committee in
question reviewed the matter and upon its reporting to the House
the Speaker found the incident to be a prima facie question of
privilege. The matter was referred to the then Standing
Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure for
examination.
The 1988 case involved the leaking of information to the
media concerning a draft report of the Standing Committee on
Finance. An unnamed employee of the member was found to
have released the information but the issue was resolved by
members of the committee who brought the matter to the
attention of the House by way of a question of privilege. At that
7972
time Speaker Fraser ruled that the issue had been dealt with by
the committee and there was therefore not a prima facie
question of privilege.
This said, as the hon. member for Red Deer has not made
allegations against any particular individual I must state that at
this time I am unable to accept this matter as a prima facie
question of privilege. We are nonetheless faced with a very
serious matter, for leaks of committee reports are not to be
treated lightly.
As all members are aware the Speaker is loath to intervene in
committee matters. Difficulties arising in committee are
traditionally brought to the attention of the House by way of a
report from the committee. In circumstances similar to those
currently before us a standing committee might decide to
examine the matter of a breach of confidentiality and make a
report to the House.
The matter before us however is quite different for here we are
dealing with a special joint committee which has tabled its final
report. It has traditionally been interpreted that once a special
committee tables its final report the committee ceases to exist.
As I stated earlier, while I do not find that there is a prima
facie question of privilege, the seriousness of a leak of
confidential committee information should not go
unchallenged. Should the House consent to have the question of
premature disclosure of the committee report examined, there is
nothing to prevent the House from doing so by way of a special
order of reference to a committee.
[Translation]
The matter of confidentiality is one of great importance to the
House and I remind all members of their responsibility to ensure
that confidential proceedings and reports of committees remain
so.
_____________________________________________
7972
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1010)
[English]
The House resumed from November 17 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very glad to be speaking on social security review and
particularly on the unemployment program.
Before I do that I would like to say that the social security
review is very timely for Canadians. It is very important for
government and for all members of Parliament to look at it. Too
often governments bring in programs or legislation which
become obsolete and do not reflect the realities as some of our
social security programs do, but do not get examined with the
promptness they should.
I am glad we are looking at the whole social security program
for a variety of reasons. One is that some programs were brought
in some 40 years ago. The economic realities have changed. The
family structure has changed. The social circumstances have
changed and our fiscal situation has changed. The global
economy in terms of the types of jobs out there has changed. The
demands on our business communities have changed. All of
those changes result in the type of social security program we
need that will take us into the next century and which will take
into consideration the new realities we face.
The social security review is very timely. It is important that
Canadians are participating in ensuring the type of programs we
come up with will be sustainable, affordable and effective. With
the input of Canadians and other members of Parliament we will
be able to put together that type of program.
For now I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the
government's idea for renewal of our unemployment insurance
program presented in the recent supplementary paper on UI. I
am sure hon. members appreciate it is a key component in the
reform of our social security system. The UI program has served
us well, but because of the structural changes to the economy
there are now numerous situations in which the program no
longer does what it was originally intended to do.
The UI program was created to provide workers with
temporary income support between jobs, but the program no
longer adequately addresses the changing nature of
employment. Today many workers use it to supplement their
income. That was not and is not its purpose. Workers and
employers finance UI through their contributions.
It is simply costing too much. For example in 1980 the
program cost $4.4 billion. Last year it cost $19.7 billion. We
cannot allow this escalation in UI costs to continue. The
government is proposing that we spend more wisely. Often some
people think that sometimes the more money thrown at a
program, the better the program gets. We realize that what we
have to do is spend more smartly and wisely. Our emphasis is to
shift UI funds from income support to investing in helping
people obtain jobs and become self-reliant.
Some hon. members will ask about the seasonal workers.
Seasonal workers make up about 40 per cent of UI clients and as
much as 60 per cent of frequent claimants. Government
recognizes it must address their specific circumstances and we
are doing that.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has
established a working group on seasonal workers and UI. It is
consulting with other stakeholders to come up with innovative
ways to address the needs of seasonal industries. That includes
reducing their frequent dependency on the UI program.
7973
(1015 )
We know people need experience in the workplace. Therefore,
to help people gain the experience and training required to keep
a job, the government is testing new approaches such as
community projects that offer work experience or earning
supplements or assistance to entrepreneurs who wish to start
their own businesses. The reason for that is quite
straightforward. The government's top priority is to ensure a
climate for continuing job creation.
In the past year there have been 275,000 new jobs created. We
want to keep the momentum going. One way of doing that will
be through the reduced premium rates that will result from UI
reform.
As hon. members know, in 1995 we have already announced a
premium reduction from 3.07 to 3.00. Estimates indicate that
this reduction will help create or preserve jobs. We are
proposing to keep moving in that direction.
Another idea presented in the discussion paper regarding UI
eligibility is the possibility of income testing, but this would
apply only to people who use UI frequently.
We need to use our limited resources to help those most in
need. I wonder if hon. members realize that in 1991, 18 per cent
of frequent claimants had incomes of over $50,000. An
additional 28 per cent had family incomes ranging from $30,000
to $50,000. The benefits received by frequent claimants go
beyond insurance. They are more like supplementary income.
The system can no longer support this misuse of funds.
Some hon. members have expressed understandable concern
about the effects of UI reform in Atlantic Canada. Atlantic
Canadians are a proud people and we have to take measures to
help them generate economic and social renewal. That is not just
the government's opinion. Last year an Environics poll
indicated that 60 per cent of all Atlantic residents acknowledged
that the current UI program acts as a disincentive to finding
work. Not only that but the Atlantic premiers stated that easy
access to unemployment insurance benefits has created an
economic malaise in the region.
The strategy the government is recommending for Atlantic
Canada is consistent with our general approach for the rest of the
country and that is to invest in people through employment
development services. This is the positive approach that will
help Atlantic Canadians to get and keep satisfying jobs.
Because of the changing nature of employment that I spoke of
earlier, we no longer have any choice but to respond to the
growth of non-standard work. I am referring to part timers, the
self-employed, temporary workers and people with multiple
jobs. Last year more than 60 per cent of all new jobs were part
time. Many of those workers were not fully covered or not
covered at all. We must address their needs.
We are currently experimenting with initiatives such as
earning supplements and consolidation of hours for UI
insurability. The government is determined to find effective
solutions to help all Canadians move toward long lasting
self-sufficiency.
As well, concerns have been expressed that employment
development services will be too costly to offer to everyone who
might want to use them. However, everything is not going to
happen at once. We can meet the needs of some people through
less expensive programs. I am thinking of such measures as
wage subsidies, earning supplementation and assistance in
searching for a job. Training capacity will be expanded
gradually and eventually everyone interested will have access to
employment development services.
(1020)
UI reform is not going to happen overnight. First we have to
gather input from all Canadians on this process. The Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development is currently
travelling across Canada listening to the views of a wide variety
of Canadians. The committee will be reporting its findings and
we will have to evaluate the various ideas to determine what is
feasible and what is the best way to structure a new program.
Having done all that, major changes to the UI system would be
phased in over a number of years. Everyone affected would have
adequate time to adjust. The exact timing might use the three
and five rule. That means if changes are implemented in 1995
the new program would not be fully operational until 1998. The
timeframe will depend on the complexities of the changes.
The key to successful reform of our unemployment insurance
program will be to strike an appropriate balance between UIC's
role as a temporary income support and its broader social role, to
redistribute income and address narrowing regional disparities.
The government will take an approach that is mindful of just
how significant UI is in many provinces and in the lives of many
people. We will not pull support from under anyone and leave
him or her high and dry. But we will devise and implement a
more flexible system, one that encourages adjustment and
generates a climate for job creation and growth, a system that
helps people to help themselves become self-supporting and
contributing members of Canadian society.
I invite all hon. colleagues to join the government in this
crucial undertaking.
7974
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member about
the future of the UI system and the review of social policy. I
thank him for his comments.
I have a couple of questions for him. He mentioned near the
end of his presentation that the role of UI is to redistribute
wealth and be a tool of regional development. Could he clarify if
that should be the role of UI or whether it should really be an
insurance type program for the temporary loss of employment? I
personally do not see it as a tool to redistribute wealth, nor is it a
particularly effective tool for regional development.
I would bring to his attention the figures which came out last
week. They pointed out that the dollars contributed to the UI
program and the ones paid out of the program in British
Columbia are almost a one to one ratio. In Alberta they get short
changed considerably. I think they get 76 cents paid back for
every dollar they contribute. In the Atlantic provinces it is as
high as five to one. Right now UI is being used as a tool to
redistribute wealth. I wonder if the member wants that to
continue? Does he think that is a valid role?
Could he also tell me if he thinks the qualification period for
UI should be standardized across the country? Should it be the
same in the member's riding as it in Chicoutimi or Gander?
Should there be a standardized qualification period?
If he could answer those few questions for me for
clarification, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for
Fraser Valley East for taking an interest in this. I have often
visited his riding, which has many farming communities, and I
know many people in his riding. I know his area has a particular
interest in this review, because there are many seasonal workers
in his riding.
(1025 )
Let me try to address his two questions, first of all in terms of
the broader goals of redistribution involved.
We want standards right across the nation. We do not want
tremendous poverty in one province and tremendous wealth in
another province. We want to be able to deal with the regional
disparity. We want to make sure that where help is needed to
create employment, to develop better employment programs,
that we respond as a nation, that we respond to areas that are
having greater economic difficulty than those with economic
prosperity.
That is what makes this country so great, that we want to deal
with those issues. We want to deal with the regional disparities
that exist across the country. We do not want to say that if a
certain part of the country has a much lower standard of living
than other parts that we do not really care. That is not what this is
all about. As a country we must care for Canadians no matter
where they live and ensure that we have basic standards right
across the country, including employment opportunities.
In terms of the requirements for stamps to collect UIC, this
must be looked at once again. Different areas of the country have
different needs and those regional needs reflect the UI reform
program. Just as in the hon. member's riding there are different
needs, we have to look at the needs of seasonal workers and
respond to them as well. One of the ways we can respond, as
stated in our discussion paper, is to have a two tier program, a
basic insurance program and an adjustment insurance program.
Those people who use UI more frequently perhaps should be
treated differently in terms of the premiums or of the benefits
they receive, as opposed to those who have the basic insurance
program.
I hope that deals somewhat with the questions of the hon.
member.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to congratulate the member for Vancouver South for his
informative remarks.
I also want to take this moment to thank the member for York
North who in his capacity as the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for Human Resources Development is criss-crossing
this great country visiting in ridings at the invitation of members
of Parliament and listening to the people, hearing from groups
and organizations on the subject of this important social security
review.
When in Hamilton just a couple of weeks ago to hear from
Hamiltonians on this social security review, the member for
York North and I heard from a dozen organizations, groups and
individuals at the beautiful Hamilton Art Gallery. We repeatedly
asked the question at the end of their representations: Is the
status quo acceptable? In each and every case the answer we got
back was no, it was not, no matter what organization, no matter
what individual spoke.
There does need to be change. Our current programs, while
necessary, are not effective. They are outdated and simply not
working, not doing the job they were intended to do.
I want to ask the member for Vancouver South if this has been
his experience when he has heard from the people, groups and
organizations in his riding and across the country?
Mr. Dhaliwal: I want to thank the hon. member for his
question. Canadians I have talked to across the country
recognize the need for change. They recognize there has to be a
change made in the social security programs because they see
that 450,000 parents are on single parent social assistance, and
90 per cent of them are women. That is a problem we have to
deal with.
7975
What does that say for the children? We have to deal with the
situation. One child of every five children grows up in poverty.
That is a problem we have to deal with. Mahatma Gandhi once
said that poverty is the worst type of violence against an
individual.
We have to deal with those issues under the social security
programs. We know they are not working well because some of
these problems would not exist if they were working. Our
expenses on social assistance have continued to go up.
(1030 )
We have to look at why. We cannot just spend money. We have
to get at the root of the problem and ensure that people have the
training and the skills. We must take away the disincentives that
stop them from getting gainful employment, that stop them from
getting into the workforce. For example, we need more day care
facilities so that we give people a path, a way to get out of the
cycle of dependency, making them independent and self-reliant.
That is what social security reform is all about. It is giving
those people an opportunity to be gainfully employed. We must
tear down the barriers that stop them from seeking gainful
employment and take away the disincentives so that they do
have an opportunity. They want to work. They are not interested
in staying on social assistance. The system does not let them
come back.
Those are the things that Canadians are looking for.
Canadians are telling us yes, we need to change the system and
we need to look at the way we do things because there is a better
way. That is what we are searching for.
I thank the hon. member for a very good question.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will share
my time with a colleague from the Bloc Quebecois; after that, all
the speakers for the Bloc will do the same.
For several days now, I have been hearing the arguments put
forward by the proponents of the social security reform
presented by the Minister of Human Resources Development.
We are told that, in Canada, we need to reform social security. It
is obvious that no matter what the field, the status quo is usually
not acceptable. Society changes, ideas evolve. We must always
look at the results of a given situation and see if it can be
improved.
You can be sure that a Bloc Quebecois member who, with a
sovereignist agenda, is proposing a radical reform of the
geopolitical situation in Canada, is not going to oppose change.
Obviously not.
Therefore, by definition, Bloc members do not object to a
review or a reform of Canadian social programs. However, what
we particularly question is the underlying ideology as well as
the motives for the reform.
A reform aimed at improving the system? Perfect! We could
not agree more. But a reform to impose a new way of life, a
reform aimed at cutting government expenditures in a
roundabout way at the expense of the poorest members of
society, we say no to that.
Let us look at the ideological nature of the reform presented to
us. As you know, for the past 10 to 15 years, in the Western
World, we have witnessed the revival of the old neo-liberalism,
that is to say, the rule of the market, the law of the jungle, so to
speak. We were told that individuals must take care of
themselves and be responsible for themselves. If they get rich, it
is to their credit; if they are poor, well, it is their own fault. This
ideology was dominant during the 19th century.
Throughout the 20th century, people who pondered the fate of
the poorest members of society as well as workers who
organized, took issue over this type of society. They fought to
obtain rights. These rights were hard won, they were not vested
rights. People fought for better wages and living conditions, and
for adequate social security against illness, accidents, old age
and unemployment.
In my view, the bill before us today calls into question these
hard won social rights, the social model that has existed in
Western Europe and Canada for fifty years now.
(1035)
The first attack on the social framework created in recent
decades took place in Britain fifteen years ago. That country
dismantled its social security system.
Those in favour of the move told us that the British economy
would only benefit. Fifteen years later, this is not immediately
apparent. What we see is more poverty and people with less
social security. What we do not see are newspaper articles
telling us that economists, businessmen and politicians from
around the world are flocking to Britain to study the
extraordinary success of the British model.
Fifteen years later, there is some doubt about the results. What
is certain, however, is that the very people who needed social
security are less well off than they were fifteen years ago.
What I personally see behind this reform is the trend in
Western society, driven by the new neo-liberal ideology, to
question social security systems. When I look at the documents
published in support of the reform, I see detailed analyses,
statistical and economic arguments, and a highly developed
theoretical framework. This is not the kind of thing that can be
done within six, four or two months. I suggest that this is the
7976
kind of reform Ms. Campbell would have proposed if she had
won the last election. The same philosophy underpins the whole
reform effort.
Another reason why I do not find the government's intentions
very credible, although some members seem sincere in
defending the system, is that this reform is based on the premise
that government expenditures must be cut.
We are told that Canada's debt is enormous. Everyone agrees,
but when we look at the debt, we must think in terms of assets
and liabilities. On the liabilities side, we are told that our debt is
getting larger every second, every minute, every day. True, but
what about our national wealth? We are told that the debt now
amounts to 100 per cent of GDP. According to some economists,
our national wealth adds up to 900 per cent of GDP. This means
that Canada's economy as a whole is comprised of both debts
and assets. We have different kinds of debts.
Our debt includes not only the Prime Minister's limo and cook
but also infrastructure, educational, health and investment
expenditures. Any businessman will tell you that a loan taken
out for investment purposes generates wealth down the line; it is
not the same as money borrowed to pay for groceries.
Those who invoke the national debt to justify all the cutbacks,
to justify all kinds of measures that will ultimately hurt the less
fortunate in our society, should at some point be honest enough
to show us the whole picture.
If they had told us that they would undertake a reform and if,
after consultations with Parliament and with Canadians, they
realized that the same amount should be spent on social security
in Canada, I think that it would have been easier for me to agree
that something must be done, that we would have been more
willing to review the situation in Canada. But that is not what
happened.
(1040)
The Minister of Finance told us that $7, $8 or $9 billion had to
be cut from all social programs. I have started consulting
Canadians in my riding. I sent the paper on the reform to 200
people who are interested in social issues and I scheduled
meetings where we can discuss exactly what is going on with
this reform. If you tell people at the beginning, ``We are
consulting you but you should know at the start that we must
make deep cuts in social security spending'', people will then
ask if they are really being consulted and whether the decision
has not already been made.
To conclude, I will say something about unemployment
insurance. I read the document on unemployment insurance
which says that we should move from unemployment insurance
to employment insurance. But I have the feeling that a
qualitative analysis of the system was done. I do not have much
time, but I will try to talk about my two concerns at the end of
my speech. The first thing is that I feel we accept the high
unemployment rate. The unemployed and unemployment are
seen as a problem, but we do not realize that the problem is not
unemployment and the unemployed; it is employment.
I wish that the documents which the Liberal government
presented to us showed this concern for employment in Canada.
I would like to see commissions of inquiry travelling around to
talk about jobs with Canadians and not just about cuts,
difficulties and debts. We must take a positive attitude to this
whole question of social security and realize that if people work,
they pay taxes, and the country can distribute this tax revenue
throughout society, especially to the most disadvantaged
people.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the hon. member for his speech.
[English]
That is as much as I will try this morning. I'm working on it
and it will come along, I'm sure.
I would like to comment on two or three points that the
member raised. I have not heard in the House for some time if
ever phrases such as the neo-conservative outlook and so on. I
thought a lot of those comments had gone with the demise of the
NDP. I had hoped that a lot of those phrases had gone into the
past.
There are two or three things I would like him to comment on.
One is that we should not worry so much about the debt, that the
debt and deficit are not a serious concern. He feels it is like a
businessman who is investing in the future. I would point out to
him first of all that no businessman is afraid of borrowing but a
businessman is frequently afraid of borrowing year after year
because of the inevitability of what that means. It means he will
go broke.
I would ask the hon. member to comment on how long he
thinks it is good to borrow, if he thinks we should continue to go
in debt indefinitely or whether there should be an end in sight.
Second, as an example of what will happen if we do not
control this debt and deficit, I ask him to look at today's Globe
and Mail. There is an article about the fact that Ontario is now
being forced to search out niche markets to sell its bonds. This
year it has gone to a 40-year bond option because no one will
buy the 30-year bond. It is looking for tiny markets, tiny being
$800 million this year, niche markets where it can sell more
bonds. It is having trouble selling its bonds which means it is
having trouble financing its debt.
Every year that goes by that we continually go in debt makes it
difficult to the point at which our wealthiest or at least our
biggest province is now having to search out niche markets to
sell bonds. I find that incredible.
7977
I would like the hon. member to comment on how long he
thinks a country, province, or any organization should continue
to go in debt and why he thinks that Canada, Quebec or any
region is immune from market forces, in other words the forces
which say it is going to be increasingly hard to finance that debt.
(1045)
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments and his question. Obviously, everyone is affected by
market forces. However, when you are in debt, you usually try to
figure out why. The last thing you cut is the money required for
children and needy members of the family.
Instead, you start by not going out as much and by cutting into
the least useful expenditures. I do not think that the federal
government has done that. When we first came to the House of
Commons we asked for a review of all public spending, but this
was not done. We were told that the standing committees could
conduct such an exercise. A year later, it has become obvious
that these committees will not do that.
The federal government must first tighten its belt, before
telling Canadians to do so. If the Prime Minister starts taking a
taxi or a bus to get to work, then I might say that efforts are being
made at every level of the government administration to reduce
spending. However, as long as the Prime Minister has a cook
costing taxpayers $50,000 a year, as well as a limousine,
bodyguards, a residence and a very nice office, the federal
government should take a close look at the situation before
trying to make cuts and deprive Canadians of the basics.
If the government does conduct a review of its spending, then
it will have the necessary credibility to make cuts and suggest
new ways of doing things. Until then, the government and those
who propose reforms have very little credibility.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I see the member for
Nepean rising. Just as a matter of explanation, Bloc members
have indicated that they were splitting their time so there will be
two speakers from the official opposition.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, upon opening the Green Paper, entitled Improving
Social Security in Canada, I read the following, and I quote:
``Canada's social security programs are envied throughout the
world. They have helped make life better for generations of
Canadians. But they have not kept pace with a changing world,
and now many Canadians are falling through the cracks. Too
many people find themselves having to use Unemployment
Insurance time and time again. And they stay unemployed too
long. Too many people are stuck on social assistance. Too many
of our children live in poverty''.
The Green Paper goes on to say that last year, 13 per cent of all
unemployed Canadians had been out of work for a year or more.
Furthermore, and I quote: ``Our employment programs do not do
enough to help the unemployed adjust to change and find new
jobs. One in five Canadian children is growing up poor''. The
Green Paper is full of such statements that point to the failure of
federal social security programs.
When the federal government tabled its reform package,
which was supposed to be a Liberal masterpiece, one would have
expected, first of all, that it would take a responsible approach
by identifying real problems that create poverty, so as to provide
the appropriate solutions. Second, that the federal government
would protect the most vulnerable members of our society and
concentrate on job creation. Third, that the federal Liberals
would take advantage of this opportunity to demonstrate that
federalism works, by reacting favourably and positively to the
broad consensus in Quebec on manpower training.
Unfortunately, they did not. As usual, the Liberal federal
government introduced a centralist Green Paper that blithely
encroaches on areas of provincial jurisdiction and, on top of
that, aims to reduce the deficit at the expense of the most
vulnerable in our society. Since my time is limited, I will touch
briefly on three aspects of particular concern to me:
unemployment insurance, post-secondary education and child
tax benefits.
The Green Paper on social security reform admits that job
programs have failed to deliver. These programs are often
poorly adapted and easily abused, according to the Green Paper.
(1050)
The federal government is therefore proposing various
options for unemployment insurance reform. A proposal to
reduce the amount of unemployment insurance benefits for
low-income individuals would, according to the Quebec
Minister responsible for Income Security, put an additional
40,000 Quebec households on welfare.
The federal government's proposal to raise the number of
weeks required to establish eligibility for the Unemployment
Insurance Program from 12 to 14 would cost the Quebec
Treasury close to $28 million and cause an additional 3,275
households to join the ranks of those already dependent on
Quebec's income security program.
A second proposal concerning unemployment insurance
would create two classes of unemployed: frequent claimants and
occasional claimants. Frequent claimants are people who claim
unemployment insurance benefits three times within five years.
The minister's Green Paper even considers them on a par with
people who abuse the system.
7978
This is what the document says, and I quote: ``The program is
easily abused. Some workers and employers plan their work
schedules around the UI program-alternating employment
with UI benefits as a way of life. As a result, workers and
employers in some industries subsidize those in other industries
who use UI regularly''.
Some new terms have been added, such as adjustment
insurance, which is intended for frequent UI claimants. It states
that while these benefits might be lower than basic coverage,
more support would be provided to recipients to find work.
What a novel idea, Mr. Speaker! The Quebec minister
responsible for income security described this measure as
despicable. To reduce benefits paid to workers, using as an
excuse the fact that, in return, they will be trained for jobs that
do not exist anyway, that is beyond all understanding. We all
know that, in regions where the economy depends on seasonal
activity, we do not need training programs that lead to
non-employment, but a radical restructuring of the economy.
What makes these proposals even less acceptable is the very
fact that the very job development program, or JDP, put in place
by the federal government has undergone major cuts over the
past two years. In Rimouski for example, the JDP budget was
reduced by 30 per cent in two years, from $1,275,000 to
$790,000, in spite of the fact that the rate of unemployment
remained high and relatively the same in the Lower St.
Lawrence region.
In sum, the federal government is penalizing seasonal
workers and has once again failed to seize a golden opportunity
to demonstrate that federalism could be profitable.
For the sake of the 800,000 Quebecers who are out of work,
with respect to unemployment and manpower, the government
could have acted on the motion that was carried unanimously at
the Quebec National Assembly on April 14, requesting that Mr.
Jean Chrétien and the federal Liberal government respect the
unanimous consensus on the need for Quebec to have exclusive
jurisdiction over manpower training.
It would be too easy to make Canada work. In its
Machiavellian plan, the government decided instead to lead the
people to believe that the big bad separatists are to blame for all
our problems. It does not show, but the government is actually
increasing overlap and duplication, which is unacceptable in
times of fiscal restraint, especially as the major part of the
proposed reform represents federal encroachment on a
provincial jurisdiction. Unemployment benefits are being cut
while the public service grows and the number of disputes
between the two levels of government increases.
There are approximately 150 manpower training programs
run by about 10 Quebec and federal government departments.
Some of these programs often have several components. So how
can we expect unemployed people from Montreal, Rimouski or
Hull to sort out this mess?
The government is not doing much better for our
post-secondary institutions, since it proposes replacing cash
transfer payments with a new student loan program.
(1055)
This decision by the federal government would leave the
Quebec government with a $300-million shortfall, which would
have to be made up elsewhere.
The main consequence of this proposal would be a major hike
in tuition fees. The rector of McGill University did not hesitate
to say that his institution's tuition fees could reach up to $8,000
a year. It goes without saying that this measure would restrict
access to higher education, especially among the poor.
As far as child benefits are concerned, the government
admitted its failure by reminding us that one child in five, in
Canada, lives in poverty. To address this problem, the green
paper suggests among other things redirecting middle-class
family benefits to less fortunate families. This measure-it
must be reiterated-encroaches on an area of provincial
jurisdiction. It also thrusts into poverty middle-class families
forced to shoulder an excessive part of the deficit burden.
All that the government has put on the table so far to reduce
the deficit spares the rich and is designed to impoverish the
Canadian middle class and to bring misery to those of us already
living in poverty. This, in due time, will be remembered by
everyone.
What the Minister of Human Resources Development
proposes is not a matter of reform but of shovelling part of the
federal deficit into the provinces' back yards.
So I leave the last word to Pierre Graveline, who in Le Devoir
on October 20 summarized the goals pursued by the Minister of
Human Resources Development in his reform of social
programs thus: ``The Axworthy reform pursues two
contradictory objectives at the same time: maintain and
strengthen Ottawa's presence everywhere without giving an
inch to Quebec, while significantly reducing social spending in
order to slow the alarming growth in the federal debt''.
Therefore, you will understand that, like my colleagues, I
oppose the minister's motion, which reads:
-take note of the progress made to date on the government's forthcoming
reform of social security programs and of the views expressed by Canadians
with regard to this reform.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata will have five minutes for questions
and comments after Question Period.
7979
[English]
It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
7979
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Standing Committee on Transport has embarked on a tripartite
air study which will focus on the government's new national
airports policy, the status of bilateral air negotiations with the
United States, and the proposed commercialization of the air
navigation system.
The future management and ownership of Canadian airports
and their ability to compete depend upon the successful
implementation of the national airports policy. Furthermore the
successful conclusion of a new, more open bilateral air
agreement with the United States and the modernization of the
air navigation system are crucial to the future viability and
competitiveness of our airport system.
As chairperson of the Standing Committee on Transport, I
encourage all my colleagues in the House to inform the
individuals and organizations involved in airport operations in
various ridings across the country of our public committee
hearings on the tripartite air study.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I denounce the inertia of the present government, which is not
keeping its commitments and its election promises. It promised
to maintain and extend the Eastern Quebec Development Plan
until 1998.
For months, things have been dragging out. This
government's lack of leadership is creating an untenable and
discouraging situation for the 5,800 forestry workers in eastern
Quebec and the Gaspé. They want to work. This government,
which clamored ``jobs, jobs'' during the election campaign, now
refuses to give real support to those who want to work.
This government does not give a damn about rural
communities and it is taking the forestry workers hostage. When
will it give an answer? It should be as soon as possible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this year
the Minister of Transport announced his intention to destaff 35
B.C. lighthouses. A massive protest prompted the minister to
announce pubic consultations with mariners in British
Columbia prior to any final decision to destaff. However a
consultant hired by the government, Mr. Norman Mathews, a
former secretary general of the International Association for
Lighthouse Authority, has recently made comments in the press
in advance of the public meetings that destaffing lighthouses is a
done deal.
Given Mr. Mathews' statements the people of British
Columbia, and I am sure all people of Canada, want to know why
the minister would perpetrate this sham of consultation when his
department has already received its marching orders.
This appearance of public consultation is both expensive and
cruel. It raises hopes in the hearts of many that manned
lighthouses will be maintained and it is costly.
I ask the Prime Minister: Is this the kind of public
consultation the Liberals had in mind when drafting their
infamous red book?
* * *
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November has been proclaimed Diabetes Awareness Month by
the Canadian Diabetes Association.
Over one million Canadians have diabetes, with more than 13
per cent between 65 and 74 years of age. Diabetes is a major
cause of premature death, blindness, kidney disease, heart
disease, stroke, limb amputation and other significant health
problems. It costs Canada an estimated $9 billion annually.
The Canadian Diabetes Association is a supporter of diabetes
research in Canada and provides a wide range of services for and
advocacy on behalf of persons with diabetes and their families.
I am proud to say that the federal government also plays an
important role by supporting diabetes research and among other
ventures a special initiative with regard to diabetes among
Canada's native peoples.
Please join with me in wishing the Canadian Diabetes
Association and its many volunteers a very successful Diabetes
Awareness Month.
7980
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
Minister of the Environment for the discussion paper on
endangered species legislation released yesterday. The
legislation will finally give the federal government the power to
protect all plant and animal life in Canada.
I also congratulate the Body Shop, the Canadian Nature
Federation and the Sierra Defence Fund for their campaign
``There Otter be a Law'' which is mobilizing public opinion
about the matter.
Yesterday I attended a presentation where three children from
across Canada spoke out on behalf of all Canadians and
presented thousands of letters, drawings and petitions bearing
over 75,000 names to the Minister of the Environment. This
presentation was an emotional experience for me. We must
protect our planet for our children.
I assure the hon. minister that I will do everything possible to
support endangered species legislation in the House.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a
legislator in the House of Commons and the Parliament of
Canada it really grieves me to stand here and express my sadness
that Canada's courts and law are making decisions that absolve
persons of any criminality who are extremely intoxicated or
have snorted high levels of cocaine or who have killed behind
the wheel of an automobile.
I grieve for the victims of these crimes, in many cases women.
I grieve for those who have died at the hands of an abusing
person. These victims did not condone or encourage
intoxication or drug inducement.
As a legislator I stand here today and make a promise to those
victims, both those living and in memory of those who died. I
pledge to them my immediate commitment to work with the
Minister of Justice toward reforming the Criminal Code through
adding new crimes of intoxication, whether drugs or alcohol, to
ensure that the perpetrators and not the victims are the ones
convicted in our courts of law.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the chairman of the Mouvement Desjardins, Mr. Claude Béland,
urged Quebecers to actively participate in the referendum
campaign and support Quebec's sovereignty.
The Mouvement Desjardins is a vast network of
co-operatives, financial institutions and insurance companies
with assets totalling $75 billion. It has played an active role in
the economic and social development of Quebec throughout the
20th century.
Mr. Béland is now inviting Quebecers to get out of the current
deadlock. He said: ``We merely tried to negotiate the concept of
a distinct society and we were rebuffed. The same thing is now
happening with the issue of occupational training''.
The current deadlock means that Quebecers have to choose
between taking control of their own destiny or an unaffordable
status quo.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, every day innocent and defenceless children
become victims. Murder, rape, kidnapping and violent assault
are threatening our youngest Canadians.
(1105 )
In my constituency of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt
eight cases of violent assaults on children are currently pending.
In one case a previous sexual offender who repeatedly molested
a young child was apparently released on his own recognisance.
This slap in the face only adds to the agony suffered by the
victim and the family. The abduction and murder of eight-year
old Mindy Trann has raised loud cries of outrage throughout the
Okanagan. These offensive and disgusting violations must stop.
The Canadian justice system must take steps to ensure the
safety of our children. Offenders convicted of crimes against a
child should serve their sentences without parole. Previously
convicted offenders charged with a crime against a child should
be kept in jail without bail.
Sunday, November 20 is National Child Day. I call on the
government now to protect families and keep our children safe.
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, like most MPs in the Chamber on all sides of the
House, I am anxious to help government cut wasteful spending.
With that in mind, I had occasion to ask officials in various
ministries to supply me with the actual grant applications of
certain special interest groups that regularly receive
government funding.
7981
I have been denied those applications. They have been
withheld pending formal rulings under the Access to
Information and Privacy Acts. I have been told, and I know it
sounds incredible, that the names and addresses on the forms
may be confidential.
This is crazy. The legislation that is supposed to open
government is closing it. There is no excuse for not being able to
see, on demand, what special interest groups actually promised
to do in exchange for the government grants they receive.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
Sunday, November 20 is National Child Day.
On this historic day in 1991 Canada adopted and signed the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, an
agreement that would commit our country to ensuring the
survival, protection, development and participation of all
children.
We must as a society safeguard the well-being of our
children, especially those at risk of criminal victimization,
exploitation and neglect. We must promote prevention as a
means of helping children at risk. We must invest in our
children's education. We must provide them with the chance to
lead happy and productive lives. As a society we have a
responsibility to our children because they are our future.
I had the honour of sponsoring Bill C-371 which was
supported by children's organizations such as Our Kids, Results
Canada, the Coalition for the Rights of the Child, as well as
many other groups across Canada.
On behalf of all my colleagues in the House of Commons,
along with Janice Machin of Our Kids and Results Canada, we
invite all Canadians to join in celebrating National Child Day on
November 20 and making it a very special day.
To those born on November 20, a very happy birthday.
* * *
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the career of one of most
respected and accomplished parliamentarians of the province of
Ontario. Hugh O'Neil announced yesterday that he would not be
seeking re-election.
Hugh O'Neil was first elected to the provincial legislature for
the riding of Quinte in 1975. Since then his 20-year career has
seen him go from being the lone voice of the Liberal Party in
eastern Ontario to being a senior and trusted minister of the
cabinet under Premier David Peterson. He has led Liberals to
unprecedented heights in eastern Ontario with electoral
victories, including my own to this Chamber in 1988.
His dedication to serving the community and his unerring
ability to get the job done against all odds have been the
hallmarks of his remarkable career. No amount of credit or
praise can express the appreciation and gratitude that I feel he
deserves for his outstanding service and for his unparalleled
political accomplishments.
The people of the Quinte area will be the lesser with the loss
of his strong voice in Toronto. I know all members of the House,
particularly those who know Hugh, join me today in wishing
him and his wife Donna all the very best for a well deserved
retirement.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
ambassador to the U.S. is trying to muzzle Quebec's
representatives in Washington by imposing a chaperon from the
embassy at every one of their meetings.
Bloc Quebecois members strongly oppose such interference
in provincial affairs by the Canadian ambassador. Quebec
directly looks after its own interests in Paris, London, Tokyo,
Mexico City and New York. Why is the federal government
desperately trying to keep it from doing the same in
Washington?
As long as Quebec remains part of Canada, the government
must respect the basic principle whereby the provinces'
constitutional jurisdiction also applies abroad.
(1110)
Clearly, the flag war is on again, and the federal government
as well as the Prime Minister must both assume full
responsibility for the situation.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I too rise to recognize that this Sunday is the second
anniversary of National Child Day in Canada. It is a day as all
days to listen to children, to respect them and to marvel at all
they have to offer.
As 1994 marks the International Year of the Family this is also
a day to honour the important role of the family in children's
lives. Families are the place where nurturing and respect shape
young lives, where identity, culture and values are passed from
one generation to the next. Families are truly the cornerstone of
society. They equip children with the tools they need to become
caring responsible citizens.
7982
For all this we owe the families of our country a great deal
from children to grandparents. Let us not forget that
grandparents can offer the unconditional love and understanding
our children and grandchildren need.
Let us act now to create a better and brighter future for all
children because they are our country's most valuable resource
and because children matter.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday of this week Metis people across
Canada held ceremonies to recognize the 109th anniversary of
the hanging of Louis Riel for treason. Unfortunately Riel has
been portrayed as either a traitor or a madman. In fact he was a
founder of Manitoba, a member of the House, and a teacher who
fought racism and unsympathetic authorities as he championed
the cause of human rights.
Riel fought hard for Metis rights and worked to voice the
concerns of early western Canadians. He was a man who
inspired and carried Metis dreams in 1885 and refused to
abandon his people. In doing so he gave all aboriginal people the
will to push forth and fight for their dreams and beliefs.
This week is a good opportunity for Canadians and members
of the House to remember all of the Metis and aboriginal people
who have made the country a better place to live. Louis Riel and
the other great Indian leaders such as Chief Poundmaker and
Chief Big Bear died for what they believed in and passed on a
proud legacy which continues to be carried by the Metis and
aboriginal people today.
* * *
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
month marks the 50th anniversary of the death of Jack Miner,
Canada's greatest naturalist. Jack Miner is best known as the
founder of the Jack Miner Sanctuary near Kingsville, Ontario.
Jack was an incredible person who was honoured by kings,
queens, presidents and prime ministers for his great work in
conservation. Jack was a very practical man who planted trees,
not for a shady resting place for his retirement but for the
appreciation and benefit of future generations.
He banded the legs of thousands of Canada geese to identify
their North American flyways. By placing a line of scripture on
the band he used these legions of geese to spread the gospel
throughout North America.
To make certain this sanctuary would not be burdened by
taxpayers, Jack Miner spent years lecturing about nature around
the world. He set up a perpetual trust fund to pay for the
operation of the Jack Miner Foundation.
Jack Miner's family, Manley, Jasper, Kirk, and Cheryl have
dedicated their lives to carry on the great tradition of Jack
Miner.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the decision to eliminate shore based [stevedoring
positions] on the Marine Atlantic ferries makes no sense
whatsoever. Dozens of full time workers and replacement crew
in the Port aux Basques area alone will lose their jobs. It will
hurt the local economy at the worst possible time.
This issue is of great concern to everyone for another reason.
There is fear that if the plan goes ahead the safety of the public
will be compromised for the sake of efficiency.
There is a real need for Marine Atlantic to take another look at
the issue to see the logic of keeping the [stevedoring position] at
those ports including Port aux Basques and North Sydney where
it has served so well for so many years.
* * *
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in total amazement that on Wednesday
afternoon the Minister of Human Resources Development
challenged the student protesters to sit down and present their
ideas.
In my riding of Edmonton-Strathcona four different
university groups requested to speak before the human
resources committee and were originally turned down. These
groups found out late yesterday that they would be appearing
before the committee and would be receiving only 15 minutes
each to present their arguments. I wonder how much time has
been allocated to each of the 165 organizations whose noses are
still in the public trough as they received almost $4 million in
intervening funding.
(1115)
It seems clear to me that the Liberals are following the
previous government's actions of talking to whom they wish and
then having the audacity to call it public consultations.
Canadians are not stupid. If the Liberals continue this shameful
display they too will be able to hold their caucus meetings in a
telephone booth just like the Tories.
7983
7983
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National
Defence. Despite the constructive offer from the mayor of
Saint-Jean that was announced this week, the federal
government insists on closing the Collège militaire royal de
Saint-Jean, on the grounds that it would save $23 million
annually by making the RMC in Kingston a bilingual institution
that would welcome francophone officer cadets.
How can the minister maintain that he will save $23 million
annually by closing the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean,
considering that very substantial additional spending will be
required to help the RMC in Kingston make the necessary
adjustments to accommodate students transferred from
Saint-Jean and hire additional staff?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member does not have full possession of the facts.
There were a number of expenses that were authorized by the
previous government a couple of years ago for construction to
start in 1995 for improvements to the Royal Military College in
Kingston. Those are proceeding.
With respect to the accommodation of students that will be
required as a result of the closing of Royal Roads and CMR,
there will only be minor modifications required with respect to
the additional facilities at Kingston. Some of the provisions can
be met by using existing military facilities and barracks at
Kingston.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister should give us the details we have
requested for over a year.
Why does he refuse to admit that the so-called savings of $23
million exist only in his own mind and is just a gross
exaggeration by the government to justify its rash decision to
close the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, a decision that
was rushed through at the very last minute before the budget?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again it was
not a decision that was taken at the last minute. The closing of
the two military colleges was something that was planned in
preparation for us to meet our red book requirement to reduce
military spending at the beginning of the year 1994-95. We have
been through those arguments before.
However, as far as the $23 million is concerned in terms of
savings that is absolute, that is fixed. I would ask the hon.
member to consult with his colleague, the member for Roberval,
who came to the standing committee on defence and veterans
affairs and questioned very precisely officials of the Department
of National Defence and I believe got a full accounting.
There is no fudging of figures. The $23 million in savings
from CMR is real.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we asked the hon. member for Roberval about this, and
the answers he was given lead to conclusions that are entirely
different from those produced by the minister. He knows
perfectly well that the decision made before the budget was to
close the colleges in Saint-Jean and Victoria. The decision had
been made.
The minister also knows perfectly well that Quebec has only
13 per cent of Canada's military infrastructures and that they
decided to close CMR because at the last minute, they realized
they needed an excuse that would satisfy English Canada, and
that excuse was closing the CMR. The decision was not based on
financial considerations but was merely a face-saving gesture.
That is the real reason.
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am not prepared to discuss the reasons that led to the closing of
the CMR. We have made statements in the House on other
occasions, and I think our position is quite clear.
(1120)
[English]
I have to say that much of what the hon. member asserts in this
particular matter is absolutely false. We are not going to revisit
the fact that the budget last year called for a certain reduction in
expenditures in defence. It called for the closing of the two
colleges. Those two colleges will close.
What is really the issue and something that he should be
concerned about is that the former Government of Quebec
signed a deal that would meet the Department of National
Defence's needs, the Government of Canada's needs, and also
assist in the transformation of CMR into a civilian institution.
The Government of Quebec is refusing to honour that deal.
7984
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National
Defence.
Following disturbing revelations by major Barry Armstrong,
senior medical officer of the unit several members of which
were charged with the murder and torture of Somalian civilians,
the Minister of National Defence announced yesterday a civilian
public inquiry. Most of the decisions handed down so far have
been appealed and the inquiry will take place after the appeals
are heard.
Does the Minister of National Defence intend to vest this
inquiry with the same powers as a regular commission of
inquiry, in particular subpoena and search powers, and the
power to send officers with a warrant to obtain all relevant
documents wherever they may be?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think
it is appropriate for me to go further in the interests of ensuring
the cause of justice be served by giving any more details about
the inquiry that I announced yesterday. It will be an inquiry held
under the auspices of the National Defence Act. It will be fully
public. It will be totally civilian, including the chair. Members
of the previous inquiry will be invited to participate in some
particular way.
As to the powers of that inquiry and the terms of reference,
those will be drafted in the next couple of months. What I have
to worry about and what the hon. member should worry about is
the timing of such an inquiry. As legislators we cannot do
anything that would serve to undermine the judicial process now
under way.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, can the minister assure that this inquiry will also get to
the bottom of things regarding the behaviour of several other
soldiers belonging to the second commando of the Petawawa
airborne regiment, and in particular the behaviour of
high-ranking officers who supposedly allowed a group called
the ``Rebels'' to fly a flag symbolizing white supremacy, for
several months, on the Petawawa base, with complete impunity?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the inquiry will deal with all the aspects of the deployment of
our forces in Somalia and all the activities of the airborne
regiment. This is what I said we would do and I stand by that
decision.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House a very serious
matter. This week the drunken and cocaine defence arguments
acquitted a person charged with a serious crime once again since
the Supreme Court ruled that intoxication could be used as a
defence in any crime.
Will the government commit to introducing a bill promptly in
order to deal with this critical inadequacy in the law?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern in this
question. It is a concern to all of us in this House of Commons.
The Minister of Justice has stated on occasion his concern on
the matter. He has released a discussion paper which will seek
the opinions of people right across the country up until February
28, at which point he will then do what he has to do and what
needs to be done as quickly as possible to correct this deficiency.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians' nerves are fraying over this matter. The
parliamentary secretary refers to a discussion paper, but in
reality we should snap to some common sense in this place and
do something.
The Minister of Justice knows that under the common law
judges are guided by previous decisions in similar cases.
Criminals are on to this scam, realizing that they can get drunk
or shoot up before or even after a crime if they are clever enough
and be acquitted.
(1125 )
Once again, will the minister commit today to a date before
Christmas by which he will introduce legislation closing this
loophole in the Criminal Code so that this travesty of justice can
be stopped?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, of the groups in this country that have spoken to the
Minister of Justice, almost completely all of them have stated
that the Minister of Justice must proceed cautiously on this
point. They want a good law to come from this consultation.
They do not want something thrown out that is not going to be
appropriate under these circumstances. The Minister of Justice
is taking this very seriously and he is going to come forward
with this law. It is going to be a suitable one.
I would also say to the hon. member that two of these cases are
under appeal and there is a very strong possibility that there
could be a change in the decision on appeal.
7985
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, if this government was really taking this matter
seriously it would move with much more speed than it is.
There is no excuse for delay. The minister acted with amazing
speed to eliminate the cultural defence. We applaud that, but he
is dragging his feet over the drunken defence. One has to wonder
about his commitment to eliminating this defence.
Why does the Minister of Justice refuse to stop this madness
today? Why does he not get in step with Canadians and place this
item ahead of his own pet agenda of sexual orientation and gun
control legislation?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not think in the history of this country have we
had a Minister of Justice that has moved on so many subjects as
quickly as this Minister of Justice.
The Daviault case was decided. The decision was released by
the Supreme Court of Canada on September 30. The Minister of
Justice has been working on this question. He brought forward
the discussion paper and we want a good result. We want to hear
the opinion of Canadians. We do not want a knee-jerk reaction.
That is not what Canadians want and that is not what Canadians
deserve.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, recent information regarding the Canadian
frigate program reveals that Unisys GSG, a company
responsible for integrating the defence department's electronic
systems, proved unable to meet the requirements of the
department. It was learned that the Canadian Navy will not have
the necessary systems to train its technicians, and yet taxpayers
will still have to pay a $90 million bill. Instead of getting tough,
the Department of National Defence chose to sack its own team
of auditors who had brought the problem with Unisys to light.
How can the minister explain that he chose to disband his
team of auditors, who were responsible for monitoring Unisys's
work, instead of taking the appropriate action against a company
which, obviously, is not even able to meet its contractual
obligations to the Canadian government?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
problems that we have with project management, which was
involved in the development of the Canadian patrol frigates and
has been the problem in the development of other armed forces
equipment, is that often the expenditures that ultimately are
incurred are much greater than originally anticipated because
new technologies are being developed.
Unisys is a company based in Montreal that has done some
outstanding work over the years and is in the vanguard of
development of high technology integrated systems within this
country. I would hope that as a member of Parliament and also
one that represents a constituency in Quebec the hon. member
would not want to denigrate in any way the good work that is
done by that company.
With respect to the specific question on the Canadian patrol
frigates, yes, there obviously were some teething problems.
There were some cost overruns. These have been accommodated
with negotiation between the company and the crown. As far as
we are concerned the frigates now are fully operational. There
may be the odd problem that surfaced because of the new
technologies, but I do not think the member should be unduly
worried.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, now that we know that the minister has not
yet replaced his team of auditors, how can he explain that his
department kept on making payments to Unisys GSG, even
though he knew that this company was unable to deliver the
products ordered by his department?
(1130)
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I am
shocked at the tone of this question that denigrates an
outstanding Canadian high technology company and one that is
based in the province of Quebec. I would like the hon. member
to explain that to his constituents in the province of Quebec.
The fact is that Unisys is meeting its obligations. Where there
may be some problems in terms of expenditures or some minor
modifications that have to be made to the systems that are
integrated within the Canadian patrol frigates, those are being
addressed in the normal way.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today Correctional Services will be
releasing Wray Budreo. Despite having a 30-year history of
molesting children, Budreo has to be released because his latest
sentence has expired.
7986
In the past the Solicitor General has always stated that the
government felt these individuals could be detained under the
provincial Mental Health Act. That did not work in Budreo's
case.
What steps will the government take now to protect society
from sexual predators like Wray Budreo?
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed Mr. Budreo was
released this morning after serving his full sentence. However, I
could tell the hon. member that all police forces-federal,
provincial and municipal-have been informed of his presence
in Ontario.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this House has my Bill C-240 before it,
which could prevent the release of dangerous offenders like
Budreo. However, the government says it will not support Bill
C-240 because it may be against the charter rights of sexual
predators like Budreo.
When is this government going to have the courage to concern
itself with the rights of victims and potential victims of
predators like Budreo?
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do share the concerns
of the hon. member.
I remind the hon. member there currently is a federal task
force concerning high risk offenders. It is presently examining
effective ways to deal with these offenders. A report will be
handed in sometime in January.
I should also add that the Solicitor General also rendered
public the existence of a national system on trying to screen out
sex offenders who might try to come into contact with children
through various organizations across Canada. It is a priority of
this government to protect children from sex offenders.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question if for the Minister of National Defence.
The case of the Canadian patrol frigates demonstrates that the
government paid for products which were never delivered or
which did not meet the requirements of the department. We have
learned that of the 37 applications of the combat training system
which were to be designed by Unisys GSG, only one has been
delivered.
How can the minister explain that he paid Unisys for a
complete combat training system and is getting only one of the
37 applications requested?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I am
surprised at the line of questioning in terms of criticizing the
work of this company.
I explained to the hon. member's colleague earlier that when
one develops new high technology systems inevitably problems
will occur in the development, especially when dealing with
integrated high tech systems.
The requirements made by the CPF program from Unisys had
some problems in development. They have since been resolved
or are in the process of being resolved. I fail to see why the hon.
member continues to persist in trying to undermine not only the
integrity of this company, but the fact that the Canadian patrol
frigate is the best of its class in the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, why is the Minister of National Defence not launching
a public inquiry which would show that the federal government
is incapable of managing its large capital programs?
(1135)
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the one
positive thing I can say is that we announced in the budget that in
the future we would be moving to the acquisition of off the shelf
products in military procurement as much as we could. This
means that the teething problems caused by research and
development in high technology equipment for the armed forces
will be borne by a commercial manufacturer. Such equipment
that we would buy would be commercial but would have a
military application.
Hopefully in the future we can get away from some of the
problems the hon. member has described. It is interesting to note
that the special committee on defence policy also recommended
that the government pursue this line of acquisition more
vigorously.
* * *
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
Does this minister believe in democracy and the democratic
rights of farmers to control their own industry?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to know exactly
what the hon. member is getting at, except I have an inkling it
has to do with marketing systems in western Canada. Obviously
the government believes in democracy.
7987
With respect to the issue of marketing systems, as the hon.
member knows, that is a subject upon which different farmers in
western Canada hold profoundly different opinions. There has
been a variety of meetings, rallies and demonstrations on the
subject on both sides of the issue.
That is why I have undertaken to provide the opportunity for a
very thorough forum through these winter months. Farmers
from the different points of view on the issue will have a full
opportunity to discuss that matter in an open, logical, objective
fashion and not with the excesses of rhetoric that we hear from
the Reform Party.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister obviously has a funny way of showing his
belief in democracy.
This is another classic case of Liberal democracy. Farmers in
western Canada have developed a new special crops act. Yet the
Canadian Grain Commission has ordered seed cleaning and
special crop elevator operators to pay up to $20,000 in licensing
and bonding fees or get shut down by the law.
If the minister believes in democracy, when will he get his
bureaucrats under control and get them working for farmers?
Why will he not immediately introduce new special crops
legislation?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): The simple reason, Mr. Speaker, that the
decision with respect to special crops takes some time is that
there are a good many farmers in western Canada who disagree
with the proposals that have been advanced.
It is important to thoroughly analyse all of the various options
that are available for the regulation of special crops. The issue is
one of the level of protection that ought to be provided under the
law to ensure that farmers have security in dealing with special
crops dealers. That is the issue we are examining among other
technical ones having to do with special crops.
It is very important to ensure that the appropriate regulatory
structure be put in place and not one that is too onerous upon
farmers or upon the industry.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The chambers of commerce in several regions of Quebec have
accused Air Canada and Canadian International of conspiring to
eliminate competition in the regions. These companies are
allegedly fixing higher prices for area service in order to
subsidize international flights, where the competition is fierce.
Does the Minister of Transport agree that the staggering
increase in airfare since 1988 is killing our regional economies
and that it shows that deregulation is ineffective in stimulating
competition in the airline industry?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member raises some very important questions.
(1140)
Allegations of a conspiracy by airlines to fix prices and so
forth raise some very thorny questions, and I would like to
emphasize that if those who are concerned about this problem
are really looking for answers and want to look into the matter
more thoroughly, they should exercise their right to express
their concerns to the National Transportation Agency, in
addition to perhaps consulting the Competition Act.
The allegations made are serious ones, and I believe that the
airlines and all those involved in the sector have the right to see
these allegations made and directed to the right quarter. If an
investigation is necessary, then one should be held, in order to
shed some light on the question raised by the hon. member.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
given that these questions are indeed very sensitive, thorny to
use the minister's word, does he intend to look into the
allegations made by the Quebec chambers of commerce and ask
the competition bureau to conduct an investigation into the
allegations of collusion, for we are talking about allegations of
collusion, an extremely serious charge, between the major
airline carriers and their subsidiaries in order to eliminate
regional competition?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat my concern for the rights of companies and the
shareholders of those companies to have an opportunity to deal
with the issues raised by the hon. member.
There is a competition bureau as well as the National
Transportation Agency. I would think that members of the
opposition would understand why a minister of the crown would
be very hesitant to consider directing those agencies. They are
quasi-judicial agencies of which we have heard a great deal
from the opposition over the past few weeks.
If there is a legitimate grievance that reflects the concerns
raised by the hon. member, the chambers of commerce or
interested citizens should direct their complaints and the
allegations that have been referred to by the hon. member
directly to the competition bureau and/or the National
Transportation Agency. They can be dealt with by those
quasi-judicial agencies
7988
that have to operate under their own rules under the law and not
under the direction of any minister of the crown.
* * *
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It has
to do with highway 416 in eastern Ontario.
The current Ontario government's lack of commitment to
eastern Ontario was never better illustrated than the recent
suggestion of a user pay highway from the 401 into the nation's
capital. The federal government's commitment to this project on
a shared cost basis is well known and I applaud the minister for
condemning outright the idea of a toll road.
With no interest in financing the toll road, what alternative for
getting the project moving is the minister exploring at this time?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the need for this highway and I also know
of the vigorous effort put forward by the member for
Leeds-Grenville in this endeavour.
I therefore suggested to the provincial government in the
springtime that we fund it under the Canada-Ontario
infrastructure works program. It did not respond to that and did
not put in an application. In fact the provincial government
indicated a reluctance.
In the summertime I suggested a strategic transportation
improvement program as another way it might be able to rework
some priorities to help fund this. That is a shared program as
well. The only response came back just a few weeks ago in terms
of the proposition of tolls. If the province of Ontario is going to
do this by tolls we are not interested in getting into the funding. I
also wonder whether it even meets the province's criteria for
what would qualify as a toll road.
I would be quite happy and in fact would like to meet with the
new minister of transport in Ontario to further explore the
infrastructure works program and the strategic transportation
improvement program for funding of this necessary project.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
Recent polls and rallies have shown that farmers want an
elected board of directors to run the Canadian Wheat Board.
What action is the minister prepared to take to give farmers their
wish to have an elected board instead of an appointed one?
(1145 )
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that very interesting
proposition is one of the ideas that will be discussed during the
winter in the forum we are conducting with respect to marketing
systems in western Canada, particularly the operations of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
Other marketing agencies around the world could be
examined as models for their precedential value in corporate
governance, matters relating to marketing systems.
It is an idea that a number of farmers have suggested. In some
studies conducted previously four or five years ago the idea was
advanced as an alternative in terms of corporate governance. It
is an idea I am sure farmers will want to explore very thoroughly
and I am determined to provide them with the opportunity to do
that.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a supplementary question for the minister. Farmers
know what they want and it is time to listen to their demands.
Why will the minister never listen to farmers' wishes or input
but continually gives his ear to special interest groups no matter
what farmers' concerns are?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I probably spend the majority
of my time as minister of agriculture listening very carefully to
farmers.
From time to time they are represented by their official
organizations. On other occasions and very valuably, individual
farmers take the opportunity to raise concerns with me either in
person, by mail or in public meetings of various kinds.
The input from farmers is the most valuable advice that a
minister of agriculture can receive. It is important to note the
distinction between the valid and legitimate advice and opinion
that is offered by farmers and the sometimes rather twisted point
of view one hears from the Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
On October 28, the Official Opposition called the minister's
attention to excerpts of a Transport Canada's inspection report
in which major irregularities were noted with respect to the
maintenance control system for aircraft owned by Royal
Aviation Inc.
7989
The minister was to look into the situation and take corrective
action. Now that he has had the time to look into this situation,
does the minister not agree that this carrier's maintenance
control program is totally inadequate? And can he tell us what
steps were taken to remedy the situation?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the issue was raised, as the hon. member pointed
out, we looked into the matter. There were indeed deficiencies in
the control system. There were problems and these were
corrected.
I want to reassure my hon. colleague that not only was the
situation looked into, but that appropriate corrective action was
taken and the company now operates within the regulations
issued by Transport Canada.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House whether the control
measures contemplated include surprise inspections by his
department. Should carriers that pose a risk not be placed under
the direct supervision of Transport Canada?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this whole issue of safety is a very important one. It is
the primary responsibility of the Department of Transport. I can
assure my hon. colleague that we will continue to exercise all
due diligence to ensure that all air carriers abide by the existing
regulations.
Problems can always arise, but, as far as possible, we want to
leave no doubt in the minds of Canadians and foreigners
travelling in Canada as to the safety and efficiency of our air
transportation system.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Ontario
wheat farmers have been electing their wheat board directors for
some time. This system seems to work very well for them. Are
western farmers less capable, less deserving?
(1150)
Why does the minister of agriculture absolutely refuse to
permit western farmers to elect their wheat board directors?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member
that it was a previous Liberal government that provided the first
electoral process with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board, that
is the election of the advisory committee.
As far as future changes that might take place within the
corporate government structure is concerned, it is a subject on
which farmers will be having discussions this winter. I will be
very interested to hear the varying points of view from farmers
on that particular approach to corporate governance.
One of the technical matters that the hon. member should bear
in mind concerning the difference between the Canadian Wheat
Board and the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board is that
under the Canadian Wheat Board system we have the provision
under federal legislation for government financial guarantees
concerning initial payments. That obviously is a substantial
financial distinction between the operations of the two boards
and indicates why in some circumstances the methods of
corporate governance might well be different.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is
really stupid. Too much time and too little action.
The question is, democracy or dictatorship? That is the
question. Do we have a democracy or are we going to continue
with this dictatorship?
Is the minister going to continue to deny farmers democracy
and continue with this present dictatorship?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual in the rather simplistic
approach of the Reform Party its members are missing a very
fundamental point.
It is important to make intelligent, thoughtful decisions after
everyone, in a fully democratic manner, has had an opportunity
to discuss the matter and state their points of view, rather than
pre-empting all of the discussion and simply opting for a
proposal put forward by a political party that has already made
up its mind, in the form of the Reform Party. It does not
represent the majority of western Canadian farmers.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
I wrote to Canadian National real estate on February 10 asking
about the CN abandoned railway line between Renfrew and
Arnprior. I received no reply. I wrote again on June 10-no
answer. Repeated phone calls finally produced a letter on
October 25 ignoring my concerns.
Canadian National real estate cancelled an appointment to
meet with me this week.
Will the Minister of Transport tell the president of Canadian
National that the corporation has the responsibility to answer
mail from members of Parliament and that it has no right to treat
Parliament with contempt? We have to represent constituents.
7990
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in listening to the member's question I can only say to
him and to other members that I will take steps today to check to
see what happened in the member's particular situation.
But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, and even my friends the
Reformers who I know are not in favour of writing letters-they
do not put pen to paper very often, they do everything by
telephone-I will ensure that the officials of Canadian National
respond rapidly and appropriately to all members of Parliament
on all sides of the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Transport. The Quebec City bridge has been
designated a historic monument by the American Society of
Civil Engineers and is one of the finest engineering structures in
Canada. This bridge, which was built between 1900 and 1919,
now needs major repairs which, according to experts, would cost
$45 million over a six-year period.
(1155)
Since the owner, Canadian National, did not allocate the
resources needed to keep it in good condition, the bridge has
deteriorated considerably.
Given the importance of the Quebec City bridge as a rail link
between the two shores of the St. Lawrence at Quebec City and
its historic and tourist potential for that region, does the minister
not think that this bridge should undergo major repairs and that
the work should start as soon as possible?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member said that the Quebec City bridge he is
referring to belongs to Canadian National. If repairs are
needed-and I readily accept what the hon. member said about
the condition of the bridge-, we will ask CN to review the
matter and see if it is possible to announce the measures they
will take to try to repair the bridge.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Pearson airport question is a matter of the right of
due process. In this context the fact that Bill C-22 deals with
Pearson airport at all is coincidental and could just as easily deal
with a rail privatization contract, a government construction
contract or an airport contract under the minister's proposed
national airports program.
Can the Minister of Transport advise the House how he
justifies denying any Canadian the right of due process?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the question was not so serious because of the
importance of Pearson, I would be tempted to contrast the
approach the Reform Party takes to taxing Canadian taxpayers
with a $445 million bill which would be the result. If the
contract was found to be valid, entered into in good faith,
damages awarded, it could be $445 million.
I am tempted to contrast that with the view of Reformers when
they are dealing with some of the questions they bring up here
where they show no respect for the law and no respect for the
courts, but they want their friends who are involved in this deal
to be in the courts so that they can rip us off for $445 million.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture in announcing that the
Liberals will change the Crow benefit has betrayed a long held
commitment to prairie farmers and the communities that they
support.
Has the minister failed to understand the importance of the
Crow benefit to the economic viability of the prairies or is he
just ignoring the views of thousands of farmers heard in recent
public hearings?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman in asking
the question is overlooking the impact of the soon to be
implemented General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and
particularly the new World Trade Organization which brings to
bear some important disciplines in the world on the use of export
subsidies.
We will insist that other countries around the world adhere to
their obligations under the new GATT. That will mean for
example that countries like the United States will for the first
time in a long time have to bring down some of its export
subsidies such as the export enhancement program.
While we expect every other country in the world to abide by
their obligations, Canada must abide by those same obligations.
Within the terms of the new GATT agreement a portion of the
Western Grain Transportation Act is defined as an export
subsidy. In those circumstances we can do one of two things. We
can either change the Western Grain Transportation Act so it no
longer falls within the definition of an export subsidy or we can
leave it the way it is and live within those new highly restrictive
disciplines.
7991
Obviously it is to the advantage of western farmers to change
the Western Grain Transportation Act rather than suffer the
tough disciplines under the new World Trade Organization.
* * *
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The Prime Minister is the first to acknowledge that deals are
done by businessmen and women, that they depend on their
abilities and those of management and workers. Yet every team
needs a leader.
(1200 )
Considering the positive tone set by the Prime Minister and
the doors he opened, can the minister inform the House what
results were obtained in Canada's largest ever trade mission
abroad?
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two
theories. The first theory states that for every $1 billion in trade,
we create up to 9,000 jobs. Another theory states that for every
$1 billion in trade, we create up to 15,000 jobs.
If we take the worst possible scenario, this trip will generate
up to $10 billion in revenues to Canada's industries. If we
multiply that by 9,000 that will give us 90,000 jobs at least. If we
look at the best possible scenario, it will give us 150,000 jobs
over the next few years.
While I am on my feet I want to say that the trade figures-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the House has been deprived of the
best answer we have heard all week. Wait until you hear the rest
of it.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
7991
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
the first report of the Standing Committee on Health entitled
``Toward Zero Consumption, Generic Packaging of Tobacco
Products''.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to the second report of the Standing Committee on
Natural Resources entitled ``Canada: A Model Forest Nation in
the Making''.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
certain petitions.
* * *
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the first report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade.
[English]
This report relates to Bill C-57, an act to implement the
agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. The
committee considered the bill and presents the report, with
amendments.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development regarding Bill
C-55, an act to establish a board having jurisdiction concerning
disputes respecting surface rights in respect of land in the Yukon
Territory, and to amend other acts in relation thereto, without
amendment.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition by
many constituents and many people from both inside and
outside the constituency in places like Calabogie within,
Bancroft without, Cobden, Eganville within, Kanata without,
Chapeau, Quebec outside and from many other points in
Canada.
7992
The petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human
beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first is a petition from
many individuals asking that Parliament desist from passing
further legislation dealing with firearms and ammunition and to
direct attention to the adequate punishment of the criminal
element in society.
(1205 )
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the other petition is about the mining industry in
Canada. The petitioners call upon Parliament to take action to
help employment to grow in this particular sector, promote
exploration and rebuild Canada's mineral reserves, sustain
mining communities and keep mining in Canada.
This is a petition that I fully endorse.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present the
following petition, signed by citizens from many different
ridings in British Columbia.
This petition requests that Parliament refuse to accept the
justice minister's anti-firearms proposals and insist that he
bring forth legislation to convict and punish criminals rather
than persecuting the innocent.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting a
petition on behalf of British Columbians from all regions of
B.C. on anti-firearms legislation.
I think the directions are so clear they should be read: ``That
Justice Minister Allan Rock is proposing anti-firearms
legislation that will virtually do nothing to reduce violent crime,
but will severely restrict the rights and freedoms of millions of
innocent firearms owners, contrary to the very principles of
justice''.
The Deputy Speaker: Please, members, do not read
petitions. It would take us all day. Please give a summary of
them. The hon. member may continue briefly.
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Therefore, the
petitioners request that we address the case at hand, the firearms
legislation. Please replace it.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present four
different petitions.
The first is from a variety of communities throughout the
riding of Kootenay West-Revelstoke. The petitioners pray and
request that Parliament not amend the human rights code and the
Human Rights Act to provide anything that would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relations, homosexuality,
including the human rights code to include the prohibitive
grounds of discrimination in the undefined phrase sexual
orientation.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners pray that
Parliament ensure that the current provisions of the Criminal
Code prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and
that Parliament make no changes to the law which would
sanction, aid or abet suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition from my riding in which the
petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the final petition is also from my riding. The
petitioners call upon Parliament to enact Bill C-206 at the
earliest opportunity so as to provide a statutory foundation for a
national witness relocation and protection program.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36, it is my honour to table a petition bearing 113
signatures, mostly from the village of Pambrun in my riding.
The petitioners pray that Parliament ensures the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition bearing 50 signatures. These people
are in support of Bill C-256, presented by my colleague the
member for Mississauga South, which is to compensate spouses
working in the home and caring for preschool children.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions that I would like to present to the House.
7993
The first petition deals with the Young Offenders Act. The
petitioners in memory of Ryan and in support of Stu and Marg
Garrioch and family request that Parliament recognize that
crimes of violence are serious and out of control, putting all of
society at risk. They ask the House to amend the Young
Offenders Act and give society the protection it deserves. There
are 280 names on that petition.
(1210 )
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is with regard to parole. The undersigned
request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence are
serious and out of control, putting all of society at risk and that
life should be life with no parole for violent offenders convicted
of first degree murder and a minimum of 25 years without parole
for those convicted of second degree murder. There are 285
signatures.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a third petition on capital punishment with 358
signatures. The undersigned request that Parliament recognize
that those who commit murder never be released from prison. To
that end we ask that capital punishment be reinstated for all
offenders.
I heartily agree with this petition.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
fourth petition is on sexual orientation. The petitioners pray and
request that Parliament not amend the Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or
homosexuality, including amending the Human Rights Act to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation. There are 305 signatures.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three other petitions on the matter of euthanasia. There are
1,142 signatures of petitioners asking that Parliament not repeal
or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to
uphold the Supreme Court of Canada decision of September 30,
1993, to disallow assisted suicide euthanasia.
I heartily agree with all of these petitions.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to table three petitions. The first petition is
from residents in my constituency including 100 Mile House,
Lone Butte and 108 Mile Ranch.
My constituents call upon Parliament to act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human
beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second and third petitions from residents of my
constituency including Williams Lake, 100 Mile House, 108
Mile Ranch, Lone Butte, Forest Grove and Ninety Three Mile
House call upon Parliament not to amend the human rights code,
the Canadian Human Rights Act, or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds for discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
These petitions come with my concurrence.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions with a total
of 74 signatures against assisted suicide and requesting that
Parliament make no change in the law to allow or abet suicide or
active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another petition with 31 signatures requesting that
protection be extended to the unborn child.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Questions Nos. 82, 89 and 90 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 82-Mr. Cummins:
What effect did the late signing of the Aboriginal Fishing Agreements in
British Columbia have on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans enforcement
of the Agreements and fisheries regulations in 1994?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): While negotiations on agreements with aboriginal groups
for management of aboriginal salmon fishing were in many
cases protracted, leading to delays in signing of agreements,
these delays had little impact on the enforcement of agreements
and fisheries regulations. Procedures and protocols for
managing aboriginal fisheries had been developed under the
aboriginal
7994
fisheries strategy in previous years. These procedures were not
in dispute, allowing both the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans and the aboriginal groups to proceed with planning for
management and enforcement while negotiations on allocation
numbers were ongoing.
All aboriginal salmon fisheries were licensed under the
communal licence regulations with the licences reflecting
established management procedures. In many cases aboriginal
groups were able to prepare for and participate in management
of the fishery through bridge funding arrangements even while
negotiations were ongoing. In some cases, uncertainty as to final
levels of funding to be established through negotiations did
curtail aboriginal participation in the management of the
fishery.
The department is currently reviewing all enforcement
concerns recently raised. The purpose is to identify program
weaknesses and develop solutions to prevent reoccurrence. As
well, the minister has set up an independent review board to
examine all factors related to the management of Fraser River
sockeye stocks. The board is to provide its final report to the
minister by January 31, 1995 including recommendations for
corrective action.
Question No. 89-Mr. Fillion:
Is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans planning to rebuild the wharf in
L'Anse Saint-Jean in the riding of Chicoutimi, to re-evaluate this project in
fiscal year 1995-96 and to begin negotiations with the municipality of L'Anse
Saint-Jean?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): The Government of Canada has been aware of the
municipality's interest in rebuilding the wharf at L'Anse
St-Jean since the fire of August 22, 1992. Since that time, the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has been discussing
the situation with the municipality.
In 1993/94 and 1994/95, DFO approved expenditures
totalling $300K for the pre-engineering studies, and for the
plans and specifications for the reconstruction of the wharf. This
was done to facilitate the wharf's reconstruction, should funds
become available. At that time the government could not make a
commitment to proceed with the work.
Public Works and Government Services Canada's recent
technical assessment and planning documents indicate that the
demolition of the outer end of the wharf and its reconstruction
and the renovations to the remaining portion of the wharf will
cost an estimated $2 million.
In light of the current climate of fiscal restraint, competing
demands for funds to carry out repair and reconstruction
projects at federally owned harbours across Canada cannot all
be accommodated within the limited budget for the small craft
harbours program. Under the current program review,
government is seriously questioning whether we can continue to
spend diminishing funds or operate improved or reconstructed
recreational harbours at the expense of doing essential repairs at
commercial fishing harbours. DFO has assigned a higher
priority to repair projects at commercial fishing harbours than to
recreational harbours and this leaves no funds for large
recreational projects. As a consequence, DFO is unable to make
a commitment to rebuilding the wharf at L'Anse St-Jean at this
time, and it is unlikely that this situation will change in 1995/96.
DFO is prepared to co-operate should other interests provide
the funds necessary to reconstruct the wharf.
Question No. 90-Mr. Fillion:
Will the post offices in the riding of Chicoutimi be reorganized and if so,
how and what effect will this have on employment and the quality of customer
service?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Starting on February 13, 1995,
Canada Post will improve collection and delivery in the riding
of Chicoutimi by introducing motorized mail courier service to
the area. Also, letter carrier operations currently located at the
Chicoutimi Racine and Chicoutimi Nord facilities as well as
mail processing operations currently located at the Chicoutimi
CTC will be consolidated into a new facility at 1939 Des Sapins
Street in Chicoutimi. Retail customers will not be
inconvenienced, as CPC products and services will continue to
be availabe in the Chicoutimi Nord and Chicoutimi Racine
establishments.
Though CPC employees will be transferred to the new
facility, there will be no job loss associated with this
rationalization.
The project will result in better postal service for the region,
as Canada Post introduces a modern collection and delivery
system well adapted to the future needs of its customers.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: I would ask that all remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I am told that the hon. member for
Verchères has asked to present a petition. Does the House agree
to return to Presenting Petitions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleagues.
7995
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table in this
House today a petition signed by 156 residents of the riding of
Verchères, more particularly, the municipality of Varennes.
Referring to the abolition of universality for the age credit for
income tax, the signers of this petition believe that the present
government is unduly attacking the income of retired people.
The signers also consider these measures to be very
discriminatory in fiscal terms since they attack people who have
already made a major contribution to the Canadian economy;
these measures would deprive these people of hope for an
improved standard of living in the coming years.
(1215)
Accordingly, the 156 signers of this petition ask Parliament to
vote against any measure that would lower the income of retired
people. Needless to say, I share the analysis of the situation
presented in this petition and I strongly support my fellow
citizens' request.
_____________________________________________
7995
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to speak in the House today on social security reform. I
will direct my comments specifically to the unemployment
insurance aspect of it and how the proposed changes will affect
women and families.
This debate takes place at a critical time in the history of
Canada's social programs. The Minister of Human Resources
Development launched the social security reform debate in the
House last January. At that time he challenged Canadians to
define what effective social programs would look like in a world
shaped by the economic and social trends we see around us
today.
During the following months the Minister of Human
Resources Development and the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development have both heard the same things from a
large number of Canadians. Quite simply our social programs
are losing the confidence of the people who pay taxes. They see
the inconsistencies and the gaps.
Like every member of the House I have received numerous
letters and phone calls on the topic. The polls say it. Our mail
says it. Canadians are not satisfied with the status quo. They
know that a more effective and a more cost effective social
safety net is not just possible; it is necessary. That is why the
government released the discussion paper on social security
reform on October 5.
We want a debate for all Canadians. One element of the debate
is fairness. Canadians clearly reject the idea that we should have
a slash and burn approach to social programs. They just want
them to work better. They want the money and services to meet
the greatest needs with the greatest impact.
Certainly unemployment insurance was not meant to create
the cycle of dependency that has developed in too many
communities for too many workers. A large and growing share
of people who get UI are frequent claimants. Thirty-eight per
cent have made three claims in five years. With the best of
intentions we have allowed the system to develop into one that
encourages low skilled, seasonal and temporary work in high
unemployment regions. It does little to encourage people to
improve their skills and their options.
A place where that is certainly the case is in the
unemployment insurance area. To hear some of the comments in
the House on the topic one could conclude that UI is about to be
destroyed in some fiendish plot driven by the titans of high
finance. One could conclude that the government is bound and
determined to roll back the gains that women have made in the
labour force over the past generation. One could conclude that
we are determined to make poor families suffer. Nothing could
be further from the truth.
I want to concentrate my remarks today on how the green
paper proposals on UI relate to the needs and the realities of
women and families in Canada. UI has been serving Canadian
workers for over 50 years. For most employees it works as it was
intended to. It is insurance to tide them over the time between
jobs.
The labour market has changed greatly since 1942 when the
first claim was filed. Now people do not just lose one job and
move on to another. Structural change in our economy means
that people may not just move between jobs; they may move
between industries or communities. UI was not designed to deal
with that type of situation.
In contrast, as hon. members will recall, is the second option
of a system of employment insurance. Within it there could be
basic insurance that would work in the way UI does now. People
who make a UI claim only infrequently would see no real
change. People who need the help with the special benefits such
as maternity, parental, adoption, or sickness benefits would still
be able to get that help.
(1220 )
At a time when we are asking how we can invest funds to make
people employable across all social programs we have to ask the
same questions about UI. The discussion paper lays out two
different approaches we could take to address the fact that some
people need far more help than UI can give them through income
support alone.
7996
The first is simply tightening the status quo. Higher eligibility
rules, shorter duration of benefits and lower weekly benefits are
all options. The only problem is that it does little to address the
needs for more active labour force programs. It nibbles at the
edges of the program without really challenging the big
questions surrounding UI.
People who make relatively frequent use of UI would move
into the adjustment insurance category. For these people there
would be a greater emphasis on help to find the skills to get and
keep better longer term work. The government recognizes that
some industries are seasonal and that some communities have
little work in parts of the year. That is why we are open to ways
to make this approach work well.
Some critics have raised the idea that people who might be
eligible for adjustment insurance could have their benefits set
on the basis of family income. This has been opposed by some
people as a giant step back for women. Before any more interest
groups howl about this let us again look at the facts.
First, very few women would be affected by this proposal if it
actually came to pass. Women account for only about one-third
of all frequent claimants. The program is good for about seven
out of ten women. Adjustment insurance would not matter. Their
needs would be met by the basic insurance program.
Second, women would still have good access to the special
benefits under the system. A study states that women account
for 59 per cent of all sickness claims. We know they account for
the maternity claims. We can guess that they probably account
for the majority of claims raised for adoptions and parental
benefits. There would be no change for the vast majority of
women who call on UI for help. It will still be there to help them.
Where the debate exists is over a proposal that would base
adjustment insurance benefits in part on family earnings. Third,
low income people would get the full benefit. A sliding scale
would lower the benefits for people with higher incomes.
Immediately some protested this might undermine the
self-esteem of a woman or it might undermine her financial
independence. I disagree with that statement.
In 1991, 18 per cent of frequent claimants had annual incomes
of over $50,000. A further 28 per cent had family incomes of
between $30,000 and $50,000. Frankly the image one gets is that
UI for these people is a regular top-up to family income and not
a protection against hardship. Canadians have the right to ask if
this is the best way to spend their dollars. I suspect that
Canadians will agree that it is not. They will agree that these
people claim the money because of a feeling of entitlement, not
need. UI is not a publicly subsidized savings account.
The prospect is that by focusing attention on people most in
need whose work patterns are the most marginal we can help
them break out of a cycle of dependence. The premiers of the
Atlantic provinces agree. Economic analyses agree. Canadians
agree. The old pattern of 10:42 simply does not work. The
answer is not to cut people off and say sink or swim. The answer
is to get programs and services in place to help.
Women will benefit from this approach. The idea is to put
more emphasis on employment development services of all
kinds: counselling, job search skills and work experience
training. The idea is to move money from less important places
to more important places.
Among the proposals in the green paper was one that raised
the question of improving UI coverage for part time and
seasonal workers. Most of the people who would benefit from it
are women. Twenty-eight per cent of women workers are in part
time jobs whereas only ten per cent of men are. The ideas we
have suggested could directly address the needs of those women
better than the status quo.
(1225)
Many women need the kinds of programs social security
reform will make available. Let us take the example of single
mothers. Almost 60 per cent of lone parent families with
children under 18 live on low incomes and 95.9 per cent of
single parent mother led families live below the poverty line.
They often lack support services such as child care that would
help them get back to work. Those on social assistance often
find that the value of support services like dental care are much
greater than what they can earn with the limited skills they may
have.
The government has embarked on a series of experiments with
the provinces to explore better ways of helping these mothers
get back into the workforce. We now have a pilot project in
Manitoba that will provide 4,000 lone parents on welfare with
employment skills and support. The program is called ``Taking
Charge''. It is specifically to help those people do just that, to
take charge of their lives.
We will continue to solicit the ideas and views of Canadians. I
am glad to see that the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development has attracted not only many
submissions but substantial attention in the media. The issue is
very important. It deserves a full debate. That is why the
government has provided financial resources to 19 women's
organizations to enable them to participate in the consultative
process.
Many times we in the House hear different people ask why we
are providing financial resources to organizations so that they
can attack the government. This is a case where we are providing
financial resources to women's organizations not to attack the
7997
government but to give us the ideas we need to provide help for
women.
Our current set of programs were designed at a time when
most people needed relatively few skills to get and keep a job.
What they picked up in school and on the job was usually enough
to build a lifetime of earnings. People needed financial help
between jobs. Others needed support if they could not work at all
due to disability or family commitments. The old system was
based on a stable world with stable skills and stable jobs for the
vast majority of working people.
I would like to refer to my own case. My husband and I raised
five children who have all been in the workforce for a few years.
They were all able to complete university and get jobs. They are
now contributing citizens. Not one of them has ever collected a
day's UI in their lives. That is not the way it is today. Times have
changed. Students coming out of university are having a very
difficult time and we have to address that problem.
Our support for programs like New Brunswick Works in New
Brunswick and Job Link in Ontario and the Northwest
Territories is investing in people and is helping us find better
ways to help the most disadvantaged, to help their children
break the welfare cycle and to have self-esteem at work. Social
security reform can help women and their families far better
than any of the patchwork programs we now have in place.
In the end the value to women of social security reform is
much the same as it is for men. At the centre of any social
security network lies a guiding principle. In a time of constant
change that principle must be employability. Real security for
Canadians comes from the ability to get and keep a job. Our
programs must reflect the fact that this is more complex now
than it was in the past. That is true for both men and women.
We cannot stop changes; we can help people provide the skills
and supports to meet the realities of change. From letters I have
seen and the people to whom I have spoken, that is all most
people are asking for. Social security reform addresses
important questions that affect women and all Canadians. It
points to a new approach to working, to learning and to security.
Everyone can benefit from that.
My speech today has been narrow in its focus because I have
specifically dealt with women and UI and how the changes we
are talking about in our social security reform will affect them.
The whole package of social security reform is broad and will
affect all Canadians. I felt this particular aspect was so
important that I wanted to focus and narrow in on specifically UI
and women's issues and I was pleased to do so.
(1230)
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member said earlier that her children never had to rely
on UI benefits. This is great, but it is not the case for us. Our
mothers and fathers have a lot of heart. Still, many children
claim UI benefits not because they want to, but because they
have to.
The government will create two classes of unemployed. One
for those who occasionally claim UI benefits, like once every
five years, and the other for those who do so almost annually.
Where I come from, around November, workers have to claim
UI benefits again, because they are out of work. They are
jobless.
I worked for the agency and for other organizations to
generate work. Back home, a great number of people do their
utmost to create jobs, not only through programs but in the field.
People in my region are extremely disappointed by the
minister's reform. They know that they have no choice but to
rely on UI benefits every year. Yet, the new reform provides for
cuts in those benefits as well as for more work weeks, something
which is impossible in the Gaspe Peninsula.
We asked, among other things, that the Eastern Quebec
Development Plan for forestry workers be extended. We made
representations. This morning I made a statement pursuant to
Standing Order 31. This is cumbersome. The government does
not understand. It does not understand that, in the Gaspe
Peninsula, the Lower St. Lawrence region and the riding of
Matapédia-Matane, the issues are not necessarily the same as
in Toronto or Calgary.
The hon. member told us that her children never had to rely on
UI benefits. I congratulate her and her children, but I also tell
her that the situation is not the same for everyone. I hope she
will realize that.
I want to make another point. If tuition fees go up, a very large
number of students from the Gaspe, Matapédia-Matane and
Lower St. Lawrence regions will not be able to attend university.
In my region, the university is located in Rimouski and not every
subject is taught there. Consequently, some students have to go
to Laval university, in Quebec City, or to Montreal, thus
incurring extra costs. If they go home once a month, they have to
pay for their transportation costs and also spend extra money on
food and lodging. If, on top of that, tuition fees are increased, as
many as half the student population in my region may not be
able to go on. Even today, the total number of those who can
afford to attend university is lower than elsewhere. Therefore,
my region is adversely affected by this measure.
If the hon. member cares about those who live in rural and
remote areas and who will not be able to go to university because
of that reform, what would she tell the unemployed in my region
who want to work but cannot find jobs? I would appreciate an
answer on these two issues.
7998
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Nepean will have
as much time as her colleague had to give her answer.
(1235 )
Mrs. Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Matapédia-Matane for his question.
I hope in mentioning my children that I did not create a wrong
impression with the member for Matapédia-Matane because
that was not the intent of my mentioning them.
I was making a comparison of young people coming out of
university, high school or college a few years ago and obtaining
a job and today. If they had a certificate or diploma from a
university it was almost a guarantee that they could get a job. It
was much easier. That is gone. It is no longer in effect. Young
people graduating today who might have a masters or PhD still
have to spend two years looking for a job. The situation has
changed.
My children were raised in a very fortunate time in the history
of Canada, They were able to access a job immediately. They
were fortunate they did not have to go into the UI system and
that money was able to stay there for those who needed it. It was
not necessary for them to participate in a government program
that was there to benefit those who could not find work.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the people who live in an
environment or in a territory of Canada, such as the member
lives, where their work is seasonal and it is very difficult for
them to find work for 12 months of the year.
These are the types of reforms we are talking about in the
human resources development program. They are specifically to
deal with the people who live in the member's region, and in the
Atlantic region or in the northern part of Canada where work is
seasonal.
This is part of the consultation process. They will be
consulting with the people in Quebec and asking how this
program suits its needs. That is a major portion of the
consultation program and is what is so important. We are not just
saying that what is suitable for my riding of Nepean, Ontario is
suitable for the member's riding in the province of Quebec.
Every riding is different and that is what is very unique about
Canada. We are very unique not only in each province but as we
move from region to region. This is what the program of reforms
is trying to address, again through the consultation process.
Some students will not be able to afford to go to university if
the tuition rates are raised. As Mr. Axworthy said on the steps of
Parliament Hill the other day, he is not putting less money into
education, he is putting more money into education. He is trying
to ensure that students who do not have a university in their
town-as my children did, as students in the member's area who
have to travel to Rimouski to go to university-that funds are in
place so they can go. The students of wealthy families should
have a responsibility to support those in less wealthy families
who are from less wealthy regions.
I firmly believe we are headed in the right direction.
Obviously the consultation process is going to prove us wrong if
we are wrong or prove us right if we are right. We are there and
we are very much prepared to listen.
I thank you very much, deputy, for your two very good
questions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would ask hon. members
to please not refer to each other by name. Members of the House
are to be referred to either by the member for x or the minister
for y.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I very much enjoyed the comments of the member for
Nepean. She got into a narrow realm, as she explained, of
unemployment and women.
I enjoyed as much the question from the member for
Matapédia-Matane because he expresses, as a representative
of a totally different part of the country, the particular concerns
of that area. That is the value of the House of Commons. We
must listen to one another. I hope the process will go forward
with the review committee as they tour Canada and pick up all of
these comments, all of which are valid. If we are to tackle the
enormous problem of the debt and the deficit year by year, we
badly need a review of the social spending that we are
undertaking.
(1240)
A leaked government memo indicates a need to reduce social
spending by $7.5 billion. This demonstrates that even the
Liberals realize the necessity of cutting in this area.
A quick look at where the government spends its money will
show why we need to cut in the area of social spending. But
unlike the member for Nepean who took a narrow view I, as the
first Reform Party speaker on this subject today, would like to
take an overview of the whole situation to set the scene.
We have a debt of roughly $540 billion at the federal level.
Our deficit spending at this time is running at about $40 billion
per year. This means we are getting ever deeper and deeper into
debt. At the same time government spending annually is roughly
$160 billion. One-quarter of that annual spending, roughly $40
billion, $39.4 billion goes to interest payments. This amount
cannot be altered or reduced until we balance the budget. Think
of it again, and I address this to the public in Canada, $40 billion
a year alone in interest payments on our debt.
Another quarter of our annual spending, just over $40 billion,
goes for government services. This includes the armed forces,
foreign affairs, the RCM police, subsidies to business,
multiculturalism, bilingualism, Parliament, the civil service
among others. These areas must be drastically cut before we
touch social programs. However, even if we cut this roughly 25
per cent of our spending to the bone, we can only save $8 billion
to
7999
$10 billion a year. The mathematics is there. It is just not enough
to balance the budget.
The remainder of government spending, $79 billion, consists
of transfers to the provinces and social programs. This spending
has to be reduced by $12 billion to $17 billion if we hope to
balance the budget in a number of years. That is an awfully big
reduction.
Let us now look to see what the government is going to do to
help address the whole problem. The finance minister brought
down a lacklustre budget earlier this year. Not only were there
few cuts but spending actually increased. Each day, as we are all
aware, the government is spending $110 million more than it is
taking in from revenues. We cannot go on doing that.
Despite these facts, however, the finance minister defended
this weak fiscal plan and stated the government will have no
problem in meeting its debt reduction target of 3 per cent of the
gross domestic product as promised in the red ink book. The
finance minister now admits his projections may be off and
earlier this month informed the finance committee that cuts
totalling more than $9 billion would have to be made over the
next two years.
(1245 )
It is encouraging to see that the finance minister is finally
beginning to realize the gravity of the situation. I suspect he is
being pummelled by this country's financial institutions saying:
``Minister, look at the reality''. We have yet to see the finance
minister's actions come close to matching his words.
Similarly, we must look at what action the minister of human
resources has taken to tackle his share of the problem. His is a
big share of the problem, no question.
For more than a year now we have waited for his social policy
review paper. Instead of the action promised in the red ink book,
all we have had until last month has been foot dragging. Given
his reluctance to release the paper before the Quebec provincial
election on September 12 it is surprising the minister even
released the paper in advance of the promised Quebec
referendum, but he did. This type of blatant politicking only
serves to exacerbate the problem because it delays the move
toward a badly needed solution.
Be that as it may we finally have the review paper. Looking at
it however, what do we really have? So far that paper is nothing
more than an eclectic grab-bag of reworked Liberal programs
from the 1960s and 1970s along with a continuation of some
Tory proposals.
The minister also denies that this process has anything to do
with budget cuts. Well it surely has and it must. I do not think
Canadians are fooled by this attempt to sugarcoat the truth. In
fact, some Canadians might find the minister's sales pitch
somewhat insulting.
We all know what the problem is. The real question is: How do
we solve it? We solve it collectively in an open and honest way
while ensuring that those really in need do not suffer. We must
protect the people who need our help.
We have to eliminate the deficit by carefully reviewing all of
the government spending including sacred cows like official
languages and multiculturalism. Every time we mention that in
this House we get bombarded that they cannot be touched. Well
the time has come when we have to touch them and examine
them in detail. We must ask ourselves if we are getting value for
every dollar we spend and whether we can live without the
program.
The process has to be done objectively and fairly treating all
provinces alike and all individuals with compassion. Once we
eliminate deficit spending we can begin to chip away at the debt.
Only through this method can we ensure the continued viability
of Canada's valued social programs. In the meantime it is
obvious some cuts are needed in social spending but the big
question of the day is where to cut.
We have heard a dissertation on unemployment insurance.
Last year the program cost Canadians $20 billion. The
minister's review paper talks about making this a two tier
system, or simply making it harder to be eligible for benefits. I
suggest that both of these proposals are nothing more than a
continuation of Tory policies.
(1250 )
The unemployment insurance system must be returned to a
true insurance plan. It must eliminate regional differences in
qualifying periods, benefits and non-insurance components.
This area alone could save roughly $5 billion.
The Canada assistance plan helps the provinces fund welfare
programs at an annual cost of $8 billion. The government
suggests this program be made more flexible to allow provinces
to experiment. This may help the provinces. It may help to
prevent some of the abuses of the welfare system but we are still
going to be spending the same amount.
It may be better to cut much of this spending in favour of a
new child tax credit which could be targeted at low income
households. As I said earlier this whole process has to target
those who absolutely need the help. We cannot afford to
continue with the past approach of universality. In any event the
new child tax credit would not only ensure the money gets to
those who need it most, but it could also produce savings in the
area of three to five billion dollars.
In the area of education the government is proposing a system
in which RRSPs could be used to pay for tuition. Many years ago
there was a registered education savings plan. This was
eliminated when it was found to be ineffective. Therefore why
does the government continue to believe that a failed program
from the past can work today?
8000
Instead of giving money directly to students and not through
increased loans as the review paper suggests, how about doing it
through a voucher system? That has been discussed in this
House. It has merit and really should be looked at.
It would ensure that money is spent on education rather than
just going into provincial general revenue funds. It would make
post-secondary institutions more accountable and receptive to
the changing needs of students and the job market. The savings
would not be great but a more efficient use of current resources
would be ensured. Education is an area we have to protect to the
maximum degree possible.
The review paper does not talk about reforming health care.
Health care costs Canadians over $70 billion each year of which
the federal government pays about $15 billion one way or
another. The health system is increasingly overburdened.
Reform stated during the 1993 election campaign that it
would maintain transfer payments for health care at current
levels. The medicare system in Canada is something I think
every Canadian says we must have. It is of highest priority for
protection. What do we have to do then? We have to experiment
with ways to get more bang for our buck out of the health
system.
This would mean allowing provinces more freedom to design
their own health initiatives based on their own needs. The
provinces are close to it. They are the ones who have to deliver
the services. Let them make more decisions. While it is
important in the health system for national standards to apply,
those standards should not be so rigid as to disallow provincial
experimentation, such as private clinics.
The Liberals decry this type of thinking claiming it will create
a two tiered system, which is already a fact in Canada. Why do
the Liberals think that is so terrible in the area of health yet they
proclaim it as a possible saviour for unemployment insurance?
This is an example of the type of double talk the government is
becoming famous for.
(1255)
I have only begun to touch on the many programs in Canada's
social safety net and we have already identified about $9 billion
in potential annual savings. I have also attempted to ensure that
those who are truly in need of help are not adversely affected.
It is possible to save money in this area by carefully targeting
where the money goes and rethinking the way we deliver these
services. I hope the government has listened and continues to
listen when my Reform colleagues add their valuable input over
the remaining hours of this debate.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House
today.
Six weeks ago the Minister of Human Resources
Development released a discussion paper on social security in
Canada in order to engender a lively debate across this country
about what kind of social security system we want in the future.
A debate should be based on facts not rumours and scare stories
so let us make sure we all understand those facts.
We have created an excellent and highly accessible
post-secondary education system in Canada but it is
increasingly under pressure. Resources for everything are tight
and there is a growing need for more access to the system. Our
challenge is to ensure that we maintain and improve the system
and broaden access.
First, why broaden access? Because there are three million
people already in the workforce who want to improve and
upgrade their skills in order to keep jobs. More and more people
should be getting a post-secondary education. Of the new jobs
created during the last three years 17 per cent went to people
with university education. There were 19 per cent fewer jobs for
those with less than high school.
Governments do not have any more money to pay for
education. In fact most governments have less money to spend.
The federal government is not proposing that we cut $2.6 billion
out of the system as some people would suggest. Our proposal
will put more in the system as I will explain.
Let us look at how education is paid for. Students pay about
one-fifth of the costs of their college or university education
through tuition fees. More than half of the students graduate
without borrowing money or by borrowing very small amounts.
Taxpayers pay about four-fifths or 80 per cent of the cost of
post-secondary education, whether or not they personally
benefit. That is a lot more than in most countries where students
pay a larger share of tuition costs in recognition of the fact that
they earn higher salaries and wages during their working
lifetime.
Provincial governments are responsible for education, but the
federal government pays half the costs for colleges and
universities, about $8 billion a year. This currently includes $3.5
billion in tax points that allow the provinces to collect taxes for
colleges and universities and $2.6 billion in transfers to
provinces in cash. There is an additional $2 billion, mostly in
support to university research and the cost of student loans
through the Canada student loans program.
The $3.5 billion in tax points will always be there and it will
keep growing. The tax points contribution will grow by an
estimated $2 billion over the next decade, replacing the cash
portion that will run out over the next 10 years.
8001
(1300)
Under the present system the cash will run out in about 10
years. Without extra government money it is likely that tuition
fees will keep rising. That is why the government is considering
an alternative, taking some of that cash before it disappears and
using it to set up a permanent expanded student aid program.
This would provide as much as $2 billion extra in student loans
each year.
Under such a scheme the total amount of federal contributions
to post-secondary education would increase by more than $10
billion over the next 10 years. Instead of leaving the system as it
is now, which would put the federal government contribution at
a total of about $60 billion over 10 years, it would be about $70
billion.
A new kind of student loans program would make it easier to
finance education, not just for traditional students but for older
Canadians who want to go back to school but do not qualify for
student loans now. More people would be able to go to college or
university. College and university fees could rise but it seems
like a reasonable investment given the fact that university
graduates' lifetime earnings will be 40 per cent higher than if
they had not made that investment. That is about one-quarter
million dollars more.
In addition if we were to make the replacement of student
loans contingent on earnings after graduation, students would
have a guarantee that their investment in learning will not
burden them with impossible loan payments.
These are the ideas we have put forward for discussion.
Canadians will have an opportunity to respond. They can fill out
the work book which we have available for all Canadians to have
their say on the reform of social programs. The booklet is
available in postal outlets, Canada Employment Centres,
YM-YWCAs and many grocery stores or by calling the toll free
1-800 number.
Social security reform affects all Canadians. The government
encourages open debate to find the best solutions to take us into
the next century.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am pleased to rise today and
speak on the social reform issue, which I believe will be of great
significance during the coming months for a number of reasons.
I would like to take a moment to demonstrate that the Liberal
government is facing an unsurmountable problem, trying
desperately as it has been for the past year to defend the
Constitution. I am referring of course to the federal system as we
know it, this system that the Prime Minister described as
profitable federalism over a decade ago.
In fact, this profitable federalism that we keep hearing about
without ever seeing any results, this much-vaunted profitable
federalism has no room left to move because it is throwing
everything in reverse as we will see later. And there are only two
ways out the deadlock for the federal system: to tax the
middle-class to excess or cut social services.
This is the context in which I think the social reform proposals
before us must be seen. While the previous government, a
Conservative government, became famous mainly for
increasing the tax load of middle-income earners, the present
Liberal government seems to want to make a name for itself with
social service cuts affecting first and foremost the less affluent.
All of this boils down to what was described as the vicious
circle in which the Canadian economy is trapped. You start by
overtaxing middle-income earners, thereby reducing their
buying power which in turn forces them to change their
consumer habits and definitely buy less. This results in fewer
jobs and higher unemployment. The low-income population is
growing at the expense of the middle-income one. The decline
in employment causes the government's tax revenues to drop as
well.
(1305)
Similarly, since unemployment and social assistance costs are
going up, the government must spend more. The deficit is
growing every day, while the government's manoeuvring room
is getting narrower.
Faced with this situation, the well-off often transfer their
assets to other countries before it melts away here. Again, this
eliminates jobs, raises the unemployment rate, cuts government
revenue and increases public spending, which in turn narrows
the government's room to manoeuvre.
To address the problem, the government has decided to reduce
its services. In this regard, this government is not so different
from the former Conservative government, since its proposed
social reform reflects the philosophy behind the various UI
reform initiatives put forward by the Tories when they were in
power. To be convinced of this, one only has to look at the main
elements of this reform. First of all, the government has created
two classes of unemployed: the occasional UI claimants and the
frequent claimants. We may well ask ourselves if the workers
now benefiting from the infrastructure program put in place by
the government last year will become frequent or occasional
claimants when they lose their short-term jobs.
Since it creates these two classes of unemployed people, the
government also creates two classes of benefits: basic insurance
and adjustment insurance, as it is called. Basic insurance is for
occasional claimants. It is pretty much the same as the present
system which the government finds inadequate. In the second
case, adjustment insurance, the government perpetuates the
vicious circle of the Canadian economy which I mentioned
earlier.
8002
In fact, the reform of social programs which the government
has presented to us provides no real policy to stimulate
employment. So one may well ask what claimants of adjustment
insurance can adjust to.
To deal with this situation, the government intends to require
frequent claimants to do community work or take training
courses in order to qualify for benefits. We see how ridiculous
the situation is, because these are bandaid solutions. Once these
unemployed people have completed their community work to
which the Department of Human Resources Development will
assign them, they will all return to unemployment as even more
frequently unemployed, since in the mean time the government
will have provided nothing to stimulate employment.
So we go from one vicious circle to another, making the
unemployed pay for this government's lack of initiative when it
comes to job creation. However, this little game is just fine in
the context of the vicious circle prevailing in Canada. First, the
government no longer has any margin. Consequently, it forces
the unemployed to participate in new employment expansion
and development programs. So as to lower their production
costs, companies use these programs to hire workers whose
salaries are lower, and therefore competitive with those already
being paid.
Consequently, in the medium term, well-paying jobs become
more and more rare, thus reducing even more the purchasing
power of the middle class. Since employment income tends to
diminish, it results in lower tax revenue for the government,
which then has even less of a margin. The result is that the
government must make new cuts in services to meet its budget
goals. And the vicious circle starts all over again for the
Canadian economy.
The introduction of this social program reform by the Liberals
only confirms what the majority of Quebec voters figured out
last year: To vote for the Liberals or the Conservatives was just
the same. The Conservatives overtaxed the middle class, while
the Liberals will cut aid to the poor. At least one Liberal MP, the
hon. member for York South-Weston, recognized this when he
said that, during the ten years that the Liberals formed the
Official Opposition, they accused the Conservatives of reducing
the deficit on the back of the poor, but that they were now doing
the same thing.
(1310)
It is useless to vote for a party that supports a constitutional
framework that is dragging us down into bankruptcy. The
problem is that all this is being done at the expense of the
vulnerable in our society. The rich are never affected by these
reforms. To illustrate my point, I may refer to a letter sent
recently by a Liberal member, the hon. member for
Gander-Grand Falls, to the Minister of Finance. In this letter,
which was published in the media either yesterday or today, the
hon. member said, and this was to the Minister of Finance, that
he was particularly upset about the shocking and immoral
deductions allowed as entertainment expenses, for instance, the
purchase of $200 bottles of wine, cruises, escort services, and so
forth. What is the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls
actually saying?
Every year, one of my neighbours in my riding, Mr. Tremblay,
has one or two corn roasts for his friends. He buys corn, of
course, some wine and some cake, and he entertains his guests.
Of course, Mr. Tremblay does this at his own expense.
Meanwhile, large corporations entertain their guests, serving
cocktails, petits fours and champagne, and that is tax deductible.
Who is paying? Mr. Tremblay, through his taxes. So Mr.
Tremblay is paying for everyone. That is why corn is expensive,
and that is why it is so expensive to be poor.
In his letter, the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls
estimated that amounts spent on wine, petits fours and
champagne were costing the government $200 million.
The hon. member, who did some research at Revenue Canada,
also pointed out that forward averaging of taxes by companies
now amounted to nearly $40 billion. Forward averaging refers to
amounts that are payable but may be spread over subsequent
returns. Nearly 1,200 companies recorded profits of at least $1
million without paying a cent of income tax, according to the
hon. member. In concluding, he said more or less the following:
As the minister can see, the $9 billion he is looking for could be
found by collecting the taxes that should have been paid by
companies on their profits.
I agree with the hon. member of the Reform Party. I think that
before cutting social services, we should first get the money that
is out there so that we have some degree of social justice. Where
are we heading, politically speaking? I am sorry to put it this
way, but I really think we are starting to look like a banana
republic. A banana republic is not a republic where people pick
bananas. It is a republic where the people who pick the bananas
do not grow them. This means a republic with only two classes:
the poor and the rich. The rich always get richer and the poor get
poorer. If this proposal is passed, as it will be within the next few
months, we will witness the undeniable signs of
``bananization''. Obviously, we cannot support this reform
package.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to my colleague's remarks with great
attention, particularly his comments about social services
reform in the context of federalism.
8003
We are all agreed, in the House and in the country at large, that
the previous government, because it concentrated so much on
constitutional issues, left our house in a state of great disorder
not only in the accumulation of debt but also in failing to address
these very crucial problems of social security reform.
I would like to suggest to the member opposite that we now
have exactly the same situation. We have another leader in
Canada pushing a constitutional agenda which will take us away
from the focus on necessary reforms involving social services
and reducing the debt. I suggest to the member that person is Mr.
Jacques Parizeau. I wonder how he can explain that Mr. Parizeau
is not directing us away from where we should really be looking,
that is looking after Canadians, finding jobs and increasing the
benefits in the economy.
(1315)
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, I think that we will indeed have
to pay increasing attention to the Constitution in the months to
come. Sadly, this problem could have been resolved a while
back, if only the Charlottetown agreements had been passed. We
know what happened to these agreements that put at end to the
negotiations between Quebec and Canada.
Quebec said no to the agreements, and so did Canada. This
means that very soon the people of Quebec will have to choose
between taking Canada such as it is and building a new country
in Quebec. We have been expressing this need of ours for greater
self-reliance to the rest of Canada for 125 years, and no effort
was spared during these 125 years. But apparently, no one can
find a solution to this problem.
The only solution that seems fair to us consists in building a
country in Quebec and letting Canada develop as it pleases,
according to its own interests. Basically, Canadians would
decide what they want to do and how they want to do it, while we
would do the exact same thing in Quebec.
As for employment development, let me tell my hon.
colleague that it is not by making massive cuts on the backs of
welfare recipients that you boost job creation. I think that, with
or without Quebec, a comprehensive tax reform is
required-and I firmly believe this-in Canada. Unfortunately,
if this is not done, Canada, with or without Quebec, will face
huge difficulties in the years to come, because the low and
middle-income class will get poorer and poorer. The Prime
Minister himself once said that $1 million knows no language
barriers and moves quickly. Some people will move their assets
out of Canada and we will go through very hard times.
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the terminology I heard was bananas, and that is
absolutely right. Bananas, I repeat it.
I read a little quote: ``A strong economy is the essence of a
strong society. My government will focus on a jobs and growth
agenda. We will work with all our partners, provincial
governments, business, labour, voluntary groups and individual
Canadians''. That is a quote from the Prime Minister of Canada.
I could carry it on a little further by referring to the opening of
the green paper: ``My commitment is to listen and to work with
all Canadians, different governments, groups, organizations, so
that we can develop in partnership a framework that makes
sense, is effective and is founded on basic Canadian values of
compassion and justice. And I invite you to join in the
discussion and debate''.
The point is that the green paper tabled by the minister is a
consultation paper. The minister has pleaded with with the party
across the way in the opposition to participate. There certainly
are some alternatives laid forth in the green paper. At the same
time the minister has been very open time and time again: if
there is a better suggestion, a better idea, a better alternative,
come forward with it. He is open to discussion; he is open to
points of view on this subject matter.
As a matter of fact he has gone out of his way to invite all
Canadians to participate. It is important to people from the
province of Quebec. It is important to people from the province
of New Brunswick. Indeed it is important for all Canadians. This
is your opportunity, members of the opposition party, to focus
on citizens in the province of Quebec and have them come
forward.
(1320)
Why is the approach not to get these points of view across to
the minister? I know he is open to them.
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the member, I
would ask all members to put their remarks through the Chair. It
is designed to keep the pressure down in here; it is not just
because we have to have everything addressed to the people who
occupy the chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, we have examined closely the
famous green paper and we have made comments up to now. We
believe essentially that the minister focuses mainly on social
program reform. In doing so, he forces people to consider this
reform. He starts by saying that the problem in Canada comes
from small and medium-income people and that this is where
savings can be made because the problems come from that
group.
Besides, the Prime Minister himself did not hesitate to refer to
these people as beer-drinking couch potatoes. What we say is
8004
that there is indeed a problem in Canada and whether Quebec
stays or not, Canada will have to go through a complete
overhaul of its taxation system but the reform must start at the
top. We must start with those who use these expenditures for
their own benefit, those who pay no income tax. Billions of
dollars are involved here.
I quoted earlier the Liberal member for Gander-Grand Falls
who has studied the matter, as did many others. I believe we are
open to discussion. As we have been saying since we came here,
we should open the books to Canadians, not only the third
chapter, not the first, all the books. We agree with that.
[English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the hon. member but I found an air of doom and gloom
in his scenario. I would suggest that the nature of work in many
respects has changed. A lot of people work successfully at home
and on flex time. A lot of people volunteer and do a lot of work.
We have to face the fact that some people who work at lower
salaries and pay their taxes are getting a little tired of waste and
of those who abuse the system. However we are not going to
solve the problems by attacking only those who abuse the
system, because the system patently does not work well enough
in this age.
What is wrong with someone asking for some community
service work from frequent users of the UI program, which is
supposed to be an insurance program and not a welfare program?
What in the world is wrong with requesting people who receive
something to do a little something in return, or at least to take
responsibility within their community to assist in cleaning it up,
in it being better run or perhaps assist seniors and children?
Would my friend care to explain how if we did that it would
somehow, as he suggested, impact upon better paying work,
upon more higher paying jobs? I do not see it.
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just told
us that the system is abused-I fully agree. There is abuse at all
levels, that is what we mean. We must not consider only how
people at the bottom of the scale abuse the system. The system is
also abused by people all the way to the top.
Our position is extremely clear and is illustrated by a
colourful image: when you want to clean a staircase, you clean it
completely, not just the bottom step or the two lowest steps. You
start at the top and work your way down. The Bloc Quebecois
fully agrees with the government on that point; we are prepared
to open all the books and review them in public. That is all I had
to say on the question.
The Deputy Speaker: I must inform hon. members that the
hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has advised me in writing that
he is unable to present his motion during the time provided for
Private Members' Business on Monday, November 21, 1994.
(1325 )
[English]
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in
the order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order 94.
Accordingly I would request the table officers to drop that item
of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
[Translation]
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business will therefore be suspended and, pursuant to Standing
Order 99, the House will meet at eleven o'clock on Monday
morning to consider Government Orders. I am very sorry about
this, hon. members.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to add some comments to the debate because
it is a very important one.
When we look at the social safety net and its origins all
members in the Chamber would agree it essentially a Liberal
creation. In the post-war years there were successive Liberal
governments. There was a period when we had a Conservative
government under John Diefenbaker. However I think the
Liberals, particularly those under Prime Minister Pearson, can
take credit for many of the social safety net reforms we have
today.
There is no doubt anything that is put together will eventually
develop flaws and difficulties and will be subject to change and
reform. What has happened here and the reason why we are
having this debate right now is that reform of the social safety
net is long overdue, not just because we cannot afford it but
because it is not working as well as it should.
I would not like to discuss the reforms in detail in this debate,
but my experience in the last month has been that Canadians are
ready for the type of debate and the type of reforms being
contemplated now. We do not know what the final answer will be
on unemployment insurance. We will have to see. It is a very
contentious issue. However we have to address it and Canadians
are ready.
I can give a couple of examples. Every year there is a very
popular fall fair in my area. This is typical of the ridings of most
MPs; they have fall fairs in their ridings. I took the green paper
of the Minister of Human Resources Development to the fall fair
and sat it on a table there. In the course of two days I gave out
200 copies of it.
8005
People would come up to me and ask: ``What is that?'' I would
say: ``You have to read this because it is something that is going
to affect every Canadian''. People from all walks of life at the
fall fair took the paper, promised to examine it, read it carefully,
and send in their reactions.
I now have in my office at least 300 replies, not all of them
sophisticated papers from special interests groups about which
the Reform Party and perhaps myself love to talk from time to
time. They were ordinary Canadians reacting to a very important
initiative by the government, one that has to be debated
thoroughly not only in the Chamber but in the community.
I took the green paper one step further. Once a month I have a
cable TV program. I use it as an open line show. A local
journalist comes down. It is quite interesting. Actually it is a lot
of fun to do because there is no pre-preparation; we do not work
out the questions beforehand. We simply sit there and talk and
people call in.
People often think that cable TV is not well watched but I can
assure the House that this program is very well watched. I had a
tremendous response. The lines were flooded, particularly on
the subject of the social safety net or reform of our social
systems. I had all kinds of people call in, but the most
compelling people who called were are on welfare, the people
who are the beneficiaries of the system or are seen to be the
beneficiaries of the system but are also the ones who are losing
the most by it. One person called in and identified herself as a
young single woman on welfare with a child; I cannot remember
whether she had one or two children. She said that she felt
terribly trapped.
I conclude by saying that the debate we are engaged in,
whether in the House or in society, is one of the most important
debates of this Parliament.
(1330)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed in today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
8005
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) moved that Bill C-276,
an act respecting Lester B. Pearson Day, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member,
but I want to raise this point of order at the beginning of this hour
concerning private member's bills because I want to make a very
important point.
Since the beginning of this Parliament we have had a system
where a subcommittee of the House decides which private
members' bills are votable or not votable. However, there is a
tendency in the House for members at the end of the debate to
ask for unanimous consent for a bill which is not votable, such as
this one is today, to become votable.
From the government side, it is our responsibility to make
sure that the rules are respected. If members feel that all private
members' bills should be votable, that question should be
addressed to the House committee on procedure instead of
making the point each time. In this case, even though we would
like the hon. leader, Lester B. Pearson, to have a national
holiday, the government definitely cannot support such an idea.
The Deputy Speaker: No such motion has been made on this
bill. There may have been discussions between the minister and
the member, but as much as possible this hour is reserved for
private members, not for statements of government policy.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to debate the merits of my private
member's bill entitled an act to establish Lester B. Pearson Day.
The purpose of my bill is to establish a national holiday in
honour of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson in recognition of his
great contributions to Canada and the international community.
In short, I have proposed that the second Monday in February of
each year be designated as Lester B. Pearson Day for reasons
which I will outline in my comments.
While I am certain that members are familiar with the many
achievements of this great man, I feel it was important to state
some of his accomplishments for the record. Although Lester B.
Pearson, often known as Mike Pearson, served as Canada's
Prime Minister from April 22, 1963 to April 20, 1968, he began
serving Canada long before moving into the Prime Minister's
office.
Prior to joining the department of external affairs in 1928,
Pearson served in the Canadian Army Medical and Flying Corps
from 1914 to 1918. As a diplomat with external affairs, he held
several senior posts abroad, including first secretary to the
Canadian High Commission in London from 1935 to 1941 and
eventually became Canadian ambassador to the United States in
1945.
These high profile diplomatic posts contributed to his
recognition on the world stage and propelled him to the
chairmanship of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
between 1951 and 1952 and then to the presidency of the United
Nations General Assembly in 1952.
While Lester Pearson was well known on the international
scene, it was really in 1957 that he became a household name.
On October 14, 1957 Lester Pearson was awarded the Nobel
peace prize. To date he is the first and only Canadian to receive
the peace prize and I am really proud of him.
8006
(1335)
The Nobel committee voted to bestow the peace prize on Mr.
Pearson primarily because of his role in the Suez crisis of 1956.
In an effort to resolve the crisis between Egyptians and Israelis,
Pearson proposed the creation of a UN military force to act as a
buffer between the belligerents. His proposal received
overwhelming approval, 57 for and none against. The first
modern UN peacekeeping force was established, thanks to
Lester B. Pearson.
Gunnar Jahn, the chairman of the Nobel committee later
stated that Pearson had been awarded the peace prize because of
his ``never tiring determination and his exceptional ability to
put forward constructive ideas for the solution of problems''.
Others would echo those comments, including UN General
Assembly President Leslie Munro, who described Pearson as a
great Canadian who is one of the foremost citizens of the world.
The New York Times reported that Pearson was: ``A big man
from a country that is a small power'' and that he was probably
better known abroad than at home. Pearson's victory prompted
Toronto Mayor Nathan Phillips to declare December 19, 1957
Lester Pearson Day. Unfortunately I do not believe the tradition
has been continued.
Pearson's success on the international stage and his receipt of
the Nobel peace prize finally helped him to get the recognition
he deserved in his own country. Canadians began to take notice
of him and in 1958 Lester Pearson became the leader of the
Liberal Party. After a few years in opposition, he went on to
become the Prime Minister of Canada in 1963.
In addition to his success on the international stage, Pearson
also accomplished a great deal as Prime Minister. During his
tenure Canadians were given the Canada pension plan, a
program central to our nation's social safety net. Pearson was
also responsible for giving Canadians a national flag, a true
symbol of our nationhood and independence.
Other notable achievements include the Royal Commission
on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and the Canada-U.S.
automotive agreement, both of which have had a significant
impact on Canadian life as we know it today.
Although Lester Pearson left this earth on December 27, 1972
his legacy lives on in world peacekeeping. Canada is a
peacekeeping nation because of Mr. Pearson. We are proud of
our record as world peacekeepers and in fact many believe that
peacekeeping personifies what it means to be Canadian. To date,
more than 90,000 Canadians have participated in UN and other
peacekeeping missions.
As of this fall, close to 3,000 Canadian peacekeepers were
participating in missions around the world, including a
significant number in Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Haiti and
Macedonia.
If the recent report of the Special Joint Committee on
Canada's Defence Policy is any indication of our commitment to
peacekeeping, we can plan on being in the business for many
more years to come. Canadians have more often than not failed
to honour those individuals of whom they are most proud. A
quick review of all of our national holidays show there is not one
holiday, with perhaps the exception of Remembrance Day,
which pays tribute to a truly remarkable Canadian.
(1340)
Although I can understand why we celebrate Queen Victoria's
birthday and many other of our statutory holidays, I have never
been able to understand why we cannot pay tribute to our own
heroes, to those who have had a significant impact on Canadian
life as we know it, like Lester B. Pearson.
Unlike Canada, many other nations take time to pay tribute to
their heroes. The Americans celebrate George Washington's
birthday; the British celebrate their monarchs and the Russians
once had a holiday to honour Lenin. Is it because we feel there is
no one worthy of our recognition? I say not.
Some have asked me why in my bill I have chosen the second
Monday in February as a day on which to honour our former
Prime Minister. Originally I had hoped to select a day of
significance to the life of Lester Pearson. I considered April 23,
his birthday, but of course Easter is in April. Then I thought of
October 14, the day it was announced that Pearson had won the
Nobel peace prize, but Thanksgiving is too close. Then I
considered December 27, the day of his death, which falls
extremely close to Christmas and Boxing Day.
I opted for February, the one month of the year that Canadians
do not get a break and the month that most Canadians find to be
the coldest and most depressing month of the year. A few years
ago some statistics indicated that a majority of suicides take
place in February, leading me to believe that Canadians really
need something to look forward to in the second month of the
year.
I also opted for February because I felt that having two or
more holidays in April, October or December might pose an
excessive burden on those Canadians that operate businesses.
I have also been asked by some members whether this bill is
political in nature because Pearson was a Liberal. I want to
assure all members that politics was not behind this initiative.
This man was a great Canadian. As stated earlier, he is the only
Nobel peace prize winner from Canada. He is the father of
international peacekeeping. I simply want to honour a man who
8007
has given so much to the people of this nation. I want to pay
homage to a great Canadian and his political stripe has nothing
to do with it.
At this stage in our history when many Canadians are asking
themselves what it truly means to be a Canadian and some are
even asking whether they should continue to remain in Canada,
we must make every effort to show our citizens there are
Canadians of whom they can be proud, Canadians who have
made a difference to their lives today and to the lives of many
people around the world.
Lester Pearson is such a Canadian. By enacting a national
holiday to honour the Right Hon. Lester Pearson, we would be
providing Canadians with a day to reflect on this great country
of ours and on this great man and his valuable contribution to
our nation. Let us bring a little bit of nationalism and pride to
Canada that it truly Canadian in nature. Let us honour one of our
own heroes for a change.
I will wrap up here because two of my colleagues who were
privileged to know and work with Lester Pearson are anxious to
share their experience and thoughts on this great man.
(1345)
In closing, I would urge all members to support this initiative.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois to support Bill C-276, An Act respecting Lester B.
Pearson Day. This is a perfect opportunity to take a look at the
life and career of an illustrious man, who was Prime Minister of
Canada from 1963 to 1968, and who made a remarkable
contribution to Canadian diplomacy.
After a brief military career, Mr. Pearson joined the
diplomatic circuit. It is there that, from 1935 to 1946, he
developed his exceptional skills in foreign policy and gained a
solid reputation at the international level. After being Deputy
Minister in 1946, and then Minister of External Affairs in 1948,
Lester B. Pearson was well prepared to face the new challenges
which awaited Canada in the post-war era.
As the architect of the new Canadian foreign policy, he helped
our country gain full status at the international level. The long
tradition of Canada as a passive observer on the international
scene was over. After the Second World War, our country had
become a middle power. Pearson understood more than anyone
else that Canada had to adopt a distinct and more independent
foreign policy with its traditional partners, Great Britain and the
United States.
Consequently, he opened the door to multilateralism and
imposed an expansionist vision of Canadian foreign policy. This
resulted in Canada joining and actively participating in new
international organizations such as the UN. For a peace
proponent like Pearson, Canada's involvement in such an
organization was crucial for his foreign policy.
However, there were limits to what the United Nations could
do. Taking into consideration the Cold War and the fact that no
international authority could ensure order and stability on a
world-wide basis, Pearson, then deputy minister of External
Affairs, believed that Canada needed to join forces with its
strategic allies under a collective defence pact. Pearson thought
that, by signing the North Atlantic Treaty, Canada's security
needs were being met, but also that NATO would become a
deterrent and a defence instrument against Soviet imperialism.
Guided by an international vision quite rare in North America
at that time and having taken stock of the events in Prague in
1948, Mr. Pearson unreservedly supported the creation of this
organization in 1949. However, the North Atlantic Treaty
remains a regional agreement. Since 1945, international
relations have been marked by new forms of violence. All of the
ideological confrontations between the super-powers and the
decolonization process, led to many conflicts throughout the
world.
Obviously, the Charter of the United Nations cannot prevent
war, since the veto of the five superpowers sitting on the
Security Council limits the scope of the activities of the
international community. To counter the powerlessness of the
only agency of the United Nations authorized to use coercion to
settle international conflicts, the General Assembly passed a
resolution concerning peacekeeping in 1950.
In 1956, during the Suez Canal crisis, Mr. Pearson proposed
that a peacekeeping force be set up. The UN having
implemented his recommendation, Pearson was awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize in 1957. In fact, he had provided the United
Nations with a new response capability. As a result of his
international reputation, Lester B. Pearson was twice
approached to fill the prestige position of Secretary General of
the United Nations. In 1952, he had been president of the UN
General Assembly, playing a pivotal role in the creation of
specialized agencies like the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization.
(1350)
During his term as Prime Minister, when decolonization and
the emerging non-aligned movement were important elements
on the international scene, Pearson became known as an eminent
artisan of the North-South dialogue. He was in favour of an open
policy vis-à-vis the Third World and enjoyed a privileged
relationship with leaders like Nehru.
8008
His vision of Canada and the federal system would reflect the
same open attitude. Pearson was on very good terms with
Quebec and the other provinces during his first mandate.
It was the time of the Quiet Revolution, as the Quebec nation
State was emerging. Political leaders in Quebec were
developing the tools the new State would need to affirm its right
to exist. Quebec was to recover jurisdictions recognized in the
Constitution Act, 1867, but never claimed by Canada's
provinces.
At the time, Pearson agreed that Quebec was justified in its
insistence on some of these rights, and until 1965, he was on
excellent terms with his Quebec counterparts, so that
negotiations with the province were relatively harmonious.
Pearson was in favour of co-operative federalism and, to
show that he meant what he said, after he won the election in
1963, he appointed the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission on
Official Languages. Under his government, federal-provincial
negotiations led to a number of administrative agreements and
also, although there were some problems, to the creation of the
Quebec Pension Plan and the Caisse de dépôt et de placement.
It is hard to understand the complete reversal in Mr. Pearson's
attitude to Quebec during his second term. He went so far as to
deny Quebec's international personality and to see the
province's attempts to create ties with other nations as those of a
rebellious province intent on usurping powers that he felt were
exclusive to the federal government.
It is amazing that this passionate defender of decolonization
throughout the world was so unwilling to entertain Quebec's
aspirations. What made him suddenly become impervious to the
legitimate demands of a province that wanted to claim the
jurisdictions to which it was entitled? Some attribute this to the
rise of the indépendantiste movement in Quebec or to new
constitutional demands being made by Quebec leaders. At the
time, it was Daniel Johnson, with his ``Égalité ou
indépendance''. Some say it was due to the increasing influence
of Trudeau, Marchand and other members of his cabinet.
After Lester B. Pearson, Canada-Quebec relations were never
again as harmonious as they were before. After the Victoria
fiasco, the night of the long knives in 1982 was to lead to Meech
and Charlottetown. Despite some shadow areas, Lester B.
Pearson was a man of great stature, that is how Canadians and
Quebecers remember him. However, it is unfortunate that his
successors either failed or refused to continue his tradition of
openness and his conciliatory approach.
We can only hope that Lester B. Pearson Day will remind men
and women in Quebec and Canada that openness and respect for
diversity are qualities that are essential to the individual and the
national maturity.
[English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure today to second the
motion of the hon. member for Cambridge as he brings in his
Lester B. Pearson day bill. I congratulate him and compliment
him to the nth degree on his recognition of Canadian
statesmanship. This is the hon. member's first term in this
Parliament and this bill is a good example of his national and
international vision. I am sure that he will have a long stay in
this place.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1355 )
Mr. Hopkins: He has a national spirit that he is projecting
today in this bill. He has stated he is proud of Lester Bowles
Pearson.
I compliment the hon. member for Laval Centre for some of
her remarks. Some of them I would not agree with. Everyone has
their own perspective. As I speak I am not going to be partisan in
this debate either. Lester B. Pearson was Prime Minister sitting
just down here when I was first elected. He was my first Prime
Minister. He did not have a mean bone in his body. One could
fully understand sitting in this House with the Right Hon. Lester
B. Pearson that he was a diplomat from day one.
Indeed, that caused him some of his heartaches during the
time he was Prime Minister. He was too kind to some people
who were not very kind to him.
Having known Mr. Pearson on a very personal first name
basis, I had great respect for him. I was one of those first elected
in 1965, that great election that Walter Gordon persuaded Lester
B. Pearson to call. The only benefit the Liberal Party received
from that election was the 53 of us who were new to the House of
Commons. When the election was called at the advice of Walter
Gordon to the Prime Minister, the Liberal government in this
House had 129 seats and when the final count was in on election
night the Liberal Party had 131 seats. Walter Gordon had
promised Pearson a majority government. He resigned from the
cabinet because he had given the Prime Minister bad advice.
When we look at the background of Mr. Pearson's life he had a
very happy childhood. One thing that really strikes me, as the
hon. member for Cambridge mentioned, was Mr. Pearson's
experience in World War I. Can you imagine what the Royal
Flying Corps in Europe looked like in World War I? Mr. Pearson
was a member of that flying corps for three years.
This undoubtedly was a great experience for Prime Minister
Pearson. It prepared him for the great flag debate of the 1960s
which to him at times must have reminded him of World War I
but he persevered through that battle.
8009
It is rather interesting that the hon. member for Cambridge
suggests that Lester B. Pearson day should be the second
Monday in February because it was in the month of February
that the Canadian flag was first unfurled, I believe, on
Parliament Hill. It is very fitting that Lester B. Pearson who led
the debate for a new Canadian flag should be honoured in the
same month as the Canadian flag is honoured today.
This rather timid man had many accomplishments. When you
first met him he was very pleasant and accommodating. He
would always talk to you about things in your riding. It gave you
that feeling that this man really knows his country and his local
geography.
I remember the last time I had a chance to have a chat with
Mike Pearson. It was one day after he retired. He was ill at the
time. He was out for a walk. I met him at the flame on Parliament
Hill. His first words to me were: ``Well, Len, how are things in
Pembroke today?''. We had a nice chat there. Then he went into
hospital. It was not long after that that he passed away. Here is a
Canadian who gave Canada its flag. Today our Canadian forces
honour his name in the way they carry the Canadian flag around
the world and when they take part in peacekeeping duties which
as has already been stated he originated in settling the Suez
crisis and the peacekeeping mission of 1956.
(1400)
Here was a man with immense ideas. This man when he was in
external affairs had a national, indeed an international vision.
He looked at the Soviet Union and saw the threat sitting in the
east. He saw the threat when the Warsaw pact was formed. He
saw the need for a North Atlantic Treaty Organization. To a large
extent he was a formative builder of that great peace
organization that saw the western world through the cold war
crisis. It was the match for the Warsaw pact. It held the enemy at
bay. It was a matter of which side went broke first. It turned out
to be the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact.
He was president of the United Nations in 1962-63. I was
looking up the date of Mr. Pearson's first formal election to this
House. He was appointed Minister for External Affairs in 1948.
Is it not ironic that on October 25, 1948, Lester B. Pearson
became the member of Parliament for Algoma East and came to
Ottawa and carried on his duties as Minister for External
Affairs. He won that election by 1,200 and some votes.
The hon. member for Cambridge mentioned the lack of
Canadians' enthusiasm and desire to recognize their own
national figures. Here was a national figure, a man who had
played a major role in the founding of the United Nations. This
was a man who had played a role in the founding of the NATO
alliance. He came back home and ran for election and won the
election by 1,200 and some votes.
Then we go on to the election campaign of 1958. I particularly
like to look back on that election for one reason alone. That is
that the last political meeting Mr. Pearson had in that famous
campaign of 1958 when he was slaughtered politically by the
Diefenbaker forces was held in the town of Deep River in my
initial riding of Renfrew North. It was before an audience in the
high school auditorium. He sat on a table in the middle of a
platform dangling his feet and answering questions like they
were rolling off a log. He knew he was going to lose the election,
but he was so candid and at ease. He came back to Ottawa and
ended up with 48 seats in this House for the Liberal Party of
Canada.
In 1963 he finally won the election as Prime Minister. There
were all kinds of issues to be faced during the 1960s. It is much
like today when every time we turn around there is a new issue
facing members of Parliament. Lester B. Pearson took on many
of those challenges.
He realized that Quebec no longer wanted to live under British
symbols. That was very clear in his mind. That was the reason he
put forward such a fight for the Canadian flag. The Quebec
caucus strongly supported him on that issue all the way through
even when the going got very difficult. Today Canada is known
around the world by that great Canadian symbol that first flew
over Parliament Hill in February 1965. That was one of his ideas
of Canadian unity, but he reached out to all regions of Canada to
try to bring them together.
(1405)
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could continue. You are giving me the
signal that my time is up.
I would like to talk about being with Mr. Pearson in caucus
without giving away any major caucus secrets. I remember one
morning I was delivering a speech in caucus. I came into-
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
member to have one or two more minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Hopkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank
the members of this House.
On a Wednesday morning in caucus I delivered what I thought
was a great dynamic speech. After that I was sitting in the House
right over there in the back row where the hon. member for
Brandon-Souris is sitting right now. A note was sent to me
across the floor from the opposition. That note from a member
of the opposition contained the exact words I had stated in
caucus that morning.
I sent the note down to the Prime Minister and the Hon.
Mitchell Sharp who were sitting together. They turned to me and
shook their heads because the first thing that came into their
minds was that members of our caucus were leaking
information. Actually that was the period when the Liberal
caucus room
8010
was wired and certain members of the opposition were listening
to every word that was being said in the Liberal caucus room.
They sure had my speech right.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for allowing me that extra
time. I thank the hon. member for Cambridge for recognizing a
tremendous individual. One of the reasons that made him great
was that he had some great people around him.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot give
you any personal descriptions of Mr. Pearson, but I too welcome
the opportunity of speaking to Bill C-276 concerning Mr. Lester
B. Pearson day.
Certainly to establish this as a holiday in honour of former
Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson is something to be considered,
but today I want to raise some of the other considerations that we
must have when we talk about such a day. As well, I do hope to
pay some tribute to the former Prime Minister because it
certainly is worthy.
It is clear from the member's speech that he holds the former
Prime Minister in very high regard. I would never fault him for
this since Lester Pearson did indeed leave the country a
considerable legacy. I will talk about this a little later on in my
speech and emphasize the things I remember him for.
To my mind politicians such as Mr. Pearson entered the public
service for many reasons. At least two of those would be to help
Canada grow and mature as a nation and because they were
fascinated by the public life and all it had to offer and what they
could offer it.
I do not believe when he ran for the job that Mr. Pearson
would have expected to have a Canadian holiday named after
him. After doing some research on him I think possibly he might
have been somewhat embarrassed by such an offer. There are a
number of better ways to honour the memory of a former Prime
Minister.
For example everyone who tours around the Parliament
Buildings will have noticed the dignified statues of our former
Prime Ministers prominently displayed on the grounds of the
Hill. Mr. Pearson's statue is among them and Canadians visiting
the capital will see him in his favourite chair overlooking the
front lawn.
(1410 )
As a former Minister of External Affairs and Prime Minister I
am sure Mr. Pearson would also be proud that the building which
houses the Department of Foreign Affairs bears his name, the
Lester B. Pearson building.
These types of displays and other similar ones that may be
proposed are quite appropriate and do a very nice job of
honouring the achievements and memory of Mr. Pearson. I
believe they are also a sufficient tribute.
On the other hand a Canadian holiday in honour of Lester
Pearson is excessive no matter how well intentioned and sincere
my esteemed colleague from Cambridge may be. As I quickly
ran through the holidays in my head I found that only Jesus
Christ and Queen Victoria had a statutory holiday and only two
saints, St. Patrick and St. Valentine, had named holidays.
Coincidentally the second Monday of February which my
colleague would like to be known as Lester B. Pearson day
would have fallen on St. Valentine's day this year. Not only
would I suggest naming a national holiday after a politician
would be excessive but the date suggested will frequently fall on
another holiday, albeit not a government holiday.
It is my understanding that the member for Cambridge would
like to see a statutory holiday for Mr. Pearson just like the other
two we have mentioned. If this happened, then what would be
next? Would the third Monday of February be Diefenbaker day
and the following Monday be Laurier day or John A. Macdonald
day? If we start going down this path then we will have a holiday
for every week of the year. We would not have a Mulroney day
and we would probably at least all agree on that.
Above and beyond the principle of naming holidays after
politicians there is the cost which should be considered. How
much does a Canadian holiday really cost? If it is only a
government holiday then the cost would be in the millions but if
all Canadians were to take a day off work, what would that
mean?
Not really knowing how such a calculation might be done,
someone suggested to me that maybe I should take Canada's
gross domestic product and divide it by 365 days. I admit this is
a fairly primitive way of making the calculation but it is
certainly more conservative than using the GNP numbers. If we
divide the GDP by 365 we come up with a figure of $1.95 billion.
I know that number might be exaggerated but I think the point
we have to make is that the Canadian economy just cannot afford
that sort of expense.
In addition, for businesses such as restaurants, corner stores
and others which would stay open, such a holiday would force
them to pay additional wages to their staff. For businesses
struggling to survive the last thing they need is an unnecessary
added expense.
While I do not agree with the idea that there should be a
Canadian holiday for Mr. Pearson, this is not to suggest I do not
think his achievements are praiseworthy. Any one person who
could be ambassador to the United States, deputy minister of
External Affairs, Minister of External Affairs, president of the
UN General Assembly, Prime Minister and winner of the Nobel
peace prize is obviously someone who has made a tremendous
contribution to Canada and to the world.
While I have this opportunity to speak I would briefly like to
discuss Mr. Pearson's Nobel peace prize. As we all know in
order to bring an end to the Suez crisis in 1956 Mr. Pearson
developed the idea of the UN peacekeeping force which could
intervene and keep combatants separated. Of course it worked in
the case of Suez and has been used ever since as a useful tool of
international diplomacy and conflict resolution.
8011
As Reform's foreign affairs critic I cannot help but reflect on
this transition which peacekeeping has undergone since Mr.
Pearson's days. Under the original formulation peacekeepers
would only enter a country once there was a ceasefire agreement
in place. They would then monitor this agreement and make sure
that no flare ups occurred. In principle while the combatants
were separated this would provide a window of opportunity for
negotiations to bring about a lasting peaceful solution to
hostilities.
Since the first peacekeeping missions, Canada has
contributed troops all over the world and at every opportunity.
However the requests for our help have continued to increase by
the year and our resources are now stretched to the limit. I mean
this in two senses. The personnel of the Canadian forces are
stretched and our financial resources are limited.
Not only has our participation in peacekeeping become more
of a burden, but the nature of peacekeeping has changed. Today
our peacekeepers are going into more dangerous situations,
often without the benefit of ceasefire and much more uncertain
mandates.
(1415)
Therefore, I was pleased to participate in the Canadian
foreign policy review during which we discussed the
peacekeeping legacy of Mr. Pearson in quite a bit of detail. It
was decided during this review and with the input of Canadians
from coast to coast that our peacekeeping tradition, begun by
Mr. Pearson, was still a very important expression of Canadian
foreign policy and that we would like to see the armed forces
restructured in such a way that they can optimize their
participation in future UN interventions.
Nonetheless, it was also realized that Canada can no longer be
the 911 phone number for the world. In the future Canada must
be more selective about the peacekeeping missions it goes on. I
would like to personally ask this Parliament for the opportunity
to debate the question of what specific criteria Canada should
use to determine which peacekeeping missions will be the most
appropriate for our participation.
I would like to see Mr. Pearson's legacy continue and I would
like Parliament to deal with this whole issue in a way that will
allow Canada to continue its role as an international
peacekeeper into the next century.
In conclusion, there is no doubt the Right Hon. Lester B.
Pearson made a very important contribution to the development
of this country, and for that he does deserve honour, but this
must be done in an appropriate way. While a holiday is too
expensive for the Canadian economy and would set a dangerous
precedent for opening the floodgates to more holidays for other
political leaders from our past, I have no objection to the other
tributes which already exist to honour Mr. Lester.
I commend the member for Cambridge for his loyalty and for
bringing this bill forward. I was pleased to speak on it today.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand before you today to
support the bill of my colleague, the hon. member for
Cambridge.
I come at it in quite a different way. The reason I appreciate so
much that he has brought this issue forward is that I believe he is
quite right that we so often fail as Canadians to recognize our
heroes. We have many heroes; heroes of literature, heroes of
history, heroes in Quebec, heroes in the west. We do not
recognize them enough. Sometimes I believe that one of the
reasons why we have problems as a country is because we do not
have a strong enough sense of self.
When it comes to Mr. Pearson as a person who would be
appropriate to be celebrated on a particular day, I do not believe
the member is suggesting a statutory holiday but he is
suggesting a name day, a recognition day. When it comes to Mr.
Pearson, the politician, I find myself inclining toward the views
of my colleague in the Reform Party, although from a different
way. This is the reason.
In another life I am a little bit of an historian and I am familiar
with other aspects of Mr. Pearson's life. I can tell the hon.
member for Cambridge that one of the problems with
politicians, and particularly leaders, is that history tells more
about them as the years go by than we might know or appreciate
at the time. In the case of Mr. Pearson, documents that are now
becoming available, as they are in Britain regarding Churchill,
are revealing that Mr. Pearson was very much involved in the
intelligence world in co-operation with the United States and
Britain, and that Mr. Pearson was very, very conscious of the
threat of communism. That was mentioned. Mr. Pearson was
actually a bit of a hawk rather than a dove when it came to the
Soviet Union.
As he was talked into a very close relationship with the
Americans at the intelligence level, during the Suez crisis, as the
hon. member will remember, it was a situation where the British
and the French had attacked the Sinai and the Americans were
opposed to it. The Americans and Canadians were opposed to it.
What happened there, as we now know from documents, was
that the British and the French were reading Egyptian ciphers,
codes and ciphers. The Americans and Canadians were reading
the codes and ciphers of all the other Arab nations. When it came
to sending the forces into the Middle East, Mr. Pearson by
benefit of the Americans had the advantage of terrific
intelligence. He was not at risk of losing lives or making a bad
decision.
8012
(1420 )
Furthermore, there is evidence today that Mr. Pearson's
initiative in the Middle East in solving the Suez crisis with UN
peacekeeping forces was an initiative that was worked out with
the Americans. He got the Nobel Prize for it, but I think as the
years go by we will see a little more about what actually
happened there.
This is not to take away from Mr. Pearson in any way, manner
or form because, as the hon. member for Laval Centre so
eloquently said, Mr. Pearson contributed marvellously to this
country, not only in terms of foreign policy but in terms of
opening up this this government to francophones from Quebec.
Prior to the second world war there was not anything like that
accessibility from Quebec. Mr. Pearson recognized that Quebec
was moving forward after the second world war. Mr. Pearson
tried to join with that.
That is a problem. When it comes to naming politicians, as my
Reform party colleague was saying, it is a little delicate when
we set aside days to commemorate them. Something might come
up in the future that would give us second thoughts about it or we
might decide that it is not that appropriate. When we look down,
I will agree with the member for Cambridge that I could not
think of another statesman or politician in this country who
would be more suitable or almost.
Certainly if we look down the roll of Prime Ministers, only
Mr. Pearson has the stature that would qualify for the type of
recognition the member proposes. Oddly enough, I would make
one exception. In speaking from the heart, from my experience
of life in this country in the last 30 years, I would make one
exception of a leader in this country who showed he had a heart
that went beyond politics, having his country at heart and a real
sense of the country. The member for Laval Centre will just love
this. It was René Levesque. Mr. Levesque was a man who spoke
for not just the people of Quebec. He spoke for all Canadians
with what he brought to the fore. At least in my mind he gave me
in that entire debate, now quite a few years ago, a sense of what
being a Canadian really was.
I want members to know, members of the Bloc Quebecois
particularly, that René Levesque, who I saw in action, was an
incredibly human man, so easy to relate to, not a person like
Trudeau who tended to be arrogant, or a person like Mr. Turner
who tended to be inaccessible. I always felt he was a man of the
people. That was the warmth. He brought us forward as a nation,
not just Quebec, but as a nation at large.
I do not feel the same way about Jacques Parizeau. I feel very
strongly that what Mr. Levesque created in raising the sense of
Canadian identity was largely destroyed by a subsequent Prime
Minister who led us into a fruitless debate and brought us to
where we are now. I am very confident, on the other hand, that
we will remember the spirit of Mr. Levesque and that will come
out of the debate now on the subject of separatism. We will
come to be a much stronger country. I am very convinced of that.
Obviously we are not going to have a day recognizing Mr.
Levesque in the near future.
This is a delicate thing I would say to the hon. member for
Cambridge. When one raises the issue of a recognition day for
prominent politicians it does risk running aground on the rock of
politics of the day. I would suggest to the hon. member that
maybe we should look for another sort of hero. There is no doubt
that as Canadians we constantly overlook our heroes.
I would like to suggest to him there is a heroine we constantly
overlook as Canadians, whereas the whole world recognizes this
particular person. I speak of Anne of Green Gables. Do we
realize in this House that a fictional heroine-
Mrs. Gaffney: What about Lucy Maud Montgomery?
Mr. Bryden: No, I know who wrote Anne of Green Gables,
but I do not think Lucy Maud Montgomery day would have the
same shall we say caché as Anne of Green Gables. I point out
that while in Japan they have Anne of Green Gables on their
school programs, nowhere in Canada have I ever heard of a
school or university teaching it. Yet this book, published in
1908, has run through more copies and more languages than just
about any book of fiction in the world. It is known worldwide.
(1425)
My colleagues from Prince Edward Island tell me that
approximately 700,000 tourists come to the Island every year
and about 40,000 of those are Japanese. They come to see the
farm where Lucy Maud Montgomery, the author of Anne of
Green Gables, lived and to see the house that was described in
the novels.
I suggest we avoid falling into difficult political traps when
we want to recognize a fine Canadian who is recognized
worldwide. Perhaps we should look to the young lady of The
Lake of Shining Waters. It is appropriate that we as Canadians
recognize a person who is recognized in the world's
imagination.
Mr. Peric: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wish to seek
unanimous consent to have the bill withdrawn and have the
subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage.
The Deputy Speaker: It has been moved:
That the bill be not now read the second time but that bill be withdrawn and
the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
8013
The Deputy Speaker: There are two minutes left in the
debate.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are but two or three minutes left.
I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon.
member for Cambridge.
[Translation]
A few years ago, I introduced in this House a motion to have a
statue of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson erected on Parliament
Hill. I had the privilege of choosing the spot where the memorial
to this great Canadian would stand.
I wanted to take a few minutes to tell the House how much I
like and support the motion in front of the House today. I would
also like to tell Canadian men and women that, like many of
them, I consider Lester B. Pearson to be the greatest Prime
Minister this country ever had, even though some might not
think so.
I always appreciated his sense of humility. If he were here
today, he would probably blush and he would certainly be
embarrassed by such a motion, he who never accepted that
something be named after him or that a statue be erected in his
honour. His grave, in the Ottawa area-in Quebec, in fact, as
several members opposite know-is very simple. That is the
way he lived.
His humility might be reason why we now see him as a great
statesman. This is also the reason why the hon. member for
Cambridge wanted to recognize Lester B. Pearson.
I agree with his statement. I would have liked Parliament to
send this document to a parliamentary committee for further
review. Anyway, I will use the few seconds I have left to
congratulate the member for Cambridge for recognizing in
Lester B. Pearson a great Canadian political figure, a statesman,
the father of the flag which stands besides your chair, Mr.
Speaker, and the originator of Canadian diplomacy. I want to
join the member in telling Canadians how important it is to take
steps to honour great Canadians such as Lester B. Pearson.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the
Order Paper.
It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next
Monday at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)