CONTENTS
Monday, November 28, 1994
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 8328
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8330
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8335
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8336
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 8339
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8341
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8341
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8342
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8342
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8342
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8342
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8342
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8342
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8343
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8343
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8343
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8343
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8343
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8344
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8344
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8344
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8346
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8347
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8348
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8348
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8348
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8348
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8349
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8349
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8349
Consideration resumed of motion. 8352
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8352
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8355
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 8372
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 8375
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8375
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 8377
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 8380
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8380
Bill C-57. Consideration resumed of report stage 8381
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 30; Nays, 138 8381
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9 negatived on division:Yeas, 30; Nays 137 8382
Motion for concurrence 8383
Motion for concurred agreed to on division:Yeas, 163; Nays, 5 8384
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8386
8315
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 28, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. David Anderson (for the Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs), Lib.) moved:
That this House take note of the opinions expressed by Canadians on the
budgetary policy of the government and, notwithstanding the provisions of
Standing Order 83.1, authorize the Standing Committee on Finance to make a
report or reports thereon no later than December 7, 1994.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great pleasure for me to rise this morning. We are in the process
of a historical evolution of the way Parliament deals with issues
and, more important, we are as Canadians in a historic moment
in terms of what we are going to do with our economic future.
Our combined federal and provincial debt is now greater than
the sum of all economic activity in any one year in Canada, more
than 100 per cent of our gross domestic product. This debt has
been building for the last 20 years. Every minute that I speak
that debt is going up about $85,000.
(1105)
We are at the point at which one-quarter of all federal
government spending is on interest alone. It is not even going to
pay down that debt. One-third of all the money the federal
government takes in goes to pay that interest. That means it
cannot be spent on the programs which are necessary to build
our economic future and create a fair and equitable society for
all Canadians.
In spite of many declarations in the past by other
governments, no government has yet come to grips with the
problem of our mounting debt and deficit. In the budget of last
February our finance minister said that we must start. We can no
longer continue on this route and as an interim target over two
years he said we would get the deficit down from about 6 per
cent of our gross domestic product to 3 per cent.
This means we will have to go from about a $42 billion deficit
this year to a $25 billion deficit within two years. If we assume a
certain amount of growth in our economy this means we are
going to have to intervene as governments never before have to
strip over $9 billion out of this deficit through either increased
federal revenues or cuts in spending. This is a monumental
undertaking never before seen in the budgetary history of the
Government of Canada.
To assist the government and all parliamentarians in this task
the minister asked the finance committee, which I am honoured
to chair, to undertake public discussions not only on the
enormity of the deficit and how much we should try to get it
down but whether his economic assumptions are valid. More
specifically he asked us to consult with Canadians to find out
exactly what we should do, where we should increase taxes if
any and where we should cut programs.
Our committee has had less than two months, six weeks so far,
to undertake this task. The minister appeared before the finance
committee on October 17 and 18 and laid before us two major
studies, one of which was the purple book, ``A New Framework
for Economic Policy'', dealing with all of the broad aspects of
our economic future, how we are going to sustain employment in
the future, how we are going to cope with the changing world
economy, the global environment in which we find ourselves,
and take advantage of the new economy.
In this book he outlined five principles to which we must look.
One is the need for Canadians to acquire new skills. The second
is how all of us, including governments, can adjust to the
changing economic circumstances, recognizing it is the private
sector that creates jobs, and what can be the role of the
government in aiding and abetting the private sector in this
quest.
One of the major things pointed out is that the standard of
living of all Canadians has really been declining in
non-inflationary terms for the past 20 years and this just
happens to coincide with a fall in the productivity of Canadians.
Our major challenge, as we all know, is to take Canada, a
country which in many ways has been a third world because of
its heavy economic reliance on its resource sectors, to an
economy which is really in the forefront of relying more and
more on its human resources.
8316
The third principle outlined in this book is getting
government priorities right, which are the areas where we
should be involved, how we can eliminate those aspects of our
activities which are of a low priority.
The fourth principle is recognizing that we must as legislators
and as governments play a role of economic leadership,
recognizing as I stated that it is the private sector which creates
jobs.
(1110 )
Also of concern is how the public sector works with the
private sector to help bring about the transformation of our
economy to implement the new technologies, to create the new
type of infrastructure which can take us into the 21st century and
be among the leaders in global competitiveness. How can we
enhance further our exports? How can we aid and work with
small business which will be the major creator of jobs in the
future to ensure that it has the financial resources and the know
how to be global players rather than simply backyard putters?
The fifth element of this study shows where government must
play a leading role to create the type of monetary and fiscal
climate which we need to make all of these other things happen.
I want to deal very briefly with the second study that he put
before us. It deals with this fifth aspect of how we go about
creating the jobs in the economy of the future, ``Creating a
Healthy Fiscal Climate''. This was tabled by the minister before
us on October 18. The next day our committee began its public
hearings on this very issue.
Before I get into some of the details of what we have been
hearing, members from all parties on this committee have taken
the task extremely seriously. They have studied. They have
agonized. They have brought different perspectives to our work.
In many cases we as members of this committee have been able
to arrive at a consensus built not only on our work as members of
Parliament but more important a consensus arrived at listening
to Canadians from coast to coast.
We have heard many witnesses in Ottawa and in every
province as we travelled. We have heard from the usual
suspects, the lobby groups that are well entrenched that have
their head offices here in Ottawa and that we knew would come
before us and whose advice we have actively sought. We have
also heard from many individual Canadians who, concerned
about our future, have brought their perspectives to our
deliberations.
One of the major points of agreement that we have heard right
across the country is we must go at least as far as the finance
minister suggested to us in meeting our deficit targets. We must
within two years get our federal deficit down to at least $25
billion.
A good number of witnesses said that government must go
further than the $25 billion. We know we are in a business
upswing at this present time. Growth is strong, job creation is
strong, but it cannot last forever. There is an inexorability to
these business cycles. We cannot sustain them on a perpetual
basis, although everyone wishes we could.
There were many witnesses who said please go even further at
this time. Some have said if we are going to cut or increase taxes
to the extent necessary to reach these even expanded targets,
targets beyond what the finance minister has asked of us, we run
the risk of putting a brake on the economy and slowing the
growth and the job creation that we already are experiencing.
Another consensus that we have reached is that we know we
are going to have to make some cuts. Not one member of the
committee and not one witness who appeared before us
suggested that we could make cuts or increase taxes on the backs
of the poor or the most under privileged or the least favoured of
Canadians. All of us are aware of the high level of poverty in
Canada, particularly among children. It would be
unconscionable to think that the cutbacks we are going to have
to make would be on the backs of those least able to deal with
them.
(1115 )
In terms of specific solutions to our problems, the minister
said to us: ``Don't come back to me with generalities; come back
with specific tax measures or specific cuts that we can make''.
Unfortunately the consultation process has been less than
perfect.
We had a number of categories of witnesses who have
appeared before us. There are those who say: ``We are so special
that we need not be part of this deficit reduction process. Our
case is so special that we need added breaks; we need added
funding''. There are others who have come before us and said:
``We are a special case; don't cut us. We will live with what you
have given us''.
There are others who at least tried to respond to the minister's
challenge and came before us and said: ``We are special. We can
put a little bit on the table, but here is where you really have to
cut, in somebody else's backyard''. All too rare were the
witnesses who came before us and said: ``I have something to
bring to the table. I seek nothing from it''.
Those witnesses stand out in our minds. There was a wealthy
person, Bob Blair, from Alberta who said that the generation of
which he is a part, the generation of which we are a part, those
who have enjoyed the benefits of this huge increased spending
way beyond our means to pay it back over the last 20 years, those
of us who have benefited so richly, have an obligation to give it
back to our country.
8317
He suggested that the wealthy could be called on to actually
make donations to a deficit reduction fund for the state. That is
the type of civitas, as the Greeks called it, or Greek leadership
which I think all of us admire.
I remember a senior citizen who appeared before us in
Atlantic Canada. He waited through a whole long day of
testimony. He came before us and he said: ``I am here out of a
sense of guilt. I am a veteran. I get a pension because I was a
prisoner of war during the second world war. That pension is
about $10,000. I was never asked whether I wanted it or needed
it, but it kept coming in and I have never sent it back. It's not
even taxed. I am getting that and I don't deserve it. I'm not even
a war hero. I bailed out over the Ruhr''. This gentleman is
prepared to put that money on the table to help the rest of Canada
deal with this deficit crisis.
As I go through these deliberations I will always remember
these two examples, rare examples, of Canadians who said: ``I
can be part of the solution''. All members of our committee are
convinced that whatever solutions we adopt, all Canadians,
except those who are the least favoured, must be part of the
solution. All Canadians must be asked to bear their fair share of
the consequences of what we are going to have to do to wrestle
that debt to the ground, to get the debt down so that our economy
is once again growing faster than our debt. We owe this to
succeeding generations to Canadians.
One of the major things that emerged during the course of our
deliberations was that maybe my generation and the generations
that have been living off this added borrowing, this added
consumption over the past two decades and who are passing the
deficit on to younger generations, have an obligation to pay even
more than their fair share. It is a very interesting concept that
was brought before us. It emerged in the concept of perhaps we
should have a tax on inheritances so that some of the wealth that
has been built up, at least in very rich estates, should go back to
the state to help pay off the deficit.
(1120)
We had a number of proposals before us which stated that
taxes are almost at the breaking point. There is not much more
juice to squeeze out of the tax orange by international standards
and particularly American standards, which are the most
important in this area. There is not much room to increase taxes
and there may be no room. We have seen over the past decade
how our personal income taxes have mattered and how they have
become less and less progressive.
How do we create fairness when we are going about the
process of cutting back on the deficit in a way that has never
been undertaken before and which is going to have a dramatic
impact on all Canadians?
[Translation]
It is going to be really tough. It will not be an easy job for us as
members of Parliament and committee members, nor for the
finance minister, the Prime Minister and the cabinet. It should
and will be their responsibility to present Canadians with
specific budget policy projects. We, the committee members,
found a nearly universal desire in Canada to deal with the
deficit, and to do it in a fair and equitable manner for all
Canadians, especially the poorest members of society.
[English]
In going about this cutting, and we are going to have serious
cutbacks in programs, the committee is not the only body
looking at potential ways to deal with the deficit. A
comprehensive analysis of all of our programs has been
undertaken, a program review by the Government of Canada.
Other committees as well have been charged with reviewing
particular programs and undertakings. All these will be an
important ingredient of this.
However, I suspect that none will have a greater impact than
the recommendations of our finance committee which has had
the benefit, for the first time in Canadian history, of public
consultations with a broad range of Canadians.
One of the greatest advantages of these public consultations,
which have never been undertaken, is that in the past those who
could get in to the finance minister's office could make their
case behind closed doors. The finance minister has said that this
will no longer be the way prebudget consultation is carried out.
It must be done in public before members of a committee that
has all parties represented. We want all Canadians to see what
special interests are being advocated, what privileges are being
advocated and what solutions are being advocated.
Unfortunately we have not heard enough of the details on the
solutions and not enough of a consensus has come to this
committee across the board. As I mentioned, too much of the
testimony has been ``cut others but not us''. This is why, as
members of the committee, it will be our obligation to make
some very hard decisions on where we might get increased tax
revenues, where we might get rid of some inequities or
unfairness in the tax system itself and where our priority for
cutting programs will be. What are those programs which are
necessary to sustain the social justice which is so much a part of
Canada's fabric?
(1125 )
What are the programs which are necessary to maintain the
balance that we have always had and which will always be a
hallmark of our country, the balance between a vibrant private
sector but a co-operative and supportive public sector which is
necessary to maintain the balance of not cutting those programs
which are going to actually help us build a strong economy in
Canada for our future?
8318
As we wrestle with these issues, I believe that the process of
consultation with Canadians must not stop. We will continually
seek their input. We must continually seek input from members
of all parties of the House on an ongoing basis, members who are
of good conscience and conscientiousness who have brought to
us and laid out in concrete terms where they feel those priorities
lie.
The task is not going to be easy. I know that Canadians expect
us to deal with this deficit. They will treat us most harshly if, as
previous governments have done, we pay lip service to the
problem but do not tackle it directly, concretely and precisely at
this moment in history. We have a window of opportunity. We
shall not hesitate to act.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as it has done since the beginning of the process, the
Official Opposition is reminding you, Quebecers and Canadians
of the seriousness of Canada's fiscal situation. Nobody, on this
side of the House or on the other, is denying the existence of
serious problems, and I would say that when it comes to federal
public finances, we are actually dealing not with serious
problems, but rather with a state of crisis.
One only has to look at how expenditures and deficits have
evolved to realize that, in spite of the restraint measures of the
last few years, the federal debt has grown to become one of the
largest of any central government in the world. It is standing in
the way of sustained economic recovery and job creation. This
has been particularly obvious in the last two years as, in spite of
certain signs of economic recovery and growth, jobs are not
being created in a sustained manner. We are not denying the fact
that we need drastic measures to reduce expenditures, as well as
measures concerning loopholes in our tax expenditures, as the
finance minister called them. I believe that there is a fairly broad
consensus on this point.
However, we disagree on the means. For the next few minutes,
I am going to talk about our analysis of the means used by the
Liberal government or even the means suggested by our Reform
colleagues. I will conclude by explaining why the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against the motion before us this morning.
We will not support the motion presented this morning by the
Liberal government with a view to postponing the tabling of the
finance committee report, because the reasons for doing so are
not the ones stated by the finance committee chairman.
We have been convinced from the start that these
consultations are a smoke screen. They resemble those held by
the finance minister before tabling his first budget, last
February. We are equally convinced that the Liberal government
is seeking to first move back the deadline, and second reduce to
nothing the amount of time to be spent analyzing and debating
the finance committee's prebudget consultation report.
(1130)
I can tell you that the motion before us, which seeks to
postpone to December 7 the tabling of the report originally
requested for December 2, is the result of intense pressure on the
part of the official opposition. The initial motion submitted to
the finance committee asked permission to table the report not
on the 2nd, as requested by the House of Commons order, not on
the 7th as sought in today's motion, but on December 16. They
were taking us for something we are not and assumed that we
would not remember that December 16 is the last sitting day of
the year, and that next year we do not come back before
February, the very month when the Minister of Finance is
supposed to table his budget.
While claiming that there is a need for consultation, a need to
seek additional ideas, the government is trying to hide its real
intentions. We hear great sounding, compassionate speeches on
the need to protect the neediest, but we are not being told the
truth on the upcoming reforms. We are given grand speeches on
the social situation, on poverty, when all the measures taken so
far by the government, in particular since the budget of the
Minister of Finance, were against the unemployed, welfare
recipients, students and seniors.
Just think that the last budget contained a $5.5 billion cut in
social programs, a large part in unemployment funds; is that a
social measure, is that what the Liberal government intends to
do for the neediest in our society? The major argument used to
request further consultations is that we do not want to target the
neediest.
Behind the grand speeches, there are barbaric measures,
unprecedented measures, backward measures, measures that
would be among the most backward taken by finance ministers
for many years. Even the Conservatives did not dare make such
drastic cuts in social programs. Yet, as the Auditor General
pointed out, there is no analysis of the consequences of such
cuts, we do not know the relationship between unemployment
insurance and welfare, but supposedly we are doing a review of
social programs even without proper information.
We are not the ones who said so, although we have in the past.
The Auditor General himself reminded us last week that this
government works the wrong way round; without any
information at all, totally in the dark, it makes decisions that go
against the poorest, all the while making grand speeches. Such
behaviour is a disgrace.
Since the past gives us a good idea of what the future will look
like, and since the Liberal government is trying to shorten the
period of time for public debate on various measures relating to
taxation, expenditures, issues concerning Quebecers and
Canadians, since the past gives a good idea of what the future
will be and since we are faced with this disgraceful shortening of
democratic debate, I would remind you that since it has been in
office this government has been proposing, in an acrimonious
8319
and cynical way, projects with a view to reducing social
programs or aimed at students, middle income people and the
poor.
The government sends out trial balloons, not in a disinterested
way but because this is part of the hidden agenda of the Minister
of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development.
For instance, when the government talks about taxing RRSPs, it
is not out of the blue. The government, the Minister of Finance
already intend to cut and tax RRSPs.
When they talk about reforming transfers to post-secondary
education under CAP, the Canada Assistance Plan, and other
transfers to provinces and send out trial balloons or make little
suggestions in the four or five scenarios contained in the report
of the minister responsible for the development of human
resources, it is not by chance. It is because it is part of the federal
government's overall plan to address the deficit problem, to deal
with the problem of its indebtedness we all recognize by going
after students, the provinces, with its usual way of transfering
the burden to the provinces and shifting the deficit and debt
problems onto the most deprived.
(1135)
Members of the Liberal Party of Canada are counting on
economic growth to improve somewhat the public finance
situation, not because they believe there will be economic
growth, but because they are unable to take any responsibility.
This government has not taken its responsibilities since coming
to office. It is so irresponsible that it claims that with the savings
it made this year-more than $2 billion in unemployment
insurance-the deficit for the current fiscal year is $39 billion
when it is in fact over $42 billion.
It is unacceptable to cut into the unemployment insurance
fund, to which the federal government no longer contributes,
and to use the savings they made this year to reduce the deficit.
It is a way for the Minister of Finance to improve his image, to
look like a good manager, even though he did nothing to bring
public finances back under control. He did nothing to close
loopholes in the Canadian tax system-something he should
have done long ago-, to correct long-time injustices that he too
denounced when he was in the opposition.
This government is not serious in its endeavours and does not
inspire confidence, especially since it is only managing the
downsizing of a crippled system. On our side, the most blatant
sign of that remains the closing down of the Saint-Jean military
college. There is talk about cynicism and acrimony. For me it is
a real symbol, more than a symbol right now, especially when
we see the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wearing the
button denouncing the college's closure, as the Leader of the
Opposition noted over the week-end.
Such behaviour is scandalous and shows a cynical and
acrimonious attitude. It is also disinformation since this
minister is himself responsible for closing the Saint-Jean
military college. Such disinformation and cynicism are typical
of this government's general attitude, particularly with regard to
the important issue of Canadian public finances.
This is intolerable, especially since the Liberal Party of
Canada used to advocate transparency, social justice and
fairness when it was in opposition. Liberal members used to
describe the Conservatives as almost extreme rightists, but they
are even worse now that they are in power.
Much needs to be done, if we look at the growth of
government expenditures as well as the public debt crisis
situation in Canada, with growing deficits, year after year, and a
growing national debt. We did not wait two months after the
finance minister's testimony before the finance committee to
come up with suggestions to put some order in public finances.
We were upfront. We made suggestions in front of the Minister
of Finance, after he had made his statement and tabled his two
books, the colour of which I cannot remember. There has been
books of so many different colours tabled this past year, Mr.
Speaker, that we loose track.
Unlike our colleagues, we did not wait two months to suggest,
first of all, that the Liberal government do the responsible thing
and take steps to recover-at the time, this is what we were
suggesting two months ago-some $6 billion in unpaid taxes.
(1140)
In fact, this first suggestion we had made to the Minister of
Finance when he testified before the finance committee was
reflected in the Auditor General's report tabled last week. But
the Auditor General does not talk about $6 billion, as we had
estimated, but over $8 billion in unpaid taxes, a quite substantial
amount that taxpayers in Quebec and Canada owe, on average,
to the federal Treasury in personal income tax, profits tax and
goods and services tax as well, the famous GST, which is
apparently the most commonly abhorred tax from coast to coast.
Two months ago we suggested to the Minister of Finance, and
to the Minister of National Revenue also take the necessary
steps, departing from their usual laissez-faire policy, to recover
these $6 billion which became $8 billion following the recent
tabling of the Auditor General's report. What did they do?
Nothing.
We also suggested to the Minister of Finance at the time to
ensure that the federal government withdraw from any
provincial jurisdiction, in other words, that it mind its own
business, in
8320
view of the assignment of jurisdiction under the Canadian
Constitution and many interpretations that have been given
these past few decades.
We said then, and we repeat it now, overlap, duplication and
instances of federal interference, which are increasingly
numerous and even more centralizing with a Liberal
government, amount to, by our estimation, approximately $3
billion per year. That is money! But of course when you ask
senior department officials to see where the federal government
is meddling needlessly and ineffectively in fields of provincial
jurisdiction, they are both judge and party to the case. They will
not shoot themselves in the foot. These senior officials who are
in control will not reduce their staff, their power, their
interference or their budget. Over the years and again recently,
the Auditor General has found empirical evidence of duplication
and overlap between the two levels of government, but the
Liberal government does not want to face up to its
responsibilities.
That is the second suggestion we made to the Minister of
Finance about a month and a half or two months ago. We
suggested that he not reduce corporate subsidies a little, as we
have heard fairly often on both sides of the House, but that he
eliminate them. Companies receive $3.3 billion a year in
subsidies. Here, we are not talking about subsidies for regional
development which have the merit of reducing regional
disparities in some disadvantaged regions; instead, we are
talking about direct corporate subsidies, which more often
involve patronage or paying off the party's friends rather than
useful subsidies.
An hon. member: Contributions.
Mr. Loubier: I would not go that far, but in any case it has not
been proven that these subsidies are effective, provide benefits
and have an impact on the competitiveness of businesses. On the
contrary, when you subsidize a company in a particular industry,
the subsidies allocated under this $3.3 billion are unfair to the
others who cannot benefit from them. And they still want to cut
spending on the backs of the most disadvantaged people but do
not even mention eliminating these $3.3 billion in corporate
subsidies.
Do you think that is right? Is it right to cut unemployment
insurance, welfare and post-secondary education while the
finance committee and others still continue to leave these $3.3
billion in direct corporate subsidies? That was our third
suggestion then to the Minister of Finance.
We also suggested that the Liberal government withdraw
immediately from the Hibernia project, and we are no longer the
only ones saying so. Almost everywhere, people are speaking
out against the continuing waste which has already swallowed
up $3 billion in direct and indirect spending, loan guarantees
and so on from the federal government. This year we have been
told about an additional $250 million for a project that will
never make a profit, that relies on an increase in global oil
prices, when all forecasts to this day call for an even greater
reduction in the price of a barrel of oil than we are now
experiencing.
(1145)
Why do they insist on the federal government, Quebec,
Ontario and other Canadian provinces getting involved in a
project that will never be profitable? And if it is profitable, why
is the private sector not doing all the investing? Why must the
federal government continue to invest hundreds of millions of
dollars every year if the project is supposedly profitable? The
1960s and 1970s are over. Let us look at the state of government
finances. Even my Liberal colleague, the chairman of the
finance committee, mentioned earlier that government finances
are in a state of crisis.
Despite the serious problems, they continue to spend money
on this project, perhaps for political considerations, thus
contradicting the Prime Minister's position during the vote on
the Hibernia project. It is impossible to understand. If this is not
political expediency, I wonder what it is. That was our fourth
suggestion to the Minister of Finance, which has not been acted
on to this day.
We also suggested to the finance minister that $1.6 billion be
cut from the National Defence budget in response to last year's
request by the official opposition that this budget be slashed by
25 per cent. Again, this suggestion was not followed up.
We also asked the finance minister to reduce the
government's operating expenditures by tackling
mismanagement and widespread waste. There are many
examples of waste and inefficiency, starting with the Auditor
General's last report. I will give you just one because I do not
want to take up too much time, even if I have unlimited time for
this debate. The Department of National Defence is one example
that has been popular with all of us for a while, especially since
last week, when the Auditor General pointed out cases of gross
mismanagement and inefficiency. They always boast that things
have been put into order at the Department of National Defence
in the recent past, but after reading the Auditor General's last
report, we see that this department is a total mess, that it has
become a symbol of public affairs mismanagement.
I will quote just a few passages to illustrate what I told you.
The Auditor General's report outlines several cases of waste. It
says among other things that real property mismanagement at
DND costs $100 million a year. Real property mismanagement
alone costs $100 million; they throw away all that money while
maintaining that the only way to reduce waste and increase
8321
efficiency in public finance management is to cut social
programs.
The report also points to waste in the F-18 performance
evaluation program. We are told that the program might be ready
in 2003, or 20 years after its implementation, and that the
automation of the Canadian military police records will have
taken 26 years, if the goal of completing the project in the year
2000 is achieved. Imagine, 20 years for the F-18 performance
evaluation program, when you think that, after 20 years, an F-18
jet is considered obsolete. And 26 years to automate the
Canadian military police records. In my short career, I never
thought such delays were possible.
In his report, the Auditor General also says about National
Defence that the army, air force and navy have each developed
their own information, command and control systems which
have little interoperability. Imagine, our national defence is
comprised of three forces that should normally interact through
office automation and information technologies and systems,
but these systems are virtually incompatible. We are told that
the three forces have very limited interoperability.
(1150)
Given the situation in National Defence, one can guess what
goes on elsewhere. We have a serious problem because it
involves hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars. We read
that: ``There are plans for future information technology
projects with projected costs of $1.2 billion''. Mr. Speaker,
implementing these projects will cost $1.2 billion, but they are
not supported by adequate cost estimates.
In other words, we are spending $1.2 billion to implement
technology projects, new technologies, but we have no serious
study on the value, efficiency and usefulness of these projects
for the future of the three forces of National Defence.
Here is another example, which again concerns the
Department of National Defence. The Auditor General writes:
``The Department did not have an adequate system in place to
assess the cost-reduction potential of information technology
projects or to weigh the benefits of cost reduction against other
priorities. As a result, the Department has not benefited from at
least $700 million in possible savings''. Just think! We are
talking about hundreds of millions, even billions. But it does not
seem to matter. The government prefers to cut spending by
targeting the poor and let outrageous situations like that go on.
This is incredible. I am flabbergasted. I was even more
outraged last week, when the Auditor General tabled his report
because, based on what the other side had been telling us over
the last year, we thought that public finances had at least
improved somewhat. This is not the case however.
Some measures need to be taken regarding taxation. Until the
Liberal government takes concrete action, we will not stop
repeating that it must end the unacceptable situation created by
family trusts. The government must stop losing hundreds of
millions every year by allowing very rich Canadian
families-not middle income families, not fairly rich families,
but very rich families-to use family trusts to defer for up to 80
years taxes on capital gains.
These very rich families do not use family trusts as an
investment tool for future generations, or to help sick or
handicapped children and relatives to be financially secure:
They use these trusts as a powerful tax planning device.
According to some tax experts with an excellent reputation in
Canada, such as Sydney Goldstein and Neil Brooks, to whom the
Liberals used to listen when they formed the opposition but no
longer do so now that they are in office, it is outrageous to
maintain these trusts for very rich Canadian families.
They suggest that, through special studies conducted by
Statistics Canada, or through data from Revenue Canada or
major corporations managing the assets of these family trusts,
such as Canada Trust, which is a major contributor to the Liberal
Party, the government could obtain sufficient information to
make an annual estimate of what family trusts set up for the
benefit of very rich families really costs Quebecers and
Canadian taxpayers.
During the hearings of the special committee set up to
examine family trusts, as openly as possible, as the Minister of
Finance put it, the Official Opposition asked Revenue Canada to
provide these data. That was two months ago and we are still
waiting. Our request has not even been acknowledged. If this is
what is meant by transparency, we have a problem, because
Liberals and the Official Opposition obviously do not have the
same definition of transparency.
(1155)
Mr. Farber, from the Department of Finance, also told the
finance committee that a legislative authority would be needed
to collect this information using a tax slip. We have submitted
such a request. And again we are still waiting for an answer. Not
only did we not get an answer, but I can tell you that, even
though they talk about transparency and their will to correct all
fiscal inequities, we have not had any co-operation from the
Liberal Party or the senior officials of both the Department of
Finance and the Department of Revenue. Could it be that these
senior officials have been ordered by their superiors not to say
anything and not to take any step to collect data on family trusts?
We could also mention all the measures needed to correct the
tax situation, including the tax conventions signed, as we said
before, between Canada and countries with many tax loopholes.
Despite the steps taken by the Minister of Finance in his last
budget, a recently released study, carried out, I believe, by
Samson & Bélair, says that, in spite of everything, all the
government's attempts and all the measures included in the last
budget, there are still hundreds of millions of dollars being
exchanged between Canadian businesses and their foreign
subsidiaries located in tax havens and losses incurred by the
subsidiaries being reported in Canada for tax deduction
purposes. According to the Auditor General and this Samson &
8322
Bélair study, it is estimated that hundreds of millions of tax
dollars are lost this way.
I have a quote here that I would like to read to my hon.
colleagues in English, if they will excuse my horrible accent. It
says: ``The new rules have some merit'', meaning the measures
taken by the Minister of Finance. ``They will most certainly
generate ambiguity and uncertainty. Unfortunately, the 1994
proposal did not bring the changes we were all hoping to see''.
In other words, the action taken by the finance minister is not
enough to prevent tax treaties with countries where corporate
tax rates are lower than here, in Canada, countries such as
Barbados, Cyprus, Malta and Papua New Guinea, for example.
Because of these tax treaties, businesses, mostly very large
corporations, do not pay their fair share of taxes here, in Canada,
and we deliberately allow some of these corporations to forego
their tax responsibility and to benefit from these tax loopholes,
these tax havens, thanks to which they can legally save hundreds
of millions of dollars in federal taxes.
We cannot afford these tax conventions any more, especially
with countries that are well-known tax havens and where tax
loopholes are legion. This is utterly unfair when everyone else is
being asked to make sacrifices, from middle-income families to
the less-privileged, everyone except these large corporations,
which take advantage of the Canadian tax loopholes and the tax
breaks deliberately included in the tax treaties signed by Canada
and these tax havens.
There is also the whole question of corporate taxes. I tell you
this should be examined carefully.
(1200)
I submit that the recent data from Statistics Canada on the
trend of corporate versus individual contributions to the tax base
reveal some clear facts. Remember that these data are expressed
in real terms, which means that they take 1986 as the reference
year. These are real data which take inflation into account. Thus,
in 1950, Canadian corporations contributed $3.2 billion to the
federal and provincial treasuries. The same data, with 1986
being equal to 100, reveal that in 1992, Canadian corporations
contributed $7.4 billion. But the $3.3 billion in subsidies to
businesses I was taking about earlier must be deducted from
those $7.4 billion.
So, when those $7.4 billion actually paid by corporations to
the federal and provincial treasuries are reduced by the $3.3
billion in subsidies, we have exactly the same amount as in
1950. The tax burden of companies did not increase in real terms
but, for individuals, that burden went up from $3.3 billion to
$87.6 billion.
So there is a problem, and I can tell you that it is probably
related to the tax breaks used by very large businesses. The
Ontario Tax Equity Committee pointed out in 1990 that
Canada's large businesses can use about 60 tax breaks that allow
them not to pay their fair share of federal taxes even though we
could require them to do so. This has been going on since 1950.
And I am not talking here about very small businesses or small
and medium size businesses, which do their job. If you look at
the data, you will see that they contribute, as good corporate
citizens do, to the federal and provincial treasuries. I am not
talking about businesses in my area.
Last week, I was talking to the owner of Grégoire & Fils, a
business that does research and development work in the farm
equipment sector in my riding. I am not talking about his
business. I am not talking either about Dutailier Inc. and
Lacasse, two businesses that export furniture outside the
country without any grants. I am not talking about these small
and medium size businesses that create hundreds and even
thousands of jobs, because that is what small and medium size
businesses do, they create thousands of jobs.
I am not talking about these businesses that perform their tax
duties and contribute to economic growth, job creation and
regional development. I am not talking either about a
businessman like my friend Jean-Marc, from the south shore,
who has to face very fierce competition from large
multinationals in the steel equipment sector. He creates 43 jobs
and pays his fair share of taxes. I am referring instead to very
large companies who take advantage of measures that are legal,
but are sometimes borderline measures, to prosper at the
expense of a deteriorating Canadian fiscal situation, and to
companies that use legal measures to avoid paying their share of
taxes to federal and provincial governments.
For a year now, I have been examining the Canadian tax
system more seriously and specifically than previously, and I
find it is distorted. It is so distorted that last week, my friend
Léo-Paul Lauzon, a well-known tax expert in Quebec, sent me a
newspaper clipping he found in La Presse, I believe. I know I
cannot show that clipping, but it was found in classified ads and
says in big print: ``Tax losses for sale''. The ad reads: ``Our
client, a cosmetics distributor with significant tax losses and
undervalued assets, is looking for a buyer who could use those
tax losses. Confidentiality guaranteed. Please, contact so and
so-I will not mention the name of the agency-number so and
so''. In other words, our system is so distorted that we can now
sell tax losses. Tax losses are sold like shoes, eggs or chicken.
They are sold to companies that want to reduce their annual
income.
(1205)
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Shame.
8323
Mr. Loubier: Is that right?
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Certainly not.
Mr. Loubier: It is not, but I do not sense across the way any
desire to deal with loopholes in the corporate tax system. They
are not even willing to examine the corporate tax system. Every
time the Official Opposition suggested such an examination,
even during the election campaign, it never got an answer. We
tried again recently in the finance committee, but we did not get
any answer. In that regard, the Liberal government members
sitting on the finance committee can rely on the complicity of
the Reform members because they do not want the corporate
taxation to be examined either. It is serious when you think that
some people even refuse to look at the corporate taxation. We
are not suggesting any cuts, but simply to look at the problem in
order to perhaps confirm what has been rumoured for several
years and confirm also some warnings put forward by the
General Auditor of Canada as well as some analyses made by tax
experts. We are now completely fed up with this situation.
It is obvious, and I stress, obvious, that we have to find ways
to improve the management of public finance and we were the
first to realize that the problem is very serious. While the
Minister of Finance spoke only in terms of problems with public
finance, we used a much stronger term. We spoke of a crisis.
Indeed we recognized even more than the finance minister
himself that if things keep going on as they are now, the situation
will become impossible.
However, what has the Liberal government been doing for a
year now to help remedy this situation? In relation to what we
and others suggested the government should do to stabilize
public finance, what else did it do but take on unemployed
workers and welfare recipients, senior citizens and now students
with the reform proposals put forward by the Minister of Human
Resources Development, and middle income families with all
the trial balloons sent up left and right by the Minister of
Finance, his officials or his Secretary of State? What else did it
do but take on poor families? Every week, I meet some of them
in my riding. Families are getting poorer and poorer.
In fact, in this International Year of the Family, families are
getting poorer and more desperate because they see that, in spite
of all their fine speeches, the fine election campaign the Liberals
conducted last year, the compassion they said they felt for the
most disadvantaged, they are even more extremist, more
reactionary that the Conservatives were at times. They are even
more extremist than what they denounced as Conservative
policies when they were in the opposition.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): That is double talk.
Mr. Loubier: It is double talk, as my colleague puts it. But I
would even say that it is close to something like calumny.
Speaking of poverty, I would tell you that for the last 15 years,
the evolution of poverty in Quebec and Canada is a cause for
concern. The poor in Quebec and Canada today do not deserve
the treatment they have been subjected to this past year.
(1210)
I would like to mention briefly certain statistics on trends in
poverty since 1973 to show you how badly the situation has
deteriorated and the need to put in place real economic
development policies, real job development policies, real labour
training and regional development policies in order to stimulate
Quebec's and Canada's economy. We do not need infrastructure
programs which are subject to patronage and create only 45,000
part-time temporary jobs when we need close to 800,000 jobs to
get back to the level of the early 1990s; we need real measures.
Since 1973, the number of poor families in Canada has
increased by 41 per cent. During the same period, the number of
poor people living alone jumped a significant 79 per cent. I am
referring here to a study published by Mr. David Ross three
weeks ago and which updates data on poverty in this country. If
you want more details, and if my Liberal colleagues want to
know that they are in fact deteriorating a situation which is
already catastrophic for the poor families of Canada, I will
gladly give you a copy of that study.
It says that the rapid growth of poverty among young families
in Canada is one of the most disturbing trends in the area of
family poverty. Not only are people getting poorer, but an
increasing number of young people are in this situation. It is
young families who are getting poorer. We had never seen that
before.
Between 1981 and 1991, the poverty rate of families with
parents 25 years old or less has almost doubled, increasing from
21.7 per cent to 40 per cent. This means that the number of
young families living in poverty has nearly doubled. That is how
we prepare young people, that is how we give them hope for the
future, by making them poorer at a much higher pace than that
experienced by their elders.
Another piece of information I thought could help this
government become aware of the problem is that, in 1991, the
number of poor dependent children under 18 years of age was
close to 1.8 million. The poverty rate for single mothers is 52.1
per cent in Canada. It is interesting to know these statistics.
Women who are single parents are the ones who suffer the most
from inequities in terms of income and services, both in Quebec
and in Canada. Compare that with Sweden, for example, where
the poverty rate among single mothers is 6 per cent.
8324
We used to say that education was to key to a good income.
Well, let me mention some important data relating to graduates.
Although people have diplomas, and it is a fact there is less
poverty among people who are educated and who are flexible as
a result of that education, and of course an education is always
enriching, but it is not as enriching, in the literal sense, as it used
to be. In 1981, 13.5 per cent of graduates of an educational
institution, were poor. Today, more than 30 per cent are in that
category.
I wanted to mention these figures in the House because they
profoundly disturbed me. I thought, and that is what we learnt at
school, at college or university, that thanks to
post-manufacturing economies and the new global economy,
and with the development of the leisure society, modern,
industrialized societies would, over time, become prosperous.
People said that in the early seventies. Today, according to the
update published by Mr. Ross on poverty figures in Canada, the
exact opposite has occurred.
It is a sign that we will need a major turnaround in the
Canadian economy. This government will have to act
responsibly, not by hitting at those who have trouble making
ends meet, but by doing what we strongly suggested it should do,
which is to carry out a thorough reform of the tax system and cut
spending of the kind we pointed out earlier and have been
pointing out to the Finance Minister from the outset, and
especially since he appeared before the Standing Committee on
Finance. But we want this government to stop coming down on
people who do not deserve that kind of treatment.
(1215)
In conclusion, I want to say that we will not be a party to the
trivializing of democratic debate that was reflected in the
motion presented this morning. We will not be a party to any
measures that may appear in the finance committee's report, the
majority report by the Liberal members of the finance
committee. I have the impression, and I have been saying this
for some time, that the government decided long ago what
measures it would take to improve its finances and to reach the
objective set by the Minister of Finance, and I am referring to a
deficit that is 3 per cent of GDP in 1996-97. Furthermore, these
measures are so appalling and entirely in line with the approach
of the last budget of the Minister of Finance, in other words, a
well-organized attack against the unemployed, senior citizens,
welfare recipients and students, that the government is ashamed
to put them before the House on December 2 as planned, and that
on the other side of the House, they are trying to reduce the
number of days provided to debate these suggestions.
Again, we will not be a party to a debate the Liberals do not
want, a debate in which their promises will come back to haunt
them. We will not be a party to what is actually nothing but a
masquerade, to these endless rounds of consultations, because
this government consults right and left but only retains what
suits its purpose.
We saw this with the last budget, when the Minister of
Finance approved a suggestion to make cuts in the
Unemployment Insurance Fund, although there were thousands
of suggestions that said not to do that. So much for consultation.
For all the reasons I just mentioned, the official opposition
will vote against the motion presented by the Liberal
government, and we will do so proudly, with our heads held
high, because our aim is to defend the interests of Quebecers and
Canadians, as we have done since the very beginning.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I remind the House that
the length of speeches pursuant to Standing Order 43 will now
be 20-minute maximum interventions subject to 10-minute
question and comment periods.
Of course sometimes there is a practice where parties or
members wish to split their time. I would simply ask members to
indicate to the Chair if and when that should occur. Otherwise,
members will be recognized for a 20-minute intervention and 10
minutes of questions or comments.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
interested in many of the comments which were just made by the
Bloc member who sits on the finance committee. I am hesitant to
dignify some of his comments with my own because of what his
leader said yesterday. I wrote down the quote.
I saw his leader say on television that the Bloc are ``a
superficial event in the political landscape''. That out of the
mouth of his leader gives us an idea of the commitment of the
Bloc to this whole budgetary process. When the member uses
the terms barbaric measures and retrograde and he uses other
words outside of the House that are not particularly helpful or
constructive to the debate I think it does a disservice to
something that is so desperately serious for this nation of
Canada.
He did make a comment in his long and rambling speech about
the fact that even the Conservatives did not apply such cutbacks.
Well he is right and that is exactly why we are in the position we
are right now. The Conservatives did not have the courage to cut
back the tremendous debt that was left to them by the Liberals.
We thought $180 billion left over by the Liberals from the last
time they were in power was a terrible debt. The Conservatives
did not have the courage to do the cutting. As a consequence this
country is now faced with a debt of over one-half trillion
dollars.
8325
(1220 )
However I just cannot leave alone the comment the member
made that somehow there are difficulties with numbers. I have
no idea where in the world he would be able to say that the
accounts receivable to national revenue have suddenly gone
from $6 billion to $8 billion in the Auditor General's report.
That is not factually accurate.
If the member has taken the time to read presumably the
French version of the Auditor General's report, I am assuming
he is referring to the reference made by the Auditor General to
the fact that some of the accounts receivable are getting on to
being two years old. As they form part of the $6 billion his
concern was that they were not collectable.
It probably falls much in line with the member's constant
going on in committee about the fact that there is an average of
$42 million in each and every family trust. He just did not take
the time in committee to listen and understand that the report he
was referring said that the average assets in the firms reporting
were $42 million. It was simply a quantifier in order to
determine the type of firms that were replying to the survey. As a
consequence the Bloc has been telling us, telling us and telling
us that there is an average of $42 million in the family trusts.
It is not just the Bloc. The member for Gander-Grand Falls
also feeds into some of these misconceptions that there are these
tax loopholes and tax havens and tells us about all these
millionaires who are collecting UI. For many Canadians they
want an easy way out. Don't we all? Many Canadians are
looking for some justification for not making the cutbacks. All
of us as politicians have to be very careful. We must make sure
what we are saying is factually accurate and that it does not feed
misconceptions.
I challenge the Bloc member on his comment that direct
subsidies to the business sector of $3.3 billion somehow do not
include the subsidies going to business through things like
ACOA, western diversification and the funds going through to
Quebec. He seems to have classified these as being direct
subsidies to the business sector.
The bottom line is I look forward to debating with people who
will take the time to read the numbers and if they do not clearly
understand the numbers will take the time to receive advice.
Then we can share our opinions based on fact instead of some of
these things that are simply made up.
In the 20 minutes allotted to me to speak to this issue the
people of Canada should know that we will go $1.4 million
further into debt. Every day Canada spends in the
neighbourhood of about $460 million. Of that $460 million we
have to go to the marketplace and secure $110 million. It works
down to $1,700 per second that we are borrowing.
Why is that important? It is important because even under the
Liberal plan we will be going further into debt by $25 billion
every year. Even under that anemic plan Canada will slip a
further $100 billion into debt in the time the Liberals are in
office. That is absolutely monumental. We do not know what the
interest rates will be but at a 7 to 10 per cent interest rate on that
$100 billion we will be paying $7 billion to $10 billion extra in
interest at the end of their administration.
(1225 )
That number is very important when we consider that the
federal government transfers $2.2 billion to the provinces for
education. Let us understand and compare that $7 billion we are
going to go further into debt to the $2.2 billion we are presently
providing for education.
Before I get into the Reform proposals I will make one more
comment. Of the $110 million we are going to go further into
debt today, approximately $45 million of that will be borrowed
from foreign markets in this 24 hour period. That means one
year from now because we are going $110 million further into
debt we are going to be streaming $3 million more out of Canada
to foreign capital markets.
What could we do with $3 million? There are people in my
constituency around Cranbrook who want a CAT scan machine.
It will cost in the neighbourhood of $100,000 and the funding for
staff and training perhaps will take the same amount of money.
However we are prepared to let $3 million for this one
24-hour period on interest leave the country. If we want to talk
about barbaric and retrograde, we can apply those terms to what
we are doing in the intergenerational transfer of debt to our
children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.
It is easy to apply labels to certain aspects of this whole
process which is unfortunate. As the committee chairman so
aptly said in his presentation earlier, there is absolute
commitment. I believe there is commitment from the Liberals,
as I am sure there is from the Bloc and I confirm the Reform
Party is committed that the people who have the least ability to
look after themselves must be looked after. They must be
protected.
Therefore, why is the Reform Party recommending that we go
to zero instead of going to 3 per cent or approximately $25
billion? Precisely for the reasons indicated by the chairman. We
are currently in a very strong period of economic growth. It has
been very clearly illustrated that the difficulty and the reason we
are having problems in getting any real job recovery along with
the economic recovery is that people are being taxed out of
business, taxed out of existence.
8326
There are some differences of opinion between us and the
Liberals. In making our presentation to the Commons
committee it was interesting that we managed to flush out what
some of those differences were. In the judgment of the Reform
Party, there must be a very serious look at the whole issue of
taxation and how it is done to make sure that inequities are
ironed out, that there is more fairness and that any loopholes are
corrected. In spite of that and as a matter of principle we believe
no more tax dollars are available from Canadians.
It was interesting that the member for St. Paul's said: ``Your
comments on taxation are rather anemic. There is a bit of a throw
away line about not objecting to the principles eliminating
inequities in the existing tax system. We have heard much
testimony. Did you hear nothing that piqued your interest, that
led you to say yes, there is something that should be examined
on the tax expenditure side for instance? Was there nothing that
caught your fancy?''
(1230)
In a second intervention he said: ``I am in rare agreement with
the member from the Bloc then perhaps because the vision that
you present is a vision that is far different than I have for this
country and the role we have to each other as Canadians''.
The vision of the Reform Party in terms of its responsibility to
the country is to get the government off the backs of Canadians
and once and for all straighten out the situation so that it is no
longer grabbing, grabbing and grabbing capital from a very
weak and anemic capital market. It is absolutely accurate and
correct to say that taxation is simply the confiscation of working
capital; that is all it is. Taxation is simply the confiscation of
wealth.
If we take more wealth, more capital, out of either businesses
or the hands of ordinary people they will have less to put back
into generating more activity in the economy. I underscore then
that we believe there should be no net increase in taxation.
We established our program on five basic principles. The first
one is that the people at the top of government must be the first
to make significant and visible sacrifices.
I was asked by a member of the House why we spent last
Tuesday, our opposition day, on a motion to get the pensions of
MPs into line with ordinary pension plans available to all other
Canadians. It was really interesting, by the way, because every
one in the Chamber voted against the motion to get the pensions
of MPs into line with ordinary citizens, save the 41 Reform MPs
who initiated the motion. That pension plan must be reformed as
of a year ago.
Also there should be implementation of across the board
budgetary restrictions of 15 per cent to high level government
institutions. We saw this last week the appointment of people to
the Senate, the appointment of the Governor General, and
therefore the traipsing out of what these people do in their public
lives. People have started to take a look at that, have started to
focus on that and ask themselves: ``Just a second, isn't this the
same government that is asking me to cut back?''
Next is eliminating excessive travel of federal officials and
reducing the number of ministers of state and associate
ministers. People are looking for leadership, but unfortunately
for many political commentators they seem to leave it at that as
though somehow it might be a solution to the problem. It is a
solution to the problem only in the respect that people are
looking for forceful and aggressive leadership. They are looking
for us to take a step forward and to take the cutbacks necessary
ourselves.
I have already indicated that funding must be maintained for
high priority items. There are two high priority items in my
mind. First is enforcement particularly with the departments of
justice and the solicitor general. Second, every effort must be
made to ensure that those who are least capable are able to be
provided for. Third, there must be a cutback and elimination of
the duplication of efforts among respective departments.
There is also something very interesting here. Part of the
problem is that we do not seem to have an understanding on the
part of many people, many reporters and many commentators in
particular in the news media. We certainly do not have an
understanding on the part of many people on the back benches of
the Liberal Party of the aspect that there must be substantial
cutbacks.
I noticed in the Ottawa Citizen over the weekend an article
written about a program put on by CTV called ``Due South''. It
was interesting. It asked people if they had seen the program.
Some people had seen it and hated it; other people had seen it
and loved it. The point is that it was done without tax dollars.
(1235)
The commentator was basically asking why we should be
celebrating the great commercial success. Why should we be
celebrating that we have people employed in Toronto in the film
industry putting the thing together? Why should we be
celebrating that it is a commercial success because it has 20
editions on the CBS network? Why should we not be celebrating
the programs that are truly Canadian rather than just
commercially viable programs?
I will tell that person why. In this 20 minutes we will be going
$1.4 million further into debt. That is why we must take steps to
ensure that things like the film industry are privatized. We must
reduce subsidies to national museums and galleries as worthy as
they may be. If you haven't got it, you shouldn't be spending it.
That is exactly what has been going on. There are $450 million
available there.
8327
I would like to make another comment about the Department
of National Defence. The member of the Bloc was raising the
issue of the Department of National Defence. My own personal
position is: for people to risk their lives, whether it is in
helicopters off Labrador, in the former Yugoslavia or on a
barricade wherever it may be in Canada, do we expect them to be
given the tools and the training? If they are putting their lives on
the line they must be properly supported.
We combined the spending cuts that had already been put
forward for the Department of National Defence, together with
the $300 million that had been recommended by the joint
committee and came up with a figure of $1 billion. I say to the
House as an individual that if we want to cut more from the
Department of National Defence the first thing we must do is
establish our priorities, our objectives for national defence. I for
one will never stand for anyone making arbitrary cuts without
first determining there will be a rollback in the services the
Department of National Defence will perform.
We believe a dollar in the hands of a taxpayer is more
productive than in the hands of government. The finance
minister said very specifically that subsidies build dependence.
I do not know whether members happened to see the front page
of the Financial Times a couple of weeks ago. It showed that for
every dollar a person in British Columbia puts into UI he or she
gets 70 cents or whatever out. Whereas for every dollar a person
in Newfoundland puts in he or she gets something like $3.70 out.
Even within UI there is a transfer of wealth. These things must
be looked at. Am I suggesting this should not be? I am simply
raising the issue that at the moment there are transfers of wealth
that build dependency.
We have specifically said, for example, that we should reduce
the subsidy to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by $365
million. It was interesting on CTV over the weekend that there
was some speculation the government was also considering that.
It is a simple thing to do. Mr. Speaker, you may be aware of the
fact that my tax dollars, the tax dollars of Canadians and the tax
dollars of CTV were used by the CBC to outbid CTV on the
rights to the Olympic games. That was absolutely bizarre.
All sorts of cuts must be made, but the bottom line to the
exercise is that there are no simple answers. It is up to all of us as
politicians and to the news media to take on the responsibility of
acquainting the people of Canada with the fact that there is no
easy way. It is going to be tough but there is a light at the end of
the tunnel if we are prepared to get aggressive on the debt.
(1240)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when I hear Reform members making comments, I
always ask myself whether they are aware that the party in
power is not the Bloc Quebecois but the Liberal Party of Canada.
They are always directing their attacks at the Bloc Quebecois; I
do not know why, but I find it a little strange.
I also noted some insults that were directed at my party, at the
work that each member of the Bloc Quebecois is doing and the
seriousness with which we take our responsibilities as the
Official Opposition, and I was deeply offended. Since the
beginning, we have been doing what is expected of us in Quebec,
and I would tell you, even in Canada in some respects, because
some of our Canadian friends from the Maritimes, and even
from western Canada and Ontario, speak very favourably about
the work that my colleagues are doing as members of the official
Opposition in this House. The same cannot be said about the
Reformers. Even in western Canada, they are starting to loose
ground, but that is their problem.
With all due respect for my colleague, who is also on the
finance committee, I would have a question for him. If the
Reform Party is so serious in its offensive, in its suggestions for
improving Canadian public finance, why does it leave aside a
whole section of taxation, a whole section of grants, too? Why is
corporate taxation excluded? Why does the Reform Party refuse
to even discuss corporate income taxes?
Why is it so dead set against it? Is it a definite mind set? Is it
dogmatic? Why does it reject the review of tax conventions
signed with tax havens, when the Auditor General, who is
objective, and even Samson Bélair suggest that hundreds of
millions are lost because of these infamous conventions which
are perfectly legal but, in my opinion, totally immoral,
considering the present state of public finances?
How is it that my colleagues in the Reform Party do not want
to review this aspect of taxation? Why do they refuse to budge
when we mention family trusts?
Even in the subcommittee set up by the finance committee to
examine family trusts, they ridiculed the review of this
question, something requested by the Minister of Finance. Why
do they keep such a closed mind on discussing family trusts and
such an open mind on cutting unemployment insurance, the
Canada Assistance Plan, federal transfer payments for
post-secondary education, the budget of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation-a stupid measure to cut 30 per cent,
one third of the budget, suggested last week-, and all the
measures taken at the international level?
Why is the Reform Party so opposed to a serious review of this
issue? If they are really serious, they should quit being so
dogmatic every time we suggest something which might impact
on companies, on very rich Canadians and on certain members
of their own party.
8328
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, taxation, as I have indicated, very
simply is the confiscation of wealth. If you will pardon the term
said in humour, it is legal robbery. In other words what basically
goes on is that the people who come to this Chamber make this
grab legal by virtue of the fact that they are entitled by
Canadians to do so. It does not make any difference. The taxes
that are taken from individuals and the taxes that are taken from
business in a Robin Hood style are then redistributed.
(1245)
There are some services, particularly in the area of protection
and in the area of the environment-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): What about health
care?
Mr. Abbott: Health care is a good example. There are some
excellent examples of the intelligent use of these taxation
dollars but nonetheless they are confiscated from businesses and
from individuals. We believe, and I state again, a dollar in the
hands of the taxpayer is more productive than in the hands of the
government.
I would like to take the member up on his comment once again
about family trusts. There is somehow a myth which he and his
colleagues have bought into that there are countless billions of
dollars there. I use that $42 million per family trust figure as an
example. When they ask for quantification to say how many
dollars are in family trusts, and then turn around and say because
Revenue Canada, because the Department of Finance will not
give us these numbers that somehow they are trying to hide these
numbers from us, the process truly is not open.
The only way that we could quantify how many dollars are in
family trusts is if we in this Chamber made the determination
that we were going to tax wealth. We tax income, not wealth. To
accurately identify how many dollars are in family trusts,
because family trusts are a part of the entire relationship
between people and companies, we would have to quantify how
many dollars perhaps the Speaker is worth, perhaps that I am
worth, perhaps that the member is worth. Then we would be able
to determine on the basis of this wealth that maybe we will tax
you 1 per cent of your wealth over $100,000, whatever the
number is.
It is a completely erroneous position to take in my judgment
that the finance department and the revenue department are
somehow surreptitiously or overtly withholding information.
The information does not exist, so how can they give it to the
committee?
The member said that some of my comments were an attack
on the BQ. I guess that is part of my problem because I find some
of the comments to be somewhat nonsensical.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the Reform member mention the wealth in family
trusts and that it would amount to taxing wealth, as if wealth was
a concept that applied only to the rich, because we could not care
less about the wealth of the poor. Therefore, it is not a problem
to tax them, increase their burden, reduce the services provided
to them.
My question is this: He knows full well that the Bloc
Quebecois has been asking for information on family trusts, that
is to say that family trusts should declare their assets, rather than
only their revenues. Why is he opposed to the finance minister
saying in his next budget: This year, everybody with a family
trust will have to declare the assets in the trust. How else can he
justify his being opposed to this but to preserve the freedom of
those who have family trusts? How could such a measure be
catastrophic for these people?
(1250)
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, there are basically two aspects to
family trusts as there are with anything. There is this aspect of
real property, the capital gains portion on real property to which
the members keep referring. The other is marketable securities
or other assets of that type. I do not really understand. The
information does not exist. It is that simple.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by picking
up on some of the comments that other members have made in
this debate so far, that we are dealing with a very complex issue.
I refer to a paper that was delivered at the University of
Toronto last August 8 and 9 at the Institute for Policy Analysis.
It was delivered by Professor Pierre Fortin from the University
of Quebec. The title of this paper was ``A Diversified Strategy
for Deficit Control: Combining Faster Growth with Fiscal
Discipline''.
I would like to read a few comments from the abstract of this
paper, which I recommend to all members because it deals with
the complexity of the challenge before us:
``Under current projections of economic growth and fiscal
policy for the next two years, the probability that the federal
government will achieve its stated goal of bringing down the
fiscal deficit to 3 per cent of GDP by 1996 is almost zero. Four
types of changes could improve the odds that the target be
achieved: one, faster economic growth; two, a decline in interest
rates; three, additional cuts in program spending; four, increases
in tax rates.
8329
``It is possible to develop a diversified strategy that would:
one, allow the deficit target to be met by 1996; two, achieve
continued reduction of debt and deficit beyond that day; three,
permit the economy to return to full employment by 1999; four,
preserve the gains already made against inflation. That strategy
would have lower interest rates, raise the average growth rate of
real GDP to 5 per cent per year over the next five years. A
nominal freeze on program spending would be imposed in 1995
and 1996 and would be followed by moderate real growth in
1997 to 1999. There would be no increase in the global effective
tax rate''.
For the largest part the paper exposes the analytical and
empirical foundations of this proposed combination of
accelerated growth and fiscal discipline. I quote specifically
from that paper because I realize that Professor Fortin is a
respected economist in this country. I have heard he is someone
who from time to time would even give our members in the Bloc
Quebecois some advice. It was for that specific reason, aside
from his reputation, that I tried to get into his paper.
I believe that all members in the House have really put the
right emphasis on the cuts. I do not think anybody watching the
debates that are going on around here would question the
commitment, the focus or the debate on cuts. We cannot turn on
a light around here these days without somebody saying do not
do that because we have to save money. The message of working
on achieving cuts has been well impregnated into the thought
process of this Chamber and of this city.
The other area of tax reform in my mind has not really been
put on the front burner to the level it should be, but the real issue
for me has to do with faster growth. I believe that is where we as
members of Parliament are falling short.
(1255 )
If we are going to meet the challenge of getting our deficit and
debt house in order we are going to need growth in the country.
We are going to need jobs. We are going to need investment. We
are going to need the entrepreneurial spirit recharged.
I believe passionately that we will not achieve the growth that
we must achieve if we are going to meet these targeted numbers
unless we reform the tax system. The current tax system is no
longer trusted by business or by the average person in terms of
the personal side. Look on the business side right now. There are
37,000 tax cases before the courts with a burden on the justice
system because of the tax act challenges coming from business.
Most Canadian recognize that.
There is something else that we as a government have to face.
Members have touched on it this morning. We are now
competing more than ever for capital around the world. We are
in a globally competitive regime for capital. In order to have
capital move to our community, move to our country, we have to
have a globally competitive tax regime.
We should not look at these other countries that are attracting
capital for investment in their communities in a condescending
way. We should realize that they are ahead of the game. They are
ahead of us. They have realized that point. Today capital can
move with the push of a button.
If people who have wealth, capital and are entrepreneurial
achievers see that by getting a better tax break by pushing or
parking some of their wealth in either the islands, Switzerland or
some other part of the world, why would we not expect them to
try to do that? We would not want them to just leave their money
here after they had worked hard to achieve this wealth when we
did not make any effort at reforming our tax system or
recognizing that those wealth generators are an important factor
in generating jobs and growth in this economy.
The challenge of reducing the deficit and debt is inextricably
intertwined with having a tax system that will reverse capital
flows. I will try to explain this.
If we have a tax environment that attracts capital from all over
the world all of a sudden in our community, in our financial
institutions we will have a glut of capital. When we have a glut
of capital that means costs will go down. When costs go down
the interest rate on serving our debt is going to put a lot less
strain on the fiscal framework of our country.
More important, if we have capital in our community that is
not expensive, that is readily available, the entrepreneurial
spirit which needs access to that capital can go out and do what it
does best, take risk and create jobs.
(1300 )
When those jobs are created, once again on that side of the
ledger we are going to be putting less pressure on the fiscal
framework of this nation.
I believe that we have a challenge here. We have achieved the
notion. I would give the Reform Party some credit for pushing
this whole subject of cuts almost through the wall, but I really
believe that we as a government and as a Chamber now have to
put an equal amount of thinking and creativity on how to get
some growth going.
One cannot get growth with the current tax system. The
current tax system is a disincentive to achievers. It is a
disincentive to risk takers. It is a disincentive to the
entrepreneurial spirit in our country. That entrepreneurial spirit
which is required for taking chances and throwing out ideas that
can create jobs needs to be nurtured. We are not doing that with
the system that we have today.
8330
The problem when one tries to reform a tax system that has
looked after every little interest group in this country is that the
political will becomes very fragile. As members know I have
been trying, I believe in a constructive way, to reform the tax
system of the country over the last five years.
I realize that this may be the last chance in the government's
term to reform the tax system. If we do not take on the challenge
of comprehensive tax reform in this budget, we will have
committed ourselves to a pathway or a direction that will carry
us for the term of this government. For me, the next 30 to 45
days is crucial if we are going to address the whole issue of
comprehensive tax reform on the personal and corporate side.
As I started to say, the difficulty we are going to have in trying
to achieve tax reform is that every interest group in the country
has a built-in measure of support in the current tax system.
As many members know, I have been advancing this notion of
the single tax system for the last few years, continuing to refine
it. Many times Canadians will say: ``Why is it that you are
having problems in moving this debate forward?'' I always say:
``First of all, there is a basic tax lethargy in the country. The
second thing is that when you go to eliminate the preferences in
the tax system, people become very queasy. Their political will
does not tend to remain strong''.
In the latest proposal that our team has put forward, some of
the income deductions that would be eliminated are the
following: attendant care expenses; moving expenses; workers'
compensation payments; employee home relocation loan
deduction; the stock option and shares deduction; the capital
gains deduction; the northern residents deduction; forward
averaging; employer paid health preplanned premiums; child
care expenses; receipt of intercorporate dividends on the major
tax credits eliminated.
There is everything related to tuition, education, certain
medical, labour sponsored funds, political contributions,
investment tax credits, et cetera. There are a lot of preferences
that have to be eliminated if we are going to have tax reform in
the country.
I believe the tax system is the one instrument that the
Government of Canada has that can move the whole spirit of the
country. It is the one act of Parliament that touches every single
Canadian. If we redesign the tax act in a simplified, fair,
efficient way so that all Canadians can feel that they are part of
the tax renewal movement, that will be the spark that is
necessary to first of all get capital flowing into this country. By
having a globally competitive tax system, capital will move
here. That in turn will ignite that entrepreneurial spirit again, to
take chances and invest in our communities, which is how jobs
are created. At the same time it is going to give us the ability,
because of that uptake and faster growth, to make those cuts in
program spending a whole lot easier because the growth will
have picked up some of the pain that will be there because of
these deep program cuts we are going to have to make.
(1305)
I welcome this debate today. It is a very important debate on
the eve of preparing the budget. However, I caution members to
consider, as Professor Fortin has stated in his paper, that we
cannot just look at a system where we only have fiscal
discipline. At the same time we have to create an environment
where we can have faster growth. We need faster growth. You
cannot spark, induce and motivate people into taking chances
and getting this economy going unless you hit them with a fair
and constructive tax system.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have been listening all day to speakers from both sides of the
House expressing their views on how to run this country
rationally. We are presented with the following alternative: on
the one hand, cut services, social services naturally, and on the
other hand, increase taxes. Never was sound management
mentioned.
When I was mayor of Garthby township, we were required to
bring down a balanced budget, because municipalities were not
allowed to have deficits. When I see a government trying to play
Santa Claus, wasting public funds, being generous, extremely
generous and acting in such a way that the next two or three
generations will have to pay for this generosity today, I cannot
help but worry about the fact that we need to borrow in order to
pay current debt charges.
I could give this Liberal government a number of examples of
sound management. But last year, before Christmas, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and member for
Hull-Aylmer travelled aboard a government jet to go and deliver
two ten-minute conferences on the benefits of sound
government management, at a cost of $170,000. Also, the
restaurant on the 6th floor of this building lost $2 million last
year, and most of this deficit is due to the fact that senators and
members forget to pay before leaving. Apparently the waiters do
not run too hard after their clients either. Two million dollars.
The operation of the other place costs $65 million each and
every year. The government could manage a little better. When I
hear that good taxpayers owe government $6.6 billion are these
friends of the regime? I do not know. Corporations, companies,
small and medium size businesses owe $6.6 billion. The
government is forced to borrow today because it is dirt poor, yet
it does not collect what is owed. A government that is unable to
collect its assets does not deserve to govern the country.
8331
(1310)
Mr. Speaker, I think that you too were the mayor of your
municipality, so you know full well what happens to voters who
do not pay their property taxes. After three years, their property
is sold off to pay taxes.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Question.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): My question is this: I know that
the Liberals want to preserve family trusts and tax shelters for
their friends because they need them to fatten up their election
fund.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Question! Question!
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Why does the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood not talk about sound management? I
will always remember when we had work done in the sixth
concession road in my parish-and I will close on this-, all
local truckers were hired to widen the road by laying 12 inches
of good gravel. Of course, the trucks were not fully loaded so
some taxpayers asked me to do something about it. I told them
that it was not us but the provincial government that was paying.
When they heard that, they went away reassured. Today,
whenever Canadian taxpayers hear that expenses will be paid at
a higher level, they feel as though the money will come from the
sky. Yet, you never say anything about sound management. Very
often $175,000 contracts could be carried out for $20,000 or
$25,000.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Okay.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): So go ahead. Sound management
is what we expect from you.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Mayor-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As a former referee I have
been called a lot of things but I have never been called a mayor
because I have never been a mayor.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): I thought I would give
you an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight.
First I say through you to my friend in the Bloc that we would
never disagree with you on improving the administration of
government. I tried to suggest that I think there is a very tight
disciplined focus on cutting expenses and eliminating not just
programs but cutting out waste and the expenses the member
referred to.
I also said that the single tax system it is an airtight system so
that no one can exclude paying their fair share of taxes,
including the family trusts. That is included as are all incomes in
the system. I have sent copies to the member. Maybe he just has
not had the time to read the proposal.
I think there is a far more important point to make to the
members of the Bloc here today. I get the sense from their debate
that they are not into really constructing a positive spirit for the
people of Canada today. I get a sense that they are trying to take
a few cheap shots.
I do not want to take any cheap shots, but I do want to say the
following. I believe that one of the greatest factors in getting
this economy of Canada going again is restoring confidence in
our communities, confidence in our entrepreneurial sector, and
confidence in investing in the country.
By having a chamber like this where there are people who are
constantly talking about taking Quebec out of Canada, I would
venture a guess that that is costing the economy of Canada a lot
of money. I hope they can maybe forget about being the Bloc
Qubecois today and start taking a day to be the Bloc Canadien.
(1315)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before going on to my speech as such, I cannot help answering
the Liberal member who just concluded by saying that we should
be a ``Bloc Canadien''-what a slogan. Maybe he should take
the time to think about why we are proposing sovereignty for
Quebec and why we were elected and realize that it is probably
in the best interest of Quebec and Canada.
I would like him to take just a few minutes to think about it
and see what kind of partnership there could be in future and
maybe then he would start thinking more positively about it.
Now, to reassure him, I entered politics for two reasons. Of
course, I wanted to help Quebec fulfil its rightful destiny as a
sovereign country, but I also wanted to improve the
government's finances.
It is not true that we will continue to go deeper into debt year
after year, because whatever happens on the political front, we
must improve the government's finances in the short term. The
Minister of Finance has not done much about it in the past year.
When he presents his next budget, I expect him to rise in this
House and say, ``We have achieved our forecast; we will end the
year with a deficit of $39.5 billion''. And then you will see his
colleagues rise and give him a tremendous ovation.
They will be proud to have such a high deficit, although the
deficit was $41 billion last year and only the surplus in the
unemployment insurance fund has made it possible for them to
reduce the deficit this year, and by so little, $2 billion, just from
the UI fund. Those people will be happy, they will be proud, they
will feel like they are in control of the nation's finances.
To give an idea of the size of the problem, let us talk about the
OECD. You know, the OECD compiles statistics. It is not the
Bloc Quebecois but a very reputable economic organization and
I want to give you some statistics from the OECD. You know, it
is not true that we can explain what is going on here by saying
that it is happening throughout the world. That is not true.
8332
Canada's indebtedness is much greater than other countries'. I
tell you that the net debt is rising much faster here.
Between 1985 and 1993, the ratio of the net debt over the GDP
for the governments of OECD members, that is 15 countries
including the G-7 nations, increased by 22 per cent. This is
already pretty serious. However, for Canada, the increase for the
same period was 77 per cent. I can just hear the Liberals say
``There you go; this is what the Conservatives did''. Well, let us
look at another statistic. The national debt essentially increased
between 1970 and 1985. If we use the same indicator again, that
is the ratio of the deficit over the GDP, we went from a surplus of
0.3 per cent in 1970, to a deficit of 8.7 per cent in 1985, at the
end of the Liberal government years.
This was an unprecedented high which has not been equalled
since. Now that the Liberal Party is back in office, its Minister of
Finance launches an unprecedented consultation exercise to say
that the government will hit hard. That consultation might be
something new, but the message conveyed is certainly nothing
new. In the two years preceding the arrival of the current finance
minister on the scene, his predecessors said the same thing, only
to end up with timid measures in the budget itself.
For all sorts of reasons, people are skeptical about the
minister announcing this year the cuts which he intends to make
to reach his objectives. Indeed, there is such a thing as a political
context and the government must show that the federal regime is
good and that it benefits every Quebecer. Consequently, the
Minister of Finance will once again only announce timid
measures to slightly reduce the deficit.
But wait until after the referendum. This is when the major
cuts will be made. Last Friday, I listened with great interest to
the finance minister, who was Jean-Luc Mongrain's guest on his
very popular program in Quebec. The Minister of Finance, who
looked very serious and deeply concerned by the magnitude of
the deficit, said: ``This time, Mr. Mongrain, we have no choice
and nobody will be spared''. I will come back to this ``nobody
will be spared'' later.
(1320)
Now, all of a sudden, he says that we must reduce the deficit in
order to improve the employment situation. He is saying the
exact opposite of what his party promised during the election
campaign. I must admit that I have not followed, day in and day
out, all the statements made by the Liberals, but I seem to
remember what the public has remembered, and that is the
slogan they used and the fact that they were always talking about
``jobs, jobs, jobs''. They assured us that job creation would
restore dignity. They have now found out that they must first
deal with the deficit, and that will help to improve employment.
That sounds like what the Conservatives used to say. That is
what the Minister of Finance used to say, and since the Minister
of Finance is still at the helm, whether he is Liberal or
Conservative does not change anything, the statements are all
the same and Paul Martin, as Minister of Finance, is making the
same old statements. Nothing has changed, except maybe for the
colour of the cover page. He now tells us that, yes, these are the
measures the government has to take.
The same thing goes for the monetary policy. It is amazing to
see how members change their minds when they change sides in
this House. The Liberals ferociously criticized the monetary
policy put forward by the Conservatives, but now that they are in
office, they keep quiet on this issue. They keep going in the same
direction as their predecessors; all they have changed is the
director, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, to replace him by
someone who thinks alike.
Some experts, including Pierre Fortin, an economist at
UQAM whom a Liberal member quoted extensively earlier,
have told the finance committee that the government still has
some leeway to toy with the short-term interest rates. The
inflation rate is low, very low, in Canada, and the difference
between the rates in Canada and the United States is still
relatively high, compared to what it could be. Inflation is
beginning to be felt a little more in the United States.
But we keep following the same restrictive monetary policy.
Worse, we are now being told that both policies, the monetary
policy and the fiscal policy, will be restrictive. This monetary
policy, and especially the short-term interest rates, give you
something to think about. But now they have gone back to their
offices at the Department of Finance, and that is it.
Earlier, a Liberal member said, and this is typical, that
economic growth would take care of everything. There is
something fundamentally wrong about this reasoning. The
figures we get from their own Department of Finance tell us that
80 per cent of the current deficit is due to structural problems.
The structural unemployment rate is 8.5 per cent. This means
that even with strong economic growth, the current deficit
cannot be reduced by more than 20 per cent and the
unemployment rate cannot be brought below the 8.5 per cent
mark.
As far as structural problems are concerned, and I will get
back to this later before I finish, the World Competitiveness
Report provided some interesting information on Canada's
competitive position and contained references to structural
problems. I agree, these are complex issues which are not easy
8333
to explain, but the people who are running the government
should understand.
Here again, we see very little change from the previous
government. So what is happening as far as the next budget is
concerned?
I would like to comment briefly on the prebudget
consultations. I was involved from the very beginning. I went on
the tour of the Western provinces, and I wonder who was talking
to whom. These prebudget consultations were planned some
time ago, but the groups that appeared before the committee
were informed only two or three days ahead of time. They
appeared at the last minute and apologized, saying they had been
invited on very short notice. How come? This was supposed to
be the widest ranging consultation in the history of the
Department of Finance, and people hardly knew about it. They
were unable to make a good presentation, because they were
pressed for time.
At this time of the year, the next budget is already at an
advanced stage. One wonders how significant the committee's
contribution can be, when we consider that from today onward,
every day is almost a whole day too late. There will be a
postponement until December 7. It could have been much later,
but there definitely was pressure not to go any later than
December 7.
(1325)
I will now discuss the feelers put out by the Minister of
Finance concerning RRSPs. It is incredible the kind of concern
we are now seeing about RRSPs. All options were open, when I
put the question to the minister on a number of occasions here in
the House. Did he intend to tax capital accumulated in RRSPs?
Reduce the maximum annual contribution? The total
accumulated contributions? Not a word. The door is wide open.
One of Canada's weak points as far as its competitive position
is concerned is its level of savings. In your first course in
macroeconomics, you learn that one of the key variables that
generate investment is savings. When you buy an RRSP, this is
money you save which is then reinvested. If the Minister of
Finance wants to play around with the savings of Canadians
which are already very limited, we are not going in the right
direction.
That is the signal he is giving people for next year. People will
be concerned when it comes time to contribute to their RRSP.
They will say to people who want to sell them RRSPs: ``Yes, but
if I put the money in, you say that it is a good vehicle, because it
helps us improve our tax planning and defer paying taxes on our
income until we are retired. But now, I am not so sure, because
there are rumours the Minister of Finance is going to tamper
with that''. Even if he does not do it in the February budget, we
have no guarantee he will not do so the year after. He should
send a clear message to the public that he will not tamper with
this vehicle and that it would be useless for him to do so. All he
would be doing is siphon money out of retirement funds. At the
present time we are borrowing, but this would drive us to borrow
even more in the future.
What is going to happen when these people retire if there is
less money in their retirement funds? What is going to happen?
It will be a disaster. It is a very strange reasoning, especially
when one considers that family trusts can defer paying any
capital gains tax until the death of the last beneficiary, that is to
say for 80 years if we limit ourselves to normal life expectancy.
We are told: ``No, we are not considering actualization every 21
years, as it was done previously. No, it is out of the question, it
would be bad for the economy. It would serve no purpose''. Yet,
the government wants to impose it on individuals,
middle-income taxpayers. They are told: ``We are going to tax
your future income right away''.
There is a great lack of consistency there. This is a very
skewed reasoning which will have to be explained. Of course,
the government keeps the door open by saying: ``Yes, we did not
do it, but wait for the next budget. This is not too serious''. We
could have healthy consultations if people knew where we were
heading. At present, everything is open, in any direction. It is
not necessarily a bad thing to open everything for review, but
when we look at the papers that the minister publishes, we see
very strange things. Take fiscal spending for example, tax
credits for charitable donations are considered almost like
wasteful fiscal spending, when they are actually very good for
the economy. They actually reduce the amount the government
would otherwise have to pay. Expenses are only dealt with in
terms of personal income taxes, not corporate taxes.
I would like to present a few statistics illustrating the depth of
the challenge facing us since cuts are so often mentioned.
Let us have a look at the distribution of the population in
terms of income brackets. This is based on income tax returns.
About 20 million taxpayers file a return. It is rather shocking to
see that 50 per cent of the population has an annual income of
$20,000 or less; 50 per cent. If you go up to $25,000, you find
that 60 per cent of the population has an income of $25,000 or
less.
To balance the budget and bring the deficit under control, that
means $2,000 for each and every person. Twenty million
taxpayers at $2,000 equal $40 billion. Of course we could take
the economic growth into account. However, we must keep one
thing in mind, the interest on the debt is increasing because we
are going deeper into debt. Every year, we must pay more
interest. Economic growth allows us to generate additional
revenues to pay increasing interests.
Now we are told that we must bring this problem under
control, so the government targets the middle of the pyramid or
the bottom half, where 60 per cent of the population is.
(1330)
Cutting expenditures may affect everybody in pretty much the
same way. But proportionally, it is those with an income of
$25,000 or less who are going to be hit the hardest. You can see
8334
right away that, if this is the way the government decides to go,
it is going to be impossible, inhumane.
What is the alternative? Why not target the top of the
pyramid? The middle class is not part of this picture yet, but if
you want to go higher, you will find that 20 to 30 per cent of the
population is in the $25,000 to $55,000 bracket. Right away, you
can see what a huge challenge this is going to be; reduced
spending alone will not be enough. We should take a look at
fiscal expenditures. Now you should see how hard it is to get
information. It is complex, it affects the economy, it hurts,
whereas it does not hurt to attack the underprivileged, to cut
benefits paid to the unemployed. They do not consume goods
and services, therefore they do not contribute to the economy in
the eyes of that party. Only the rich contribute to the economy.
That is the myth. And the Reform Party is in total agreement.
They think alike on this issue. They think that the rich drive the
economy, not the middle class. This is a terrible thought.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Terrible and terribly wrong.
Mr. Brien: I hope that they will see fit to deal with the top of
the pyramid and address the squandering going on at that level.
I see that I have only a few moments remaining in my
speaking time. Let me briefly touch on taxation, just to say that a
major confidence-building factor is missing at present. When
you look at outstanding tax accounts totalling $6.6 billion. But
82 per cent of this amount is owed by 25 per cent of the
taxpayers who have tax accounts oustanding. Yet the Minister of
National Revenue is pleased to tell us: ``We are much more
efficient; we recover a much greater number of accounts''. What
he does not say is that they go for the small accounts. The large
ones, they do not touch them. In the private sector, we go for the
big accounts, we do not deal with the small ones first. Efforts are
made in both cases, but here you are less efficient; you start with
small accounts and large accounts. After a while, you have all
kinds of problems on you hands. I am not talking about accounts
in dispute, because then you could add another $2.5 billion. The
Department of National Revenue generally wins most of these
disputes. This means that, eventually, a few more billions can be
expected to be recovered.
To this we can add the GST with overdue accounts in excess of
$1 billion. The total amount owed the government is close to
$9.5 billion. Why? Because people do not trust the government,
because they feel that they are paying more than their fair share
and are increasingly turning to the underground economy. More
and more of them are rejecting and revolting against our tax
system. What are they doing about this? Nothing yet. They do
not even have the will to tackle the problem. They do not even
talk about it. That is unacceptable.
The Bloc Quebecois will include its suggestions in the report
to be submitted by the finance committee. They must remember
one thing: They were elected to make decisions. They must stop
hiding behind all the consultations they are holding to help them
make decisions. They are paid to make decisions. The Minister
of Finance was appointed by the Prime Minister to make
decisions. He is not going to hide behind committees that will
support his comments or tell him not to do this or that; it is up to
him to decide. In any case, people will soon get fed up with these
phony consultations. People are very skeptical, and with good
reason, as we will see if they listened to what the people they
consulted had to say about RRSPs.
I will close by addressing the issue of competitiveness. I will
limit myself to four points out of many. We have our strong
points, the areas where we rank in the middle, and our
weaknesses. Since we want to improve, let us look at the
weaknesses. Since I have only two minutes left, I will close on
this. Some companies do not provide their employees with
adequate training. This sounds to me like a training problem.
The education system is not in line with the business world. This
also sounds like a training problem. We are told of weaknesses
in our education system. True, it is a provincial jurisdiction.
Quite so. But here the provinces get money in the form of
transfer payments. Suddenly they are told that their aid will be
cut and that their students will have to go into debt. The
government can no longer afford it. Students will have to go into
debt. In addition to having to bear an incredible tax burden in the
coming years, they will have to go into debt personally to pay for
their own education. We benefited from the education system;
now it is their turn to pay the bill for it and pay and pay and pay.
(1335)
They take us for a bunch of idiots. What they are trying to do
is unacceptable. It amounts to several billion dollars. Besides,
we have learned that they even want to touch the tax points
which Quebec acquired in the past; they will find obstacles in
their path. We will block their way.
Two more points. We hear that governments have trouble
adapting to new economic realities. In the present context where
we must adjust quickly to markets, we need flexible, responsive,
efficient political entities. What we have here is a political
system that is completely paralyzed and has trouble moving; it
consults and consults. How many consultations has it done? The
Liberals are going over the same ground as the Conservatives
did in 1984, with consultations on the same subjects. Why?
Because finding a consensus in Canada is very difficult.
And then they tell us that we are out-and-out demagogues
when we talk about sovereignty. It is a model which they should
consider seriously. If they were honest, they would tell people
across Canada that it is an option worth considering. I conclude
with this: People are ready to make sacrifices, to the extent that
they feel it is fair and everyone is doing their share, starting with
the top of the pyramid. In terms of spending, this is the top of
8335
the pyramid and we must cut spending. When that happens,
people will really start to gain confidence.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I also happen to have a few
questions for the hon. member opposite. We hear a lot about
scenarios, about the country's precarious finances, the
exponential growth of the debt and the other problems of the last
few years.
As you know, this exponential growth of the debt did not only
occur in Canada: It was a worldwide phenomenon. I would like
to know what the monetary and fiscal policy of Quebec's
government would be-assuming an independent Quebec-,
because all we hear is that Quebec intends to share Canada's
financial system and that any monetary policy would be, if I am
not mistaken, a joint policy.
In that context, what would be Quebec's contribution? How
would it change the system that is currently in place? I am also
intrigued by the hon. member's comments on interest rates. How
are we going to deal with the confusion and the concerns of
international investors if Quebec becomes independent? I am
curious to hear how we could control interest rates in such a
context.
According to the member, there are some experts who claim
that interest rates are very low in Canada and that a lot must be
done in that regard. However, what kind of guarantee can the
member give regarding those interest rates, assuming that
Quebec becomes independent? There is no question that, as
regards finances, political confidence is always a factor. I
believe that this political confidence exists in Canada, but what
guarantee do we have that everything will go just fine in Quebec
if it becomes independent?
How will the hon. member convince investors, considering
that Quebec will have to take its share of the country's $500
billion deficit, not to mention the deficits incurred by the
province and by Hydro Quebec? It is well known that deficits in
Quebec are much higher, per capita, than anywhere else in the
western world.
So, how will the hon. member convince foreign investors,
given that this new country would be struggling with a huge debt
larger than that of any other region in Canada? I would
appreciate an answer to these questions.
Mr. Brien: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to teach
the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine some
economic concepts.
An hon. member: He does need it.
Mr. Brien: First of all, I am very glad to see that the member
is starting to reflect upon the possibility of a sovereign Quebec,
of what a sovereign Quebec could achieve and could be. We
should probably be thankful to his constituents who are now
more than ever telling him that they think it is a desirable model
and probably a forward-looking option. So now, the member is
curious about the policies of the Bloc Quebecois and is showing
some interest.
I am really glad and I congratulate his constituents for
showing him the errors of his way. The member raised four
points in his question, which I want to go over, one by one. He
said that the public debt is a world-wide phenomenon. It is so
easy to use clichés! Since the member thinks that this is a
world-wide phenomenon, let me repeat what I said at the
beginning of my speech, there are two periods to consider.
(1340)
I heard one of my colleagues say that the Liberals are
responsible for Canada's indebtedness. That is probably more
exact. Between 1970 and 1985, we started with a surplus to end
up with a very significant deficit.
At the international level, between 1985 and 1993, a period
dominated by the Conservatives which the Liberals would
qualify as a very difficult time, the debt level of member States
of the OECD increased by 22 per cent. Meanwhile, the debt in
Canada rose by 77 per cent, roughly 3.5 times more than in
OECD countries. Maybe indebtedness is a world wide
phenomenon, but the phenomenon in Canada is a lot bigger than
anywhere else, probably due to structural problems.
He takes an interest in what the monetary policy of a
sovereign Quebec would be. I am happy to see that he thinks
about it and that a sovereign State of Quebec might be allowed to
sit on the board of the Bank of Canada to discuss its point of
view. It would be interesting to finally be able to discuss issues
as an equal partner. Anyway, all I said about the monetary policy
is that his party-I do not know if he was a member of
Parliament at the time or if he followed the business of the
House-his Minister of Finance and all Liberals criticized John
Crow and the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada. But now
that they are themselves in charge, they tell us the current
restrictive and harsh monetary policy must be maintained.
All I noted is a blatant contradiction. All I said about the
monetary policy is that whoever is asked to apply it should be
forced to solve the problem of short-term interest rates. He said
that interest rates are low in Canada, while, on the contrary,
interest rates are high in Canada. The difference with the United
States is larger. That is what has to be looked at, especially
concerning short-term rates. People should not be misled on
such serious concepts.
8336
He talked about international finance and the fact they worry
about a sovereign State of Quebec that would be ``crippled with
debts'', in the words of the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. If Quebec can be said to
be crippled with debts, how would he describe Canada's current
debt situation? Canada is, with Italy, one of the countries most
heavily in debt. Actually, Italy's foreign debt is much less
serious than Canada's or even Quebec's.
What international financiers will look at are the results. That
is what they will look at. His colleagues and himself-well
maybe not himself because he will continue to live with us in
Quebec, especially since we sense a very strong change in
attitude on his part. As I was saying, his colleagues will have to
take their responsibilities and consider an economic partnership
because it is not true that Ontario will refuse to trade with
Quebec. That province has a $3 billion trade surplus with
Quebec. I cannot imagine Toronto business people-who are
supposed to be very rational-saying that even though they
make money, they no longer wish to do business with Quebec.
The Liberals will have to explain to their constituents that it
could be a very interesting free trade zone. It is a
forward-looking and constructive option. Our constituents
expect us to have a sense of responsibility, to stop playing
politics like we would like to do sometimes.
The financial community will indeed look very carefully at
what is going on in Quebec and in Canada compared to
international markets.
My main concern right now is that Canada is probably
ill-prepared to face what may happen over the next year.
Perhaps it will be Canada's credit rating that will suffer the
most, which is not desirable. As Quebecers, we do not wish to
see Canada find itself in a difficult situation because it will be
our neighbour and we want it to be economically healthy. The
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine certainly
wants the same thing we do.
We are told that 80 per cent of the present deficit is due to
structural problems. I will talk about structural problems and
about reports on competitiveness that were prepared by people
who are not necessarily members of the Bloc Quebecois, but are
world renowned specialists. They tell us that we have
weaknesses in adjusting rapidly to the modern context.
Problems in manpower training were also pinpointed. All
Quebecers, federalists and sovereignists alike, think Quebec
should have jurisdiction over manpower training, but no. Simple
and basic demands like that are just ignored.
(1345)
That is why more and more Quebecers, including those in the
riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, have
undertaken a positive thought process, and, within a year, will
make a decision to improve their economic situation, both for
them and for future generations, in order to build a thriving
Quebec, next to countries who hopefully will also prosper,
Canada and the United States.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to be the next one
to speak. I will nonetheless try to elaborate on the global picture
of our financial situation. I think the Minister of Finance has
already explained how critical it is. And not only must we suffer
these difficult times, we must also suffer cynicism on the part of
the opposition.
When I hear members of the opposition say that the only way
out is independence or sovereignty, I believe the vast majority of
Quebecers do not agree with that option which will not generate
any advantage or improve the economic issues of common
concern to all Quebecers.
I would like to speak mainly of the pre-budget consultation
which will soon be underway. I believe we are about to have a
new economic framework.
It is important to remember that our government has limited
revenues, and that problem is experienced by the federal
government, by the provinces and by countries all over the
world, especially western countries. Our government has
limited possibilities for direct investment. They cannot solve all
the problems and we should not expect them to do so.
I believe the purpose of governmental action is to encourage
partnerships. At the federal level, we are quite prepared to work
in co-operation with provinces, municipalities and businesses. I
think it is very important and, as the member from the other side
said so well, what people want is a spirit of co-operation.
One of the strong points of Canadian federalism has always
been, for 125 years, the ability to find common grounds, to find
ways of reaching sectoral agreements. Of course there are areas
under the federal jurisdiction and others under the Quebec
jurisdiction, but we often have to work together. Instead of
splitting up and thinking that Quebec will be better off once it is
on its own in a North American context, I doubt very much that
Quebecers will agree with such a scenario or, for that matter, the
proposal of Mr. Parizeau and, of course, the Leader of the
Opposition.
We were talking about the need to control the debt. I think that
has a lot to do with productivity in Canada. We have to review
not only our policies and how we manage the government, but
also how we help the small and medium businesses to revitalize
the Canadian economy.
With that as a background, we are looking for some
reductions, of course, but that does not necessarily mean that we
do not want to reconsider our objectives. The government global
strategy is job creation. By creating jobs, we encourage people
to pay taxes, to participate in the economy and that is the only
way out for us.
8337
When we talk about program review, we always talk about the
social security reform. I think it is important to recognize that
after 50 years, we have to review that program. We have to
reconsider it to allow the federal government to carry on the way
it should and revitalize the economy of our country.
When you take a look at the reform, I think the government
and all the social and economic stakeholders, from Quebec or
other parts of Canada, worry about the emergency of finding
new niches, new opportunities for the Canadian industry. We
were certainly able to deal-
(1350)
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Certainly.
Mr. Gagnon: Unfortunately, opposition members do not want
to take part in this debate. The only thing that they are interested
in is independence, sovereignty, but not necessarily the
well-being of their fellow citizens.
In my riding of Bonaventure, I am very concerned by the level
of education, of schooling of my constituents. That is certainly a
problem. There are many certainties in politics. But among
other certainties is the fact that the rate of secondary level
graduates is much lower in Quebec than in other Western
countries. I think that there is a lot to be done at the professional
training level. We have the opportunity to encourage these
young people to discover new horizons. The only way that we
can do that is to ensure a sort of continuity in the Canadian
federation, but also to encourage the young people to complete
their studies, to encourage businesses to hire them afterwards
and to give a chance to these new and small businesses to find
new markets not only at the Canadian level, but also at the
international level.
The federal government must take into account not only the
social security net, but also the new defence policy of the
Government of Canada in a world where the cold war is over,
where we do not have the same number of soldiers and officers
any more, where our need or our strategy is no longer a military
one, as regards the East European bloc. We certainly get some
benefits from that. No doubt we have to revisit and reconsider
the funds allocated to National Defence.
There is also our foreign policy which costs us a lot of money.
Once again, we must develop a new strategy. What is the new
Canadian strategy at the international level? I think the Prime
Minister made a remarkable demonstration of it when he
determined that in the future, the Government of Canada and
above all, the Prime Minister, would have to promote our
products and services worldwide.
Let us look at what happened in China, for example. We
signed contracts for almost $8, $9 or $10 billion. I think that this
mission was very profitable to Canadians, to Canadian
businesses and also to companies from Quebec. We now have
learned that 30 per cent of the contracts were awarded to Quebec
businesses. The reputation of Canada was, of course,
instrumental in all of this. In order to get contracts, especially in
Asia and most particularly in China, you have to give small
businesses support, sometimes at a fiscal level but also at the
level of foreign policy, to get signatures on contracts, very
important contracts.
According to Bernard Landry, it is unfortunate that these
contracts were negotiated before the Prime Minister of Canada
arrived in China.
We have to recognize that for these countries it is important to
deal with politically stable countries, recognized in the area of
international trade, countries which have acquired an enviable
reputation like Canada. We must acknowledge that it is not the
case of Quebec. Quebec is not an independent country, Quebec
always took advantage of the fact that it was part of Canada, it
always capitalized on our good reputation in the world of
international trade.
I will repeat that the consultations undertaken by the
Department of Finance, and naturally the committee, are meant
to give information to Canadians.
(1355)
This information on the deficit is fairly well known, we have
talked at length about the accumulated debt, and about the
situation in the provinces and municipalities. We have to take
into account the new Canadian policies regarding job
development, defence, foreign affairs; all of these have one
overriding goal, to revitalize the national economy.
However, once we have given this basic information, we have
to itemize spending, we must tell Canadians where our money
comes from, and explain why we have a deficit. You know, it is
not easy to explain, but numbers are self-explanatory. That is
the reason why we must appeal to Canadians from all walks of
life to give their opinion and suggest solutions to the deficit
problem we are facing right now.
Whether Quebec becomes independent or not, the deficit is a
problem we share with all provinces. When you prioritize
economic recovery, you give priority to Canada for the
economic benefit of all Canadians. Obviously, we must work
together. I believe that every one of us has the duty to take into
account the fiscal reality of the country as well as the
possibilities to find common solutions.
We are now talking about the central role of the federal
government, but we still want to hear the point of view of all
Canadians in every sector of the economy. I believe that when
the committee starts touring the country, it will meet east-coast
fishermen, people working in the forestry area, not only
workers, but also businessmen.
8338
Of course, we must assess what our strengths are, but also our
weaknesses; this is the way to reach a common position. In
Ontario, we will certainly meet more industrialists, in the car
and aerospace industries. There is a lot to do, in every province.
Getting advice from all the sectors in which we are strong is a
priority for these consultations. I hope that the opposition will
take part in them. University professors, scientists and scholars
will also be able to contribute so that we can get our national
economy going again. Strangely enough, when we talk about
national economic recovery, this includes local and even
regional economic recovery.
This past week-end, in Eastern Quebec, the Université du
Québec à Rimouski granted economic regional development
certificates. People, especially young people, were asked how to
elaborate new economic development policies. I see my time is
running out. What a pity! Twenty minutes go by so quickly-
The Speaker: I will give the floor back to the member at 3
p.m. and we will listen to him with great interest. It being 2 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to
Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
8338
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today in Stellarton, Nova Scotia, the Governor
General, the Right Hon. Ramon Hnatyshyn, will present the
medal of bravery to the heroes of the Westray coal mine disaster.
Close to 200 draegermen and barefaced miners will receive
this decoration for their unselfish acts of bravery under very
hazardous circumstances. This is the first time in Canadian
history that so many individuals have been awarded bravery
decorations for a single incident.
I stand here today to salute those individuals for their heroic
acts during this tragic time.
I urge each member of the House to take a moment and reflect
on those who lost their lives in the Westray mine disaster. Let us
never forget the efforts of those individuals who worked so
diligently in the aftermath of this tragedy. Not only do they
deserve our recognition but our deep and heartfelt thanks.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over
the weekend, the general council of the Bloc Quebecois adopted
a comprehensive referendum action plan in harmony with all
sovereignist forces in Quebec. This action plan includes a
convention to be held in April, which will focus on Quebec
sovereignty and its effects on day-to-day activities.
The Bloc Quebecois is prepared to be actively involved as a
major player in the referendum, because the battle ahead of us
will be the battle of a lifetime. We will demonstrate that
sovereignty is essential to the development of Quebec and the
future of our children. We will repeat that the federalist
alternative is nothing but the status quo, as the Prime Minister of
Canada keeps telling us.
We, the people of Quebec, will choose sovereignty. We are
ready. And we will win this decisive battle.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday
it was implied both inside the House and outside that I would
preclude women with children from working in my office
because I was concerned that their family responsibilities would
impair their ability to do their job.
That is simply not the case. I apologize for failing to make my
position clear in my comments in the standing committee. Two
of my staff are married women with children and I oppose bias in
hiring, particularly on marital grounds. I asked applicants
during the interview stage about their family situation but this
was not a factor in the hiring decision. I selected people on the
basis of their qualifications and experience.
I now understand this is against the rules and I will refrain
from doing so in the future. However I think it is sad that an
employer cannot discuss an employee's family situation to
arrange support for them during family sickness or emergency.
* * *
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, recently the American television show ``60 Minutes''
aired a story called the ``Ugly Face of Freedom'' which alleged
that anti-Semitism was on the rise in Ukraine.
This story slanders Ukraine and ethnic Ukrainians
everywhere. To make its case it relied on historical events and
interviews with radical political groups. It offered no firm
evidence to prove its case. It interviewed the editor of a daily
right wing ultranationalist newspaper and allowed him to voice
his demented opinions but forgot to mention the number of
papers that he sells.
8339
From its lofty platform as media ``60 Minutes'' is allowed to
broadcast its message across Canada and the United States.
When people see this show on television how are they to know
that it is not so?
I call on the CRTC to take steps to ensure that this kind of
misinformation is not allowed to be broadcast across the border
so that this type of harmful misinformation may never slander
another group again.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently the
oldest member of my riding underwent surgery to correct
damage caused by a lightning strike some 30 years ago.
This well-known character resides in North Pelham and is an
80 foot tall sugar maple tree named the Comfort maple and is
reported to be 500 years old. I am pleased to announce that
restoration this summer has had excellent results and the
Comfort maple is recovering well.
This summer the Comfort maple was host to a stamp launch
by Canada Post for its maple tree stamp series. This event was
all the more significant because members of the Comfort family
of West Lincoln after which the tree is named celebrated their
100th consecutive family reunion.
The Comfort maple reminds us that we have been here for
such a short time. Five hundred years ago the exploration of
Canada by explorers had only just begun. Yet here stands this
tree a witness to all subsequent events.
The history of the Canadian nation and this tree have run a
parallel course. The maple leaf is an enduring symbol of our
great nation. This magnificent tree has survived stormy times,
as has our country. Both will continue to flourish and grow for
many, many years to come.
We in Erie are proud of the Comfort maple. We in Erie are
proud to be Canadians.
* * *
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's economic performance in recent months has been very
encouraging.
Real growth at 6.4 per cent in the second quarter far outstrips
the performance of any other G-7 country. Retail sales are up in
the third quarter and up 7.8 per cent over last year. Real exports
are up 5.6 per cent in the third quarter. This is a record level and
the fastest growth since 1983.
Employment is up by 307,000 jobs since January, all full time
jobs. Employment growth in recent months has been the most
rapid in almost six years. The unemployment rate has fallen
from 11.4 per cent in January to 10 per cent in October. Over
April to August the deficit is $4.5 billion lower than in the same
period in 1993-94.
It is results like these that lead the IMF to project that Canada
will have the strongest growth in output and the highest rate of
growth in employment in all the G-7 countries in both 1994 and
1995.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development recently released
another discussion paper, this one dealing with daycare and
child development. It says that the minister intends to review
every funding formula on the basis of the objectives he has set
for his social program reform.
Meanwhile, the government is cutting UI and welfare
benefits. It is unthinkable that this government can logically
make a distinction between the welfare of families and that of
children. As if the poverty affecting children in Quebec and
Canada could be viewed and analyzed as separate from that of
their parents.
Moreover, the government is again encroaching on a
provincial jurisdiction, without a hint of hesitation. Such an
attitude is simply unacceptable.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased today to offer my congratulations to the children of
Calgary for their overwhelming participation in a very special
project directed by the Samaritan's Purse Christmas Child
Program.
For weeks now elementary students in the city of Calgary
have been filling shoe boxes with Christmas gifts to send to
children in Bosnia and Rwanda. The project has involved about
200 schools, 500 teachers and many church and community
organizations.
The results have been spectacular. They have put together
more than 30,000 shoe boxes filled with toys, treats, school
supplies, clothes and in many cases personal letters. An
additional 15,000 to 20,000 boxes from locations outside of
Calgary bring the total to an amazing 50,000. Other donations
from Calgarians bought an aeroplane ticket to send an
elementary school teacher to help deliver the shoe boxes to
Bosnia.
8340
This is an example of a community working together at its
best to help others. The children who took part so
enthusiastically provided the spark that made this a truly
memorable experience for all who were involved.
Congratulations to them all.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House today that the
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, the
hon. member for Hamilton East, has announced that she will
chair a meeting of Ministers of the Environment from the G-7
nations. It will take place in Hamilton in April 1995.
The meeting will provide a forum for environment ministers
from the world's most industrialized countries to discuss
common priorities and to work together to solve common
problems. The government is convinced that the twin goals of a
healthy environment and economy must be pursued at the same
time. By inviting G-7 environment ministers and
representatives to come to Hamilton, we want to work toward
ensuring that the most industrialized countries in the world are
moving their combined gross national product of over $20
trillion toward sustainable development for the future of all our
citizens.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the National Council on Welfare over 1.2 million
children under age 18 live in poverty. From a recent report by the
Campaign 2000 coalition we learned that there are over 300,000
more poor children today than five years ago.
Furthermore at the latest Canadian Medical Association
conference it was reported that poor children are twice as likely
to suffer psychiatric disorders, failing grades and hyperactivity
than more affluent children. Evidently poor children are more
apt to drop out of school.
For social, moral and economic reasons the government has a
responsibility to ensure that all Canadian children have an equal
opportunity to fully participate in Canadian life.
I therefore urge the government to implement the resolution
on child poverty unanimously passed by this House in 1989.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the resignation of Quebec's new minister of culture, Marie
Malavoy, is indeed regrettable. However, the unacceptable
justifications she gave for her illegal actions are even more
regrettable.
Ms. Malavoy probably forgot that Canada welcomed her and
her parents to one of the best countries in the world, if not the
best, where she enjoyed all the advantages of a generous
country, even becoming a faculty dean, something which
immigrants cannot aspire to in France. Furthermore, did she
think about the thousands of Canadians who gave their lives to
help liberate her native country?
(1410)
There is an old saying that gratitude is the highest form of
justice. The former minister's comments show a lack of
gratitude as well as a poor sense of justice.
* * *
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in an
interview he gave to
La Presse on Saturday, the Minister of
Finance tries to surprise us with his perceptiveness as a
businessman. According to the minister, the underground
economy far exceeds the levels reported by his own officials.
However, once the problem has been recognized, the
minister's perceptiveness starts fading. He has no information
to give us on the size of the underground economy, much less a
solution to propose.
With regard to the GST, the government has lost control over
its revenue but the minister does not have the courage to
undertake a comprehensive review of his fiscal policy. He
proposes to act alone in the dark.
Same thing for the debt and the deficit. Although the minister
knows that he must cut spending in the public service, he has not
made a single proposal. Yet, the minister is already slashing
social programs without the necessary studies in hand. History
repeats itself: Ottawa has decided to cut but it is the provinces
and the unemployed who will pay the price.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Westray mine in Nova Scotia was the scene of an
explosion accident on May 9, 1992. Twenty-six men lost their
lives, 11 of whom are still entombed in the mine.
During the five day rescue operation conditions were present
for another explosion. Roof falls had to be crossed. Lethal
carbon monoxide gas which is an after product of a coal mine
explosion was heavy in the mine. Miners put aside their own
safety in the hopes of finding their fellow workers.
8341
In an unprecedented presentation 195 individuals of the
rescue crew are receiving the Governor General's Medal of
Bravery in Stellarton, Nova Scotia, today. Fourteen of these
individuals now live in my hometown of Campbell River, B.C.,
and work at the Quinsam coal mine 25 kilometres out of town.
I know my colleagues will join me in applauding these brave
individuals who were involved in a tragedy which affected
Canadians from coast to coast.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, according to press reports the government is seriously
considering selling off CBC television stations.
Despite the promises made in the Liberal red book to support
the CBC and the fact that the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage is presently examining CBC financing, cabinet is
debating a plan to radically change public broadcasting in
Canada.
The CBC has been and is an essential instrument that allows
Canadians to see and hear each other and to develop their own
cultural identity. Is what the cabinet is debating the first step to
privatize the CBC and to kill public broadcasting? By selling off
the CBC TV stations what channel will Canadians be able to
tune into to see Canadian programs?
In this age of the 500 channel universe and other rapid
technological innovations, there might come the time to deliver
public broadcasting through new methods like the telephone
companies. However, that time is not now.
I concur with the chairman of the CRTC who stated before the
Canadian heritage committee: ``Give-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first
global conference on lifelong learning will be taking place in
Rome from November 30 to December 3. The object of this
conference is to shed light on the importance of lifelong
learning and to create an action agenda that will promote and
implement learning initiatives throughout the world.
My constituent, Robbin Frazer, who was key in promoting
this conference in Canada, has informed me there will be 500
participants from 50 countries, including 10 delegates from
Canada.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those
attending the conference. I assure them that the government,
through the ministry of human resources, is committed to
improving the quality of life of its citizens and ensuring access
to education and training.
I am confident the global conference on lifelong learning will
be a success and that a strategy of lifelong learning will be
established to lead us into the 21st century.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week when the Reform Party of Canada announced its proposed
cuts to the federal budget, the most draconian cuts ever proposed
in the history of Canada, the leader of the Reform Party had the
nerve to claim that these cuts focused on non-social spending.
By calling for a 25 per cent reduction in the budget of CMHC,
Reform Party members are calling for the federal government to
break hundreds of federal-provincial contracts and agreements
as well as thousands of contracts with public and private
non-profits and co-operatives across Canada. They are also
calling for cuts in social spending in the worst areas, affecting
the poorest of the poor.
(1415 )
They are kicking those most in need, the poor, the old, the
young, the disabled, single mothers and aboriginals, out into the
streets. The Reform Party is saying to people whose annual
income is on the average less than $12,000: ``Get out of social
housing and out on to the street corners''.
This would have the effect of reducing the federal share of the
shelter by 25 per cent.
_____________________________________________
8341
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
situation continues to deteriorate in Bosnia, where 55 Canadian
peacekeepers are still being kept hostage. In an obvious attempt
at intimidation, Serb forces launched rockets yesterday near
observation posts manned by Canadian peacekeepers near
Visoko. The United States, France, Russia, Germany and Great
Britain are asking for an immediate cease-fire at Bihac and in
all combat zones in Bosnia Hercegovina, while General Michael
Rose, commander-in-chief of the 24,000 peacekeepers in
Bosnia, mentioned the possibility of withdrawing the UN
peacekeepers in view of the escalation of armed conflict.
Could the Prime Minister confirm that the 55 Canadian
peacekeepers being kept hostage are being treated well and that
negotiations with the Serb authorities for their release are still
deadlocked?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the 55 Canadian soldiers are not, strictly speaking,
being kept hostage. They are being kept in the positions they
occupied, and they continue to do the job they were doing
8342
before in the territories concerned. I am also informed they are
being treated quite acceptably.
Negotiations are continuing, to try to bring the situation back
to normal. Everyone hopes there will soon be an agreement on a
new cease-fire. Of course, here in Canada, we should all support
our troops, who are going through a very difficult situation on
their humanitarian mission to this part of the world. We hope
that although our soldiers are experiencing problems at this
time, and with them soldiers from other countries, things will
get back to normal in a matter of days.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
mobility of the 55 Canadians have been severely curtailed, in the
situation that now prevails in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Serb
authorities have reacted officially to the request by the United
States, Russia, France, Germany and Great Britain for a
cease-fire at Bihac?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, according to our information, the Serbs would accept
an indefinite cease fire, while the Bosnian Muslims want a cease
fire for A period of three months. Meanwhile, discussions are
continuing to try and reach an agreement. It is encouraging, that
both parties want a cease fire. We now have to wait and see
whether it will be for an indeterminate period or for a specific
period.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister share General Rose's views about a possible
withdrawal of all peacekeepers from Bosnia, and does he agree
that such a withdrawal will only lead to a escalation of the Serb
offensive, with dire consequences for the civilian population
and thousands of refugees who will be left without help or
humanitarian aid?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian troops and other UN troops are playing a very
useful role. They have managed to protect the civilians there,
giving them food and medication during the past many winters
of conflict.
To withdraw them, the hon. member is quite right, might
cause extremely difficult circumstances in Europe.
(1420)
At the end of next week I will be in Europe. I am going to
Budapest on Sunday where all the heads of state will be. It will
be a good occasion to deal with the problem. Of course the
position of Canada is the same as the French and the British. We
are there but if there is a lifting of the arms embargo we will get
out.
In the meantime, having troops there is very useful. I would
like to praise the Canadian soldiers who are doing a fantastic
job. I would like to tell them they have the support of the
Canadian people.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Of the G7
countries, Canada spends the least on AIDS research, while
Canada is third among the G7 countries for the per capita rate of
HIV infection.
Two days before he leaves for Paris to take part in an
important international conference on AIDS, how can the Prime
Minister justify Canada's lagging behind in the fight against this
terrible illness which affects and threatens the lives of thousands
of Quebecers and Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member says that Canada is not doing its
share. On the contrary, I think that Canada is doing its share and
that we have invested considerable amounts in research to find a
solution for this global scourge. I hope that the summit
organized by France and chaired by Mr. Balladur can move
things forward in all countries of the world. I will be able to tell
them that Canada wants to do as much as other countries to
address this difficult problem.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how can the Prime Minister explain his sudden interest
in the fight against AIDS when his government only reluctantly
maintained the $42 million budget for phase 2 of the national
AIDS strategy, an amount which-may we remind you-the
Liberals found clearly insufficient when they were in
opposition?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this program, like all others, is now being discussed
with all departments. We have a difficult budget problem. We
inherited a $500 billion debt and the government's resources are
necessarily limited. We are maintaining the program and we
hope that research will advance in Canada and elsewhere in the
world.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are appalled that some of our
peacekeepers are being held hostage and were targeted in a
rocket attack yesterday.
In September the Minister of National Defence informed the
House that he had renewed Canada's engagement in Yugoslavia
conditionally for six months. He said that the situation is under
review, if the situation on the ground changes, if the safety of
Canadian troops is threatened and if the usefulness of the UN
mandate has been undermined.
8343
Since the situation on the ground has changed and the safety
of our troops is threatened and the ability of the UN to carry out
its mandate has been undermined, will the minister reconsider
Canada's participation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had the occasion to say earlier that the Canadian role
there is very useful. There will be a discussion this weekend in
Budapest where the heads of state will be meeting. It will
certainly be one of the items discussed.
The Canadian position has always been that we want to
maintain our troops there as long as there is no lifting of the
arms embargo. We are to review our commitment every six
months. The commitment we made in September will be
maintained until February and we will review our position in
due course.
In the meantime, I will discuss this next week, especially with
the French and the British who are in the same position as we
are. We have decided to have a discussion before making the
final decision. I will be in a position to report more next week.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I know there is general support for Canada's
involvement in the United Nations and in NATO but we fear that
the situation in Bosnia is jeopardized by the suggestions that the
U.S.A. has now sided with the Bosnians while Russia is
sympathetic to the Serbs and may unilaterally withdraw its
peacekeeping forces.
(1425)
How is Canada responding to this move away from neutrality
by our peacekeeping partners?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not useful for anybody to encourage any side there
and whoever is doing that is not rendering a service to the
situation.
We have been there for three years. We have soldiers there and
other countries have soldiers there as well. I think the people
who do not have soldiers there should be prudent because it is
the lives of Canadian soldiers and others that are at stake. They
should keep that in mind.
We are there and we think we play a very useful role in terms
of maintaining peace and helping the citizens to survive. I hope
the people with no soldiers there will remember that we are
there.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are justifiably proud of our
peacekeepers but the disregard for the blue berets in Bosnia
suggests that the UN has mismanaged this mission and is
tarnishing the reputation of UN peacekeepers, thereby setting a
very dangerous precedent for this and future peacekeeping
operations.
What is the Prime Minister's government doing to prevent our
continued participation in this mission from compromising our
effectiveness in future peacekeeping operations?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the best way we can maintain our international
reputation is to fulfil our mandate there. When I had the
occasion in June to go to Sarajevo I was told that the best
soldiers there are always the Canadians, that the UN always
relies on Canadians in very difficult circumstances.
We are all very proud of them. The fact that they are
participating will not reduce their reputation. On the contrary,
they have kept their cool under extremely difficult
circumstances over the weekend and they should all be
congratulated. We want to tell them that we are very proud of
them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. When Phase 2 of the
Canadian strategy against AIDS was approved, it was agreed
that $1.5 million would be allocated for unplanned
requirements. Consequently, after proposals are made by
national partners, the minister has discretionary power
regarding the use of these funds.
How can the government justify that, four months before the
end of the fiscal year, researchers and organizations fighting
AIDS still have no guarantee that they will get the promised $1.5
million?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take note of the question. When the Minister of
Health is in the House, she will provide a detailed answer to the
hon. member.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is
not sure, but he can also take note of my supplementary
question.
Are we to understand that the Prime Minister's government
was not able to use the allocated resources because there is no
master plan for the implementation of phase 2 of the national
strategy on AIDS?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my answer to the first question also applies to the
supplementary question.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal pork barrel is overflowing. GOSAP Energy
Incorporated, a new Calgary based consulting firm, is siphoning
money out of the federal government to compete in the private
sector.
8344
We have learned GOSAP is getting free office rent and grants
from the Federal Business Development Bank and grants from
Industry Canada and western economic diversification totalling
$118,000.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development willing to
kibosh this outrageous abuse of taxpayers' dollars?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to
take the submission by the hon. member and look at his
allegations. I am certainly not going to respond in the House of
Commons to a 30-second charge that he has made about the
value of this organization. I would certainly be prepared to take
a look at the facts he has presented and assess them accordingly.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): I am sure when you
get the chance to do that you will agree that this is-
The Speaker: The hon. member will please address the Chair.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I am sure when the Minister of
Human Resources Development takes a look at the facts he will
agree it is an outrageous waste of taxpayers' dollars.
My supplemental is for the Minister of Industry. It is on the
same topic. His department also granted this company $15,000.
GOSAP's initial investment of $24,000 has been matched by
$118,000 in federal grants notwithstanding office expenses and
it does not even have the people with the expertise in place.
Many small Canadian businesses can only dream of such access
to capital. It is too bad one has to be a Liberal to receive such
funding.
(1430)
Would the minister tell the House how he can justify such
wasteful and unfair spending when faced with cuts to social
programs?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as with my colleague, the minister of human resources,
we will certainly have to try to determine the facts of the case.
I can assure him that if the qualification was that the applicant
was a Liberal, nobody consulted with me on whether or not in
fact they were.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In an interview published Saturday in the newspaper La
Presse, the Minister of Finance announced clearly his intention
to replace the GST by a national sales tax. He clearly implied
that Ottawa would act first and negotiate with the provinces
later.
Does that mean that the federal government intends to impose
its vision on the provinces regarding the implementation of a
national sales tax and present them with a fait accompli?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.
Actually I talked on Saturday about the process that I discussed
with the provinces during the meeting with provincial finance
ministers, where I said that since consumers and the business
community were so much in favour of a harmonized tax and
since some provinces, including Quebec, agreed to it, we should
carry on with the process. That is certainly our intention.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, will the Minister of Finance be honest enough to tell
things as they are and admit that the Minister of Finance of
Quebec told him that he would reject any proposal to replace the
GST and the PST with a national sales tax?
This being said, will the minister admit that by practising as
he did over the weekend a domineering, cynical and dreadful
kind of federalism when he proposed a national sales tax, he is
heading straight for a deadlock because he is attacking the
provinces head-on on their taxation jurisdiction?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The
hon. member must know that Quebec's sales tax is the one that
resembles the federal government sales tax the most. Besides,
such an agreement between Quebec and Ottawa, as between
Ottawa and other provinces, will not be that major a step.
Moreover, I must say that during our discussions, which were
very constructive, the new government of Quebec said very
clearly that it would not accept a domineering federalism. Once
more, I notice that the gap between the Bloc Quebecois and the
PQ, since they came to power, is widening.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
On September 22 of this year the minister said in response to a
question I asked him: ``We read the report recently about the
defects in the present registration system for restricted firearms
and the need to improve the registration''.
8345
Was the minister referring to the justice department report
covering the review of the present handgun registration system
submitted by Mr. Terence Wade, or is there more than one report
outlining the defects of Canada's handgun registration system?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will be bringing forward his
proposals on gun control very soon. I think at that time the hon.
member's questions will be answered.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the same department.
The Minister of Justice has not tabled the Terence Wade report
with the standing committee on justice. He has not made it
available to the public and the departmental officials have
refused to release the report to members of Parliament.
Is the reason the report is being concealed the fact that it
contains a devastating condemnation of the current handgun
registration system, which not only reveals its failure to reduce
the criminal use of handguns but also exposes the uselessness of
the minister's plan to expand this failed registration system to
rifles and shotguns?
(1435 )
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when the minister brings forward his proposal it is
his intention to have meetings with all members of the House, to
answer questions and to give a full, detailed explanation of the
changes that will be presented.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. During an interview, the
Minister of Finance clearly confirmed the importance of a
flourishing underground economy and I quote: ``The Minister of
Finance believes what his officials have been saying all along,
which is that the black market accounts for 5 per cent of the
economy. Paul Martin believes that it is a lot higher than that''.
The Speaker: If at all possible, we should refer to our
colleagues by using the names of their ridings.
Mr. Brien: Mr. Speaker, I will try again. During an interview,
the Minister of Finance clearly confirmed the importance of a
flourishing underground economy and I quote: ``The Minister of
Finance believes what his officials have been saying all along,
which is that the black market accounts for 5 per cent of the
economy. The Minister of Finance believes that it is a lot higher
than that''.
Does the minister recognize that the growth of the
underground economy, confirmed by a drop in GST revenues
during the first half of the year as compared to last year at the
same time, is due to the recent increase of the tax burden and the
inequities of an outdated taxation system that an increasing
number of Canadians are trying to evade?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is next to impossible to measure with
precision something which by its nature is illegal and beyond
the scope of measurement by normal government means.
However there is no question that the underground economy
is serious. I have no doubt that my hon. colleague, the Minister
of Finance, is quite correct in saying that we are faced with a
serious problem which we will address.
I would remind the hon. member that only two months ago,
because he apparently overlooked it the first time, I sent him a
copy of a press release I issued a year ago in which I outlined a
series of measures to deal with the underground economy. I am
pleased to report today that the efforts the press release led to
have resulted in something in the neighbourhood of
three-quarters of a billion dollars in taxes assessed.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance who
should be more concerned about differences with his colleague,
the Minister of National Revenue, than between the Bloc
Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois.
Does the minister recognize that only a comprehensive review
of the tax system will be able to bring the black market
phenomenon under control since, as he admits himself, the new
administrative measures brought about by his colleague in
charge of national revenue in order to improve tax collection
will not be enough?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member should look a
little further into the reason for the level of GST payments to the
government.
The fact is that we have had a substantial improvement in the
economy, thanks in large part to the measures of my colleague,
the Minister of Finance. The result has been more investment in
productive goods which indeed are often GST exempt. As a
result of that and as a result, I might add, of my department's
speedy repayment of certain measures, we are now able to see
that the GST level is again increasing.
8346
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Residents of northern Ontario and rural Canada are concerned
that major transportation changes may happen in an ad hoc
manner. This creates uncertainty for the future.
Could the minister tell us whether he is developing
comprehensive rail, air highway and marine policies? Could he
reassure the residents that there will be enough time to adjust to
the possibility of the changes?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to the comprehensive review obviously
that is under way. I think we have made significant progress on
airports. We hope to be able to deal with the ports. Rail is
something a bit different.
What has happened to railroading in the country over the last
20 years has literally been done on an ad hoc basis. That is why
we are in the trouble we are with abandonment and decisions
being made on a day to day basis without any real policy.
We have the Bob Nault task force out there now looking at
what we can do with the commercialization of CN. We also have
to deal very soon with the unsolicited bid from CP for the
purchase of CN assets east of Winnipeg. In that context, with the
ongoing consultations we have been conducting with shippers
and interested parties we are committed to making clear a very
comprehensive rail policy in 1995.
(1440 )
We have not been stopped. We will deal with the CP offer. We
will deal with commercialization. We will bring an end to the ad
hoc decision making that has been plaguing railroads in the
country for the last 20 years.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, recently the Canadian Space Agency gave Telesat
Canada $428,000 of taxpayers' money to help stabilize the Anik
E-2 satellite.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. By whose
authority does the Canadian Space Agency give public money to
a private consortium?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Space Agency, as other agencies of
government, has the authority to expend moneys that are voted
to it by Parliament.
In the case to which my friend is referring, I understand the
problems that existed last winter with the Anik E satellites were,
first, ones of great importance to Canada because they
represented a communications vehicle for much of the
geographical territory of the country. Second, to try to remedy
the problem with the satellites in orbit required efforts that
really represented useful research in terms of techniques. It was
successful.
The view of the space agency, as it has been presented to me,
is that the technology or the techniques that were acquired
through the process were ones of value to Canada and within the
space agency's mandate.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what is the point in privatizing Telesat Canada and then
continuing to throw public money at it? Telesat Canada is a
consortium of the largest telephone companies and Spar
Aerospace. They do not need individual taxpayers' money.
I have a supplementary question. Would the minister assure
the House that agencies under his jurisdiction would not divert
public money to private use without specific prior permission
from the minister?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question is far too sweeping in its scope. I think the
member understands-
Mr. Silye: Sweeping it under the rug.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Speaker, the last questioner from the
Reform Party wanted ministerial involvement at $15,000. It gets
a bit ridiculous.
The member will understand that the direction of funds used
in the private sector often through procurement or contracts with
government is done with the least possible political
interference. That is something I would have thought the
Reform Party supported.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. He was confirming what
the Auditor General was saying, that Ottawa does not have any
management and evaluation tools. In other words, Ottawa is
governing in the dark.
In the same line of reasoning, will the Minister of Finance
acknowledge that, as the Auditor General was saying, the
government is about to reform social programs without the tools
to properly evaluate the impacts of that reform?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Not at all, Mr. Speaker. What I
said was that we must absolutely modernize the tools of
government.
8347
This is why we asked Ernst & Young for a report, which was
handed to us when we came to office. This report is proving very
helpful.
I am very surprised that the hon. member does not understand
that any modern institution must evolve with new technologies
as they develop. I can tell you that, as a government, we intend
to use all the technologies available to better manage the
country.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
should we infer from this that the government will proceed with
its reform of social programs without evaluating its impacts,
simply because the only objective of the reform is to cut into
social programs to reduce the deficit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the goal is clear.
The Minister of Human Resources Development stated it
repeatedly. The main goal of the reform of social programs is to
update them, to deliver the goods in a more efficient way. We
must recognize that the world has changed. The Minister of
Human Resources Development has recognized it, and I regret
that the Bloc Quebecois is still living in the 1960s.
(1445)
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
national revenue minister has consistently referred to increasing
customs enforcement and yet this weekend the Ottawa
Sun
quoted a Canada Customs official, and I quote: ``If the line is too
long we get orders just to wave people through. We don't know
how many guns or how much drugs we could be stopping''.
How in the world can the minister reconcile his boast that his
department has a 25 per cent increase in enforcement with that
statement from a customs officer on the front line?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me important for the
member to compare what might have happened before if he
wants to see the impact of a 25 per cent increase in enforcement
activities.
I should point out to him also that if we attempted to stop
every vehicle and give a complete search, tourism in this
country would cease to exist as would trade with the United
States.
I should point out to him that we target areas where we feel
there is high non-compliance. Therefore, with a number of
sophisticated methods of achieving some sort of targeting of
high non-compliance areas, we are able to be remarkably
effective in the customs work that we do.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as a
result of the boasting about the 25 per cent increase, my office
contacted his deputy minister's office asking for a
substantiation of the revenue minister's claim. That was just on
Friday, so to this point we have not yet received a reply.
Surely the minister would not be making unsubstantiated
claims. Therefore, could he share with the House where all these
extra customs officials are. Would the minister like to share that
with the House or are they like Elvis sightings?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday I answered a question from the
hon. member but his memory appears to be defective.
I pointed out that we do in fact target different parts of the
border at different times of the year, depending on demand and
that we do alter the mix of customs officers that we have within a
region or across the country. I also pointed out to him that for
example at the Commonwealth Games we had 65 extra customs
people in Victoria brought in from Yukon, Alberta and other
parts of British Columbia. We therefore have a sophisticated
system whereby we are able to deploy our resources for the best
effect.
With respect to the 25 per cent, I will get him the figures that
he has requested. I assure him that we have in fact substantially
increased customs activities over the past eight months.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Bill C-57 seems to prohibit tariffs on supplementary
agricultural imports. Without proper amendment this could
jeopardize our ability to safeguard supply management as we
are committed to do.
Is the minister prepared to introduce the necessary
amendments to the Import and Export Permits Act and the
Customs Tariffs Act to ensure that the very essence of Canada's
supply management system is maintained?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the administration of our agricultural
imports under the new tariff rate quota regime will include
provisions for supplementary imports for various purposes.
The government intends to consult all stakeholders and
determine what steps must be taken to ensure the continued
viability of both primary production and processing in the
sectors concerned. If necessary, changes will be proposed to the
customs tariff to deal with this.
8348
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: More, more.
The Speaker: The minister's reading has improved over the
years.
* * *
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): My question is
for the Minister of Industry.
According to our sources, the $4 billion limit provided for in
the Small Businesses Loans Act having been reached, the
minister is about to announce an increase of funds available.
Will the minister take advantage of this announcement to fill
the financing needs of small businesses by allowing these loan
guarantees to be used to finance their working capital?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member perhaps will know that when the
supplementary estimates were tabled an increase in the ceiling
on the limits under the Small Businesses Loans Act was
included. We will be continuing our consultation with the
groups affected by the Small Businesses Loans Act in order to
endeavour to make adjustments to the program which will be
acceptable to them and which will render the program more
fully cost recoverable.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
again to facilitate small business access to financing, is it the
minister's intention to respect the red book's commitments and
see to it that business owners no longer have to post personal
bonds in order to be entitled to loans under the Small Businesses
Loans Act?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I understand the member's suggestion we should
eliminate the obligation to post personal bonds in order to get
loans under this program.
[English]
I want him to understand that we are going to look, with the
assistance of himself as well, at the mechanisms underlying this
program and try to find the best possible way to make the
program most effective to the largest number of small
businesses.
He will understand the cost incurred in doing that is one that
has to be recovered. This is clearly the principal program we
have for dealing with the borrowing needs of small business. In
designing the program we will have to make sure we do it in the
most effective way possible to benefit the largest possible
number of small businesses.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if this
government spent as much time figuring out how to cut spending
as it does trying to devise new ways of raising and borrowing
money, we could have been well on our way to balancing the
budget.
This past week the Minister of Finance put out a trial balloon
to look at what he called victory bonds. Canada already has
10-year bonds, 30-year bonds, 90-day treasury bills and
Canada Savings Bonds, just to mention a few.
I ask the Minister of Finance, why do we need more bonds in
our country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt
the government intends in terms of the next budget and in terms
of our attack on the deficit obviously to concentrate on
controlling government spending. There is no doubt that is
where the priority lies.
Nobody should be under any doubt about that. The
government did not float a trial balloon. I was asked a question
in Toronto, a question that I have been asked in virtually every
city I have gone to in the course of the last month, about the
possibility of victory bonds following the very generous gesture
by Mr. Carl McNeil who gave $37,000 in his last will and
testament to the Canadian government.
What I find a little surprising is that the Reform Party would
not understand the desire of Canadians to come together and
solve this very difficult financial dilemma we have.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party recognizes that Canadians want to solve our
economic problems. Would the Minister of Finance admit that
solving the problem, bringing confidence back to this country,
has a first priority and that first priority is an expenditure
reduction that eliminates the deficit in this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only do we
recognize that controlling government expenditures and
reducing government expenditures are an essential part of
deficit reduction, but we also recognize the absolute importance
of confidence in the Canadian population, the Canadian
investment community. That is why as we see job creation
continuing apace we are delighted to see the numbers that came
out last week showing business confidence in this country is
higher than it has been for a decade.
8349
(1455 )
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Today Parliament Hill workers were again forced to
demonstrate in demanding that the government respect the
health and safety of its employees. Parts II and III of the
Parliamentary Employees Staff Relations Act would bring
workers on Parliament Hill under the legislation of the Canada
Labour Code.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, as I have previously
asked the Deputy Prime Minister, why the government has not
yet proclaimed this bill to show the respect that it should be
showing for its own employees. Why will the government not
proclaim these sections?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is for the Board of Internal Economy to look into the
matter. It is not strictly a government problem. It is also a House
of Commons problem.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of financial institutions. A recent
requirement as suggested by the Senate committee on banking,
trade and commerce is that we require appraisals of renewals of
mortgages.
Could the minister assure us that the government is not
contemplating this or, if it is, that the cost of these appraisals
will be borne by the financial institutions and not the borrower?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
for his interest in this subject.
The Senate recommendation reflects a general view that
managers of financial institutions require additional
information and better information on those subjects. It does not
state however that there should be the additional cost of
appraisals necessarily in that recommendation. It is one of 42
recommendations by the Senate.
We are going to be looking at all of them very carefully and
would certainly not consider implementing any of those
recommendations without wide prior consultations with the
members of the House and with the public generally.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister is utterly unable to explain why his
government has not even invested all the money provided in the
fight against AIDS. He is planning to go to Paris this week to
boast about what his government is doing to fight AIDS.
How can the Prime Minister claim that he will make a
worthwhile contribution at the international AIDS conference in
Paris when it is clear that he is completely ignorant on this issue
and himself admits that he cannot say whether his government
has adopted a master plan to implement the Canadian AIDS
Strategy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just said that the government has made a considerable
effort in this area and that we want to do more. But what will be
discussed in Paris is not the funding that one department or
another has but rather what comprehensive solutions all the
interested countries in the world can adopt to solve this problem
eventually.
I do not suppose that the Prime Minister of France will want to
ask me whether 3 or 4 per cent of our budget was spent or not. He
will want to know what we want to do about it. I will not go there
to discuss his budget. I think that all together, we can map out a
strategy to eliminate this scourge throughout the world.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, media reports in Europe and Canada are saying that
the American CIA has taken the side of the Bosnian Muslims in
the war in the former Yugoslavia.
This U.S. position jeopardizes the UNPROFOR mission. Can
the Prime Minister tell Canadians if he has communicated with
the American government about these reports? What position
has the Prime Minister taken with the United States?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have always made it very clear to the President of the
United States and the American people that the position of
Canada and other members of UNPROFOR on the ground that
we do not think there should be a lifting of the arms embargo and
that no one from the outside should participate in this war.
We always made it clear that if everybody on the outside were
to mind their own business and let the troops there handle the
search for peace the best they can, it would be much better. It is
8350
exactly what I always said and we said to the President very
clearly in June, and it is not only the Canadian position but
others, that it is unwise to lift the arms embargo at this time. It
will not create peace there, it will just accelerate war.
(1500)
This indication that the embargo may be lifted has just created
the situation of war again. Everybody says that if we maintain
the embargo and the UN troops there peace will probably come
back faster.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Dr. Milan Uhde,
Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the
Czech Republic, and five parliamentarians who are with him
visiting Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also like to draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of the Hon. Gary Mar, Minister of
Community Development in the province of Alberta.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
8350
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
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
16 petitions.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great honour to present to you today and to Parliament some
4,100 signatures from a petition that has been initiated and
expanded at Brockton High School in downtown Toronto near
the intersection of Bloor and Dufferin.
This petition was initiated by teachers and students there and
then expanded to other schools in the Toronto Board of
Education district.
The signatures are very significant because they were
collected in a school where the shooting took place of two very
dedicated counsellors who were seriously injured but who are
now recovering. In essence the petition making reference to
illegal weapons and violent incidents is asking Parliament to
strengthen existing gun laws, to implement longer and
mandatory sentences for people convicted of crimes involving
the use of guns, and finally that the flow of illegal weapons
coming into Canada be halted.
(1505)
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured
once again pursuant to Standing Order 36 to bring you several
hundred names of constituents of the riding of Kent who wish to
draw to the attention of the House the following.
Whereas the majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of
human life, and whereas human life at the preborn stage is not
protected in Canadian society, therefore your 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. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this petition comes from citizens of all walks of life and all ages.
They want to ensure that parliamentarians appreciate the fact
that seniors have contributed and continue to contribute to the
quality of life of Canadians, that there are growing numbers of
seniors, that programs such as pensions and health would
experience additional growing demand, that seniors need
comfortable housing, social and community involvement and
affordable medical care, and that when government is
considering changes in programs seniors be remembered.
[Translation]
They have contributed much to the quality of life we now enjoy
as Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have three petitions to
present to the House.
The first petition calls on the government to enforce the
existing provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted
suicide. It also asks that no changes be made to those provisions
which would sanction or allow assisted suicide.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition calls on the government to maintain
the status quo with regard to same sex relationships.
8351
FIREARMS
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition calls on Parliament to refuse to accept
the justice minister's proposed anti-firearms legislation and
instead insist that he bring forward legislation to fight violent
crime.
On behalf of these concerned constituents I am pleased to
table these petitions in the House.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present
some petitions from constituents in my riding and throughout all
of British Columbia asking that the Canadian government look
closely to amend the Divorce Act to allow for standing in the
courts by grandparents.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
too wish to present petitions in addition to the thousands that
have been presented in the House in support of an amendment to
legislation to ensure that grandparents have some entitlement to
be represented and to have contact with their grandchildren and
information about their grandchildren.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am proud to present this next petition from people in my riding
pointing out that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has travelled
to other parts of the world to promote the separation of Quebec
from Canada.
These petitioners wish to advise the House of Commons and
the Leader of the Official Opposition that the majority of
residents of Ottawa-Carleton wish to promote Quebec's
continued participation in the Confederation of Canada and call
on Parliament to inform the Leader of the Opposition that he is
not representing the majority of their views.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my third petition is from constituents, over 100 signatures, in
support of amending legislation to allow people to refuse
advertising flyers at their homes in the interests of the
environment, and to return them postage paid to the sender.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to
present two petitions. In the first petition 189 constituents from
British Columbia request that Parliament refuse to accept the
justice minister's anti-firearms proposals. They insist that he
bring forward legislation to convict and punish criminals rather
than persecute the innocent.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in the second petition petitioners from B.C.'s
lower mainland pray that Parliament ensure that 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.
(1510 )
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of my
constituents of Surrey North.
The first petition is signed by 189 residents and warns that the
justice minister is proposing unfair anti-gun legislation that
will do little if anything to reduce violent crime in Canada.
The petitioners feel that this legislation will simply restrict or
eliminate the rights of honest law-abiding hunters and target
shooters. The petitioners request that Parliament call on the
justice minister to bring forward proposals that will enable the
police and courts to deal quickly and firmly with perpetrators of
all types of violent crime.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by 176 residents and
draws the attention of the House to the rise in youth crime, the
lack of deterrents and accountability in the Young Offenders
Act, the fact that the Young Offenders Act does not address the
rights of victims and encourages the recruitment of youth by
adult offenders, and that the present sentencing provisions of the
Young Offenders Act ignore public support for tougher laws.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to urge the
government to review the Young Offenders Act and address
three principles: the deterrence of the offender, the
accountability of the offender, and the rights of the victim.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit three petitions on behalf of
my colleague, the hon. member for Cape
Breton-Highlands-Canso. They relate to the devastation of
the Atlantic groundfish industry caused by the seals and the fact
that the seal industry has declined because of the European
attitudes toward seals.
Now that the groundfish stocks have declined, they urge the
government to recognize the opportunity presented by the huge
seal populations and designate herds for use as viable
entrepreneurial resources.
8352
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Question No. 74 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 74-Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe):
How many public interventions have been made by current federal cabinet
ministers in connection with the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown
agreement, how many have there been in favour of the Meech Lake accord, how
many were against and who gave them, how many have there been in favour of the
Charlottetown agreement, how many were against and who gave them?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
The Government's administrative responsibilities began on
November 4, 1993. In the period since that date, constitutional
reform has not been part of the government's legislative or
policy agenda, nor has it been discussed with the governments of
the provinces, with the exception of the bilateral amendment to
the 1873 Terms of Union with Prince Edward Island respecting a
fixed link between the Island and New Brunswick. The
amendment was proclaimed on April 15, 1994.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question enumerated
by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8352
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we left off before question
period, I was saying a few words on regional economic
development and the importance of consulting.
I would like to expand upon the significance of the
consultations that will be conducted across Canada. I think that
the first point we should recognize-and I think this is a
common theme for all members of this Parliament-is the
urgent need for new job qualifications.
There is a second one: How to adapt to changing world
conditions. The third point would be to redesign the role of the
State; fourth, to put the economy back on track and, fifth, create
a better, sounder economic climate.
The purpose of these consultations is obviously a thorough
examination of where this Canadian federation is headed, where
the government of Canada is going and how we can contribute to
the development of our region, including the riding of
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
The first theme, for example, is about acquiring skills. I think
it is important to recognize that, in my region and in Quebec in
general, many young people do not complete Secondary V, that
the government has an important role to play to encourage not
only young people, but also education institutions and the
private sector to become partners in giving a boost to youth
education, as this is the only way out.
As for the second theme, namely adapting to a changing
world, it is obvious that the world is very different today from
what it was between 1945 and 1960. Today, we recognize the
emergence of countries such as Korea and Taiwan.
(1515)
I was not talking about Japan or China, but we are certainly
living in an era of market globalization. This requires not only a
lot of thinking but also a great deal of preparation. I think that if
we as Canadians, especially those in the regions, want to
become part of the new global market, we must equip ourselves.
Above all, the federal government wants Canadians to think
up ways to make the most of these global markets.
The third theme is rethinking the role of government. Back in
the days before deficits, the government could do anything. In
fact, all levels of government-federal, provincial and
municipal-never hesitated to take action to help the people, to
tell them what to do and how to do it.
In the regions, for example, programs were introduced by the
Government of Canada in co-operation with the Quebec
government and the local authorities. They did not always
succeed. True, a number of them failed. Unfortunately, these old
formulas obviously no longer work. That is why we are seeking
a new approach, or a new partnership.
When we ask the government to act at the local level, it is
mostly to encourage small business to create jobs. It is no longer
up to the government to do that. We have to find the financial
resources, the financial levels to encourage small businesses to
take themselves in hand, to consult the people around them, to
set a local policy in line with the provincial policy and a
Canada-wide national policy.
8353
I think it is important to underline the Canada-wide aspect
because many of Quebec's exchanges depend on Canada as a
whole. I think that Quebec is very dependent on a healthy,
vibrant Canada with an ever-growing economy.
If we promote the separation of powers or if Quebec leaves the
Canadian federation, it is likely that a Canada divided from East
to West with its Quebec cornerstone missing will surely
experience medium and long-term problems.
It is in the interest of Quebecers, and even in the interest of the
opposition, that Quebec remains a vibrant part of the Canadian
federation.
The opposition talks about putting the economy back on track
and restoring confidence among business people. But let us not
forget that this confidence can only exist if Canada remains a
united country. The opposition keeps saying that the Canadian
federation no longer works; but Canada is a member of the G-7.
I know that we are experiencing economic difficulties, but
Pierre Bourgault said not too long ago that Quebec's separation
would be costly, even if it helps promote sectors others than the
economy.
According to Mr. Bourgault, a staunch nationalist and the
founder of the RIN, Quebecers will be worse off if they become
independent. What do we propose in terms of consultations to
reform the federation? After all, the Canadian federation allows
administrative agreements. There are hundreds of such
agreements with the provinces, including Quebec. This is what
federalism is all about and let us not forget that because it is the
only solution.
My time is almost up, but I would like to say a few words
about the new tax measures, not only between the federation and
the provinces, and I think we can redefine existing arrangements
and find an adequate process at the regional level. In fact, this
was done numerous times at the regional level, including in the
Lower St. Lawrence region and in the Gaspe peninsula, thanks to
the direct involvement of the federal government.
I should mention the Eastern Quebec Development Plan, as
well as the initiatives taken by the Federal Office of Regional
Development for Quebec, which is under the Minister of
Finance's authority. Thanks to their specific and direct actions,
small businesses were often able to get back on their feet, to
expand and to gain access to markets not only in Quebec and in
Canada, but also overseas, including in Europe and, recently, in
Asia.
(1520)
It goes without saying that the tax measures to be proposed
will be based on this comprehensive consultation exercise,
which will include everyone, including urban and rural
dwellers, members of the opposition, academics and business
leaders, and which will ensure economic recovery for Canada. It
is not good to hear that Quebec can separate and go it alone. In
fact, the contrary is true and Quebecers are aware that our
federation has worked well for 125 years. We can get along and
we can develop a lasting economy. I also believe that we will
enter the next century united, together. Only through the
Canadian federation will Quebecers make it.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very attentively to the hon. member's comments. I was
most interested when, speaking about SMEs, he said that we
should promote a climate of confidence to allow SMEs to invest
and create more jobs.
Here is my question. About 15 days ago, in the shadow of
Parliament, a committee unknown to most of my colleagues
opposed a plan by some Liberal members that would have
created uncertainty about possible pharmaceutical investments.
It was about the former Bill C-91. I would like to know what the
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine thinks about
these investments which are not being made today because of
the uncertainty created by the government. This costs a lot in
money, millions of dollars, and some very well-paid jobs are at
stake.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member opposite
understands pretty well what is at stake here. The contribution
of the federal government in Quebec, especially in the
pharmaceutical industry, has been quite obvious.
First there was Bill C-22, then Bill C-97, and I think that
there is still a commitment to maintain this policy, as stated in
Bill C-91, in the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec.
There is no doubt that Montreal's economy depends a lot on
these technologies. The opposition is finally recognizing that,
with this federal policy, we have been able to concentrate this
high-tech industry in Montreal and in the province of Quebec.
Of course, if Quebec were to become independent or to
secede, these companies would most probably decide to leave
Quebec and settle elsewhere. After all, the main concern of
these companies is, first, to enjoy a climate of confidence, but
also to have the assurance that the federal government will
protect their market and maintain the criteria that are so
important for the pharmaceutical companies that want to stay in
Quebec to grow and prosper.
The issue of confidence should not be overlooked. Any
investor would tell you how important political stability is. The
industry needs to know that the country will support it, in spite
of all the problems we have. As you know, we went through
some tough times after the Second World War, when the debt
level per capita was very high in Canada, but we came through.
The people looked to the future with confidence. They saw there
was a lot they could do together. However, by dividing Canada,
with Quebec going its own way, we will unfortunately lose not
only some tax benefits similar to those provided for in Bill
8354
C-91, but also the advantage of belonging to an economic
partnership that has, in fact, proven itself.
(1525)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who is so concerned
about the economic development in Quebec, in Canada, even
throughout the world, if he is equally concerned about the
economic development in the Magdalen Islands. I would like to
know if he is at all concerned, for example, by what was reported
today in the editorial pages of his local newspaper, that is, that
the Minister of Environment appeared all confused on TV about
the Irving Whale story, saying that both the booms and the boat
needed to scoop up the oil in case of a catastrophe were also at
the bottom of the water.
Is he not concerned to see that his minister does not seem to
understand this issue which is so crucial for the economic future
and tourism of the Magdalen Islands, a situation which could
cause one of the worst ecological catastrophes in the area, and
should he not see to it that the Irving Whale be refloated in a
more competent manner than that described by the Minister of
Environment? I am wondering if he is really concerned about
economic development or if he is content to merely repeat day
after day in the House the rhetoric and buzzwords he has
memorized, along with some rather strange items.
So, I put the question to him, because I think that what is
happening in the Magdalen Islands is very serious and that he
should take his work seriously and not only make beautiful
speeches he has learned by heart. The issue of the Irving Whale
is a serious issue for the people of the Magdalen Islands and for
all Quebecers. So, what does the hon. member answer to that,
Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that at last the
opposition shows some interest in the regions, especially the
Magdalen Islands. I wish to inform the hon. member that it is
Patrick Gagnon, the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and my colleague from
Malpeque who informed the media of the importance and the
danger of the Irving Whale even before the Minister of
Environment knew about it.
The environment minister, the transport minister and the
Government of Canada gave their support. They recognized that
it was important to raise that ship which sank about 20 years ago.
You can be sure that I personally am perfectly aware of the
importance of refloating that wreck. But anyway, I thank the
member opposite for showing interest because we must not
forget that it is no thanks to the Bloc that the operation went
ahead, or that we could interest the federal government in that
wreck.
We took action. I consulted with my colleague from Malpeque
and the people last February and believe me, the priority of the
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is not only
the economic development of the islands, but also the integrity
of their environment because I think that it is shared by
everybody. Despite the opposition's denials, the government
takes care of its business and, unfortunately, the opposition just
discovered a threat to the environment that has been there for
some time.
It is unfortunate that the opposition did not co-operate with us
during the consultations. All it could do was find fault and play
petty politics at the expense of the Magdalen Islanders and the
environmental health of the islands.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will try to be
brief even though there are many things I would have liked to
say. First of all, with all due respect, I would like to tell the
House that it is not the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine or the member from
Prince Edward Island who alerted the medias. It is the
veterinarian in the Magdalen Islands who made the public and
the government aware of the situation.
The second thing I would like to say is why did the
government not conduct a public hearing on this matter? The
member took it upon himself to act in this regard and then the
minister made the announcement that there were two or three
projects to raise the Irving Whale.
(1530)
But what the public wants is for the hold of this ship to be
emptied in order to prevent a disaster. The federal government's
mandate with regard to regional development is to ensure that
our water is clean so that tourists will continue to come and
enjoy the beaches in the Magdalen Islands. That is what regional
development is all about.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague and I are very
sensitive to the environment in the Gaspé Peninsula and the
Magdalen Islands. I must tell you something. I came here as a
member of Parliament on November 1. In the first week of
February, just two months later, I organized town hall meetings
in the Magdalen Islands and in Prince Edward Island. I think I
carried out my duty as a member of Parliament to defend and
promote the interests of my constituents. Surely, I am the most
directly concerned and would want to be the first to know, if
something went wrong with that operation, that we will be made
aware of the fact.
In conclusion, we consulted with the population. It is true that
others showed us that there was a problem. But the issue had
been talked about for some twenty years in Prince Edward
Island. It is thanks to the co-operation from the Magdalen
Islands and Prince Edward Island that we will raise the Irving
Whale, and thanks to this Liberal government and also,
obvious-
8355
ly, thanks to the support of the responsible ministers we have
here.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to enter into this debate.
Over the last month dozens of Canadians have come before
the finance committee to tell us what their priorities are for the
next budget. Just about every conceivable position has been
expressed as to what should and should not be done. The
prebudget consultations have demonstrated one very important
point: that a consensus does exist among Canadians on the need
to eliminate the deficit. It is no longer a question of whether, it is
a question of how and when.
Last week I and one of my colleagues did something unique.
We asked to make a presentation to our own committee. In that
presentation we laid out a very clear goal to eliminate the deficit
over a three year period. We listed 25 specific examples of
expenditure reductions or cuts that could be made in order to
move toward our goal.
We did not attempt to hide the truth from Canadians in a
political or any other way. We levelled with them and told them
this would mean cuts of approximately $25 billion after a
revenue growth of some $15 billion to $16 billion to reduce our
$40 billion current deficit. That would mean that $12 billion to
$16 billion, most likely $15 billion, would have to come from
social programs over a three year period, not all in one year but
over a three year period.
We did not have to do this. We did not have to use this
approach. Politically it would have been a lot easier to say
nothing and then criticize the government when it released its
budget. This is what most opposition or traditional parties have
done over the years in their adversary role. That is the kind of
game which is usually played. I am sure the members of the
government who were in the last House were the best players in
that type of game.
Reform members did not come to Ottawa to play games. Our
country's finances are too important. They have become our
number one priority in our pursuit and our objective in this
House of Commons and in this term of Parliament. We came
here to change the way politics are done in this country.
The proposal we made to the committee was not a superficial
one. We began working on this project immediately following
the government's last budget. Over a period of nine months the
critics in the Reform Party have reviewed every government
program in their area of responsibility. They have weighed those
programs against five basic principles that were articulated in
our presentation. This represents our best effort in proposing a
constructive alternative to the government's fiscal agenda.
In the 10 minutes I have at this time I would like to look at the
government's reaction to this presentation. In particular I want
to address two specific criticisms that were levelled against us
by government and other members of the finance committee. It
is important to talk about these criticisms because they go right
to the heart of what distinguishes the Reform Party from the
governing party.
(1535)
First I would like to address the question put to me by the
member for St. Paul's who simply asked where I was coming
from. That was an easy question. Our proposals and
recommendations are driven by our conviction that the
government's plan to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP by
1997 will not be enough to control or regain the control over our
debt. We recognize even in the 3 per cent program the
accumulated debt at the end of three years will be far over $600
billion.
What I think he really meant to ask was not so much where the
Reform Party was coming from as where it is going. Everyone
recognizes that eliminating the deficit in three years is not an
end in itself. It is a means to an end. What is that end for
Reform? What is our vision of Canada?
Surprisingly in comparing what the government said in its
grey book to what Reform said in its presentation to the finance
committee not much difference will be found in terms of their
fiscal and economic analysis. In fact the government's grey
book is probably closer to the Reform position than it is to the
red book that the Liberals campaigned on in 1993.
However there are some very fundamental differences in
terms of our perspective of Canada. Reformers argue for less
government involvement in the economy, for lower taxes, and
for giving greater flexibility to local and provincial
governments. The Liberals we believe are afraid of these
proposals. Why? Where Reformers believe in empowering
people, the Liberals still believe in empowering the bureaucrats.
Where Reformers place their faith in individuals, the Liberals
still place their faith in government. While the Liberals do not
seem to think Canadians can take care of themselves, we believe
they can.
While it is important to know what Canada's political parties
believe in and what their vision is, they should not distract us
from the more immediate problem, one which has nothing to do
with partisan affiliation or political vision: the problem of our
debt. It is a major problem.
The debt is sucking the life out of this country. It is killing
jobs. It is killing innovation and entrepreneurship. It is killing
our social safety net and our health care system. It does not care
about politics. It does not set priorities. It does not discriminate
against one problem or favour another. It is an equal opportunity
killer and it will kill this country unless we do something to stop
it. If we do not deal with the debt before our creditors deal with
us, then Canada as we know it will cease to exist.
8356
This brings me to the second criticism of our presentation.
This one really upsets me. It was the contention that our 25
deficit cutting recommendations and the $12 billion to $16
billion of social program spending must be cut over the next
three years. Committee members and others have said that
somehow this is an abdication of our social responsibility to
Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Reformers did not come to Ottawa to take away the bread
from starving children. We did not come here to dismantle social
programs and leave the vulnerable and the unfortunate in our
society unprotected and uncared for. The debate is over how and
when to eliminate the deficit. It is not about which party cares
the most for Canadians. We all care. The debate is about doing
what has to be done. The Reform Party is not going to apologize
for telling Canadians the truth.
The truth is that social programs will have to be cut. The some
$67 billion expended in that area will have to be reduced to some
$50 billion to $60 billion whether we like it or not. If our social
safety net collapses because of the failure of the government to
plan for the future and doing what has to be done now, those
most vulnerable will be the first to suffer and will suffer the
most.
(1540)
Members of the government say it is Reformers who have
abdicated their social responsibilities to Canadians, but who has
been in power for over a year and done nothing in that time to
deal with the debt that is killing this country? In three years this
government will have allowed our stock of debt to grow by
another $97 billion. If Canada hits the wall, whose conscience
will that be on? When international creditors tell the Canadian
government and I say tell, not ask, who will be responsible?
When international creditors tell a future Canadian government
that they will only lend it money if it slashes every program
across the board by 30 to 40 per cent, then who will have
abdicated their social responsibility to Canadians?
At the present time we have been given an opportunity to put
our fiscal house in order. While I do not pretend in any way that
this will be easy, there are promising signs. The economy is
expanding and Canadians from coast to coast have been telling
us they are ready for the cuts. Some will debate whether or not
this is Canada's best opportunity to eliminate the debt. I believe
this is the proper time to do it.
We have a very simple choice: Either we decide where and
how we will cut or somebody will decide that for us. If the
government allows the latter to happen, it will be no consolation
for me to point out which party truly abdicated its social
responsibility for Canadians.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, does
my colleague not think that if we cut government spending too
quickly given that government spending makes part of overall
aggregate demand on the economy that it would slow down
growth and perhaps put us into a recession?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, as Reformers we do
not believe that. The total gross domestic product of Canada is
around $750 billion. Out of that gross domestic product we
intend to take out in terms of debt reduction or expenditure
reduction some $25 billion in total.
That is somewhat of a hiccup in the total overall scene. We do
not think it will have a significant effect on any kind of
economic growth. We do believe that type of action will create
confidence in the economy, more growth in the economy, more
job opportunities and certainly it will be better for Canada as a
whole on a longer term.
Ms. Catterall: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not
want to interrupt questions and comments for which there is still
some time remaining but I did want to inform you that the next
government speakers are the member for Elgin-Norfolk and
the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. I would like to give
notice that pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) these two members
will be dividing their time.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when I hear the hon. member for Lethbridge say that
his party is dedicated to helping the most vulnerable, I find that
hard to believe, considering what was said on the finance
committee by him and his colleagues about the Maritimes,
Quebec, Ontario or western Canada. It is nonsense. It makes no
sense at all to say that we should cut $16 billion in our social
programs in the next three years, to help the most vulnerable.
This is a complete distortion of reality.
They are not describing reality. They are distorting reality.
When they say to the government that the only way to clean up
our public finances is to cut unemployment insurance even more
than the government has already done, and that it should do the
same with the Canada Assistance Plan, post-secondary
education and programs for senior citizens, is that what helping
the most vulnerable means? Is that concern for social justice?
On the other hand, when we talk about inequities in the tax
system, they will not listen.
(1545)
That is the extent of their real concern for the most vulnerable
members of our society. Their only concern is that the privileges
of very rich Canadians and very big corporations, despite the tax
inequities applying to both groups of taxpayers are concerned,
should be maintained. That is the only issue of interest to them
in this debate.
8357
[English]
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon.
friend from the Bloc Quebecois I want to say that our
philosophies differ completely. There are two ways to approach
the economic problems of the country, the major debt, a deficit
every year of $40 billion and a growing deficit under the 3 per
cent plan of the Liberal government. One is to be fiscally
responsible and try to live within our means. The other is to
increase taxes.
Since coming to this assembly I have learned that the Bloc
Quebecois uses a socialist, NDP approach to resolve economic
matters. Those members should be telling Canadians-and I
hope Canadians hear this-that they want to increase taxation.
They do not want to reduce expenditures in a responsible way.
They believe there is some rich person out there who will fill the
revenue coffers of the country so the government can spend
more. We in the Reform do not believe that; we absolutely do not
believe it.
We believe Canadians want more independence. They want to
be free to spend their own money. They want to be able to have
more capital so they can invest in their own future and their
family's future. They want to be rid of government, to have less
government. That is the best approach to dealing with our deficit
and other economic problems.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to address the economic policy of the Liberal government
which regrettably, like those before it, has failed to take the
necessary steps to deal with the severity of our fiscal crisis,
leaving Canada and Canadians on a track destined to
bankruptcy.
While in opposition the Minister of Finance stated in his 1993
Tory budget response:
What is most astonishing about this budget is that while Canadian taxpayers
seem willing to directly address the deficit, the Minister of Finance instead
served them a rehash in a context as to make everyone dream.
He went on to say:
The Liberals propose to confront this challenge head on.
In his first budget the Minister of Finance joined the
distinguished club of 20 years of finance ministers that failed to
deliver what they promised in opposition.
The interest payment to service our national debt is now the
largest single item in federal expenditures and is placing a major
squeeze on the availability of funds for program spending. In
1981 each Canadian's share of direct federal and provincial debt
was $4,500. Today that share per capita is over $25,000. Before
a single dollar of income is redistributed, before a dime goes to
social programs, before a penny is spent on any other
government program, $2,200 must be paid yearly in interest for
each and every person in Canada.
The sad part is that we are borrowing the money to do this,
which simply adds to the overall size of our debt and our
problems. The fact is that the current spending policies of the
Liberal government are an immediate threat to the national
well-being of all Canadians. The Liberals have admitted that by
targeting the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP per year they will add
close to $100 billion to the debt. How is that solving the
problem?
By continuing with the philosophy of tax and spend the
Liberals have changed nothing in the House but the seating plan,
from this side to that side, and the faces of ministers. The
cornerstones of our society like health care, education and the
social safety net are in jeopardy because Canadians are forced to
borrow $89 million per day or $625 million every week to
finance the debt.
If the Minister of Finance truly believes this is fulfilling his
promise to break the back of the deficit and attack it head on, I
suggest he is incompetent. Double talk and inaction in the
situation are inhuman. It is a great disservice to the country to
play games with other people's money, tax money.
(1550)
Our economy and incomes have consistently grown more
slowly than our debt. We are now borrowing to pay the interest
on our debt. This is not a sustainable situation. We are spending
our children's and grandchildren's money. We are mortgaging
their future at an alarming rate. I heard a baby up in the gallery
this afternoon. That baby will have to repay the money that we
borrow and are spending today.
Do our children have a say in how we are spending their future
earnings? Does this not bother members of the Liberal
government? When they go home tonight I suggest they look at
their children and their grandchildren and think about what their
lives will be like with carcass-like social programs. They were
lost by a government that borrowed them into extinction.
The time to act is now. The government should priorize its
spending. If health care is number one then it should make
health care number one and stop cutting the share of annual
transfers to the provinces. If the social safety net is number two
then those programs should be restructured so that they are
targeted at those who truly need them and not everybody and
anyone.
It is all about common sense. Families have used it for years
in their budgets and members of Parliament obviously used it to
run their homes. Why is it that when they get to the House they
forget about that? Why is it that they do not do it when they are
in government and are ministers of the crown? Why do they not
operate like they do at home when it comes to government
moneys from taxpayers? Can they borrow money on their homes
on which they have mortgages to make the interest payments?
We both know the answer is no. The bank would repossess the
house. Somebody is going to repossess our country and we
8358
should do something about it before somebody takes it away
from us.
Let us live within our means. If the federal government only
has $126 billion in revenues, we should not be able to spend any
more than that amount. What is so hard about that to
understand? Why do we continue to fuel the debt by deficit
spending all the time? Why do we not start on a curve where we
live within our means with the money we know we can generate
safely in the country from a strong economy and send the right
signals and messages to investors and other countries?
Let us use Liberal ideology and take a walk into the future. Let
us take a little walk through the Canada of the future under the
Liberal government as though it were a house. First, the house
would be mortgaged to the tune of $650 billion. This is just in a
couple of years. The welcome mat would be subsidized. As we
walk in, the first thing we would notice are the third rate
snowboots and snowsuits hanging by the door. This is because
corners had to be cut in the family budget to meet the mortgage
payments and excessive taxes levied by the government.
That is okay because we notice that everyone seems happy as
they huddle around the television to watch whatever magic the
high salaried executives at CBC have conjured up that particular
evening with our tax dollars.
Next we walk into the kitchen and notice grocery bills stuck
on the refrigerator door. We are surprised at how expensive
groceries are these days, but at least the Liberals kept their
promise and killed the dreaded GST. Oh, wait, what is that we
notice on the bill? Is it a national value added tax of 15 per cent?
Disgusted, we turn around and notice a book of home remedies
on the kitchen table and realize that Liberal cutbacks in health
care have truly started to hit home.
At least after years of paying into the system we think to
ourselves that the parents will have their RRSPs to fall back on.
But, wait, the Liberals slowly eroded those programs through
taxation and on capital gains too. What about the CPP? There is
not enough money in the program to cover the revenue
shortfalls.
With the current spending practices of the government this
type of Liberal house is not that far-fetched. I do not want to live
in it and that is why I am here speaking about the problems in the
country and offering some solutions on how to solve them.
Nothing less than a balanced budget in three to four years is
acceptable. By adopting this Reform recommendation the new
type of home we would find in Canada would be a big
improvement over the Liberal version.
Let me review four advantages and benefits to all Canadians
of a deficit elimination program. The first one is a smaller
mortgage for the country of $580 billion versus $650 billion.
That is significant. This means we would have affordable
housing where we could start making interest and principal
payments and over the term of 30 years pay off our debt. This is
how we have to do it with our family homes.
Second, to balance the budget a full program of review would
be required. It would allow the government to right size
government operations. However it is not doing that. If it did a
proper review instead of consulting special interest groups
across the country, government departments would have to
recommit to the good programs; decentralize some programs to
eliminate duplication of services, thereby lowering costs;
privatize some corporations which are better served by the
private sector; and eliminate programs that on a priorized basis
we either do not need or cannot afford.
(1555)
This would enable us to determine what amount of money we
need to raise as a federal government. Then we could lower the
taxes. There would be savings under the process. That is the
benefit to Canadians, the biggest benefit of all. We would be
leaving money in the hands of the people who earn it and know
how to spend it better than the people who come into the House
and lose their brain power.
Increasing the wage earner's disposable income would
kickstart the economy and would continue to fuel the current
economic recovery rather than hurt it. Following the Reform
recommendations would restore pride not only in ourselves but
in our government.
This is at a time when politicians and governments are coming
under the closest scrutiny by taxpayers, by editorialists and by
people who know the problem is overspending. If the
government does not get its spending under control the
politicians in this room will lose the faith of the people which
will slowly erode our political system.
Another advantage to following the Reform
recommendations is that we have a solution for the province of
Quebec. Our home includes Quebec. It includes the opportunity
to get the best deal we can in Confederation without breaking the
country apart, without tearing at the guts of the economy and
without going into all the uncertainties that separation so-called
provides in opportunities for Quebecers.
It is a very touchy subject. National unity is very important
and I believe in the Reform economic program of deficit
elimination. That is the difference between our proposal and the
Liberals' so-called tough talk. It is all talk and no action. They
are not solving the problems. They are just adding gasoline to
the fire when trying to put it out. By increasing the debt they are
hurting us. By increasing the debt they are increasing our
problems.
We say we should get to a balanced budget within three years.
There would be no more deficit annually. We would have a fixed
debt or mortgage on the country. Then we could start addressing
the amount of money spent, start creating a surplus and start
making principal and interest payments on the home of which
we are all so proud. We want everybody to continue to share the
8359
benefits, but we cannot continue to do it with borrowed money
and more borrowed money and adding to the debt.
The Liberal government should listen. We have been
constructive. We have given it advice on where to cut and how to
cut over a three-year period, and not in one year like it accuses
us. Governments members like to play politics and we like to
offer constructive solutions. It is time for the Reform type of
house.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his comments. Throughout listening to him I
was mystified because he talked about specifics and the need to
be specific. I did not hear him give one concrete proposal on
where to cut government spending.
I wonder if the hon. member would come across and be clean
about it. His arguments are sound but let us talk about something
specific. Let us talk about the cost of operating the civil service.
We have a combination of federal and provincial government
employees amounting to about 886,000 people. The Canadian
Federation of Independent Business tells us that on average they
are paid something like 20 per cent higher than similar private
sector wage earners.
What is the member's proposal to deal with that kind of
problem? Does he propose laying off civil service workers?
What is his concrete proposal?
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, this is what the
Liberal government is doing. It is playing games. It is playing
politics. All it wants to do is talk, and no action.
The member for Durham stands and asks for specifics. If he
were paying attention in the House instead of having his nose
buried in the red book, still trying to find out what he promised
during the election, he would know that on Friday last week we
filed in the standing committee a report of 25 specific cost
cutting measures that would benefit the country and Parliament
if the Liberal government were so wise as to listen to us, take
what we suggest and implement it.
(1600 )
We have been very specific. To go through that in the time
allotted to me in questions and comments would be repetitive.
As the Prime Minister likes to tell us, read the red book. It is
there. I would like to suggest to the member for Durham, read
the report of the Standing Committee on Finance on budgetary
policy that has been submitted by my colleagues. He will see
that we have been very specific.
On the other item, getting specific about the public service
sector, is that what the government is worried about, what the
government employees in the bureaucracy are going to think of
it, that it is not going to get re-elected, that it is not going to get
votes? This is what we are sick and tired of in this country. That
is trivial.
In addressing the public sector the amount of money is trivial
compared with the overall problem of this country and the
billions we waste in direct subsidies to businesses and the
billions we waste on foreign aid.
In the one minute left to me, I would like to make one more
comment. If we get our government spending under control we
could then take a look at that abomination called the Income Tax
Act and we could introduce a flat tax that would have a single
rate for businesses and corporations. There is a member of the
government who has made that suggestion. That government is
so ignorant of the solutions for this country it will not even listen
to that member. I am disappointed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Clearly the member for
Calgary Centre underestimated how much time he had left
because I have time to give another question, this time to the
hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there are people here who are indulging in petty
politics, and I am referring to the Reform Party. The Reform
Party distorts all the proposals made by the Bloc Quebecois,
which were about cutting the fat from government operations,
the recovery by the federal government of $8 billion worth of
accounts receivable classified as bad debts, which the Auditor
General mentioned last week, and cutting into the $3.3 billion
worth of subsidies to corporations. You never hear the Reform
Party talk about that. Do you know why? Because they are both
judge and jury. They have a vested interest.
There is a question I would like to ask them. I will read them
something in English, because I think it is significant, and I will
then do a proper translation. I would like to ask them whether
they agree with an ad that appeared last week, which I found
with the help of Léo-Paul Lauzon, the well-known tax expert. It
says more or less the following in English, if you will excuse my
heavy accent:
[English]
``Fiscal loss to sell. Our client, a cosmetic distributor, has
important fiscal loss and he is looking for a buyer who is
interested in using this fiscal deduction. Please call the
following number''.
Do you agree with this practice?
8360
[Translation]
Is that why they will not look at the tax treatment of
corporations, why they will not consider raising taxes, why they
will not consider improvements so that everyone, individuals,
corporations and SMEs, does their share? If their minds are
closed to such suggestions, then they are doing the petty
politicking, and they have no interest in the future of Canada,
although they claim otherwise. They are doing the grand
standing, in other words.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, we are very definitely interested in
helping Canadians solve their problems. The difference between
the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party is, after having
worked with the hon. member in the Department of Finance, that
when it comes to cuts it does not want to touch or look at social
program spending whatsoever. That is a sacred trust to the Bloc
Quebecois. It does not want to reduce one dollar of spending in
that area. That represents 67 per cent of its overall budget. If it
does not address its complete budget and only makes cuts out of
the remainder of the 33 per cent, it is limited to how much it can
cut. Social spending has to be addressed as the Liberal
government has proposed in its grey book. It is important to
discuss and it is important to do something about it.
The difference is that we are prepared to look at social
program review and recommend some cuts but the Bloc is not.
When it comes to taxation we say no increases in taxes. It says
there is room for tax increases, go after the family trust, go after
the RRSPs, go after all those wealthy people in our society and
that will solve the problem. Those are the differences.
(1605 )
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
me begin by saying that I agree with my colleagues in their
concern for the debt and deficit. The deficit has reached a crisis
proportion. I also agree with their concern for children.
I believe that we must move urgently to balance the budget but
we must not use the budget crisis to deal with other pressing
problems.
I commend the government for its commitment to lower the
deficit to 3 per cent of GDP within three years of taking office.
Believing that this goal is achievable, I also urge the
government to move to balancing the budget in as short a time as
is reasonably possible thereafter.
Some people ask why is the debt a problem. Annual interest
on the debt is $44 billion; that is $44 billion that we do not have
to spend on education, industrial infrastructure, research and a
host of other important programs. Just as serious for more subtle
reasons is the fact that the debt drives up interest rates for
everyone.
Because of the size of our debt international lenders demand
and receive a risk premium to hedge against a potential drop in
the value of the Canadian dollar. This risk premium or extra cost
affects the whole market for money and the cost for borrowing
consequently is reflected in it. Consumers, homeowners,
students and all other borrowers also pay this premium.
The size of our debt makes our nation extremely sensitive to a
rise in interest rates in the United States. Canada is forced to pay
a premium over American rates in order to attract foreign
capital. When rates go up in the United States we have no choice
but to raise them in Canada. Thus our sovereignty has been
severely curtailed as we lose control over our monetary policy.
We are hampered from finding made in Canada solutions to
Canadian problems. Losing control over our economic house
diminishes our nation and everyone in it. All we can do is hope
that international forces co-operate with our deficit reduction
program.
Furthermore, as bad as our situation is now, it will be much
worse if we do not act now with discipline and resolve.
Having outlined my views on the seriousness of the problem, I
would now like to address the solution. The following remarks
can be entitled a good way to balance the budget versus a bad
way to balance the budget. Everyone agrees that government
should cut waste. Cutting waste is a good way to contribute to
balancing the budget. More often than not waste is designed
right into programs and as such is not so readily apparent.
For example, the coast guard, Transport Canada and fisheries
and oceans maintain separate fleets with overlapping duties. My
own riding of Elgin-Norfolk covers approximately 100 miles
of Lake Erie shoreline. One of the harbours in Port Stanley is
operated well by Transport Canada. The other smaller harbours
are managed by small craft harbours of fisheries and oceans.
These harbours are often neglected due to shortage of funds.
Regardless, we have two sets of bureaucrats managing a similar
resource side by side. I would like to suggest that a single
authority could manage the Lake Erie shoreline, do a better job
and do it cheaper.
The military has recently been highlighted as having some
waste. In the past this waste was designed in as we kept bases
open only for political need rather than serving military
purposes. While this is starting to change we need to go further
to identity waste.
We spend large sums of money on high tech advanced
equipment such as the CF-18. The CF-18 is not used in
peacekeeping but would be used in the unlikely event of the
breakout of world war III or as a token contribution to a gulf war
like crisis.
8361
Canada is currently the 12th largest military spender in the
world. I believe we can cut military spending and find a large
peace dividend, all the while maintaining our contribution to
peacekeeping and our security needs.
The reserves offer great potential for a cheaper alternative to
CF-18s and other high tech expensive weapons. In my riding the
Elgin regiments have contributed nine people to the army who
are now currently serving in Bosnia. These young men offer
skill and commitment that represent a great value for dollar as
citizen soldiers. Unfortunately the reserves often appear to be
under equipped and generally under resourced.
I would now like to speak for a short while on tax policy. I
accept as a given the government's apparent indication that a
general tax increase is not in the cards. Certainly the middle
class of this country will not tolerate a general tax increase.
However, I need to point out that within this country there is a
great inequity of income. The top 20 per cent of income earners
receive over 44 per cent of national income annually while the
bottom 20 per cent have approximately 2.7 per cent of national
income. It is within this context that fairness in tax policy needs
to be considered. There is nothing contradictory in fair taxation
and deficit reduction. An increase in taxes on the top 20 per cent
of income earners in this country I believe would entirely
appropriate at the current time.
(1610)
Furthermore, the government should look at tax expenditures.
The government forgoes $860 million by not taxing lottery
winnings. This should be changed. The marriage credit costs
over $1 billion. The government should design it so that it
benefits the lower and middle class primarily.
RRSPs have received considerable attention lately. My own
view is that the annual contribution rate should be limited to
$9,000 with corresponding change to private pension plans.
The people in my riding have just come through the worst
recession since the 1930s. Very few of them can even consider
saving $9,000 a year to put into an RRSP. The benefits of RRSP
contributions fall most favourably on the rich, those within the
highest marginal tax rates. This by itself is unfair. Without
change to the current law the contribution limits are set to rise to
$15,000 annually. This limit will have little benefit to the
factory worker or the farmer in Elgin-Norfolk.
Lowering the limit will raise government revenue by an
estimated $750 million to $1 billion annually. It will also restore
in small part fairness and integrity to the tax system.
As we work toward a balanced budget there may be instances
when for very good reasons spending more, not less, on a
program is entirely appropriate. I would like to recommend that
the government treat child poverty as an urgent crisis that
requires more resources, not fewer, nor even a freeze. This may
appear like a contradiction. I would like to assure the House that
it is not.
The government has said that it needs to find over $6 billion in
annual cuts within the next two years to meet its target to
balance the budget and another $30 billion to $35 billion in
increased revenue or decrease in expenditures. Within this
context how difficult can it be to find an extra billion dollars for
hungry Canadian children?
The Department of Human Resources Development has
produced a supplementary paper to its green paper that outlines
as an option an enhanced child tax benefit that would raise the
benefit to $2,500 per child and be clawed back starting for
incomes of $15,000 and dropping to zero for family incomes at
$55,000. The cost of this program would be approximately $1
billion.
I would like to remind the House with the greatest respect that
all Canadians are not participating in the recovery, nor are they
likely to. If the government does not play a fair role in
redistributing income this recovery will drive a wider wedge
between the well off and the disadvantaged. Families that cannot
compete in a quickly changing, knowledge based economy will
be unemployed and their children will suffer the worst of the
consequences.
In absolute terms over 1.2 million Canadian children, nearly
20 per cent of the child population, live in poverty in this
country today. In most cases their parents are working. Even
worse, in some provinces one-quarter to one-third of all
children are poor. This is an obscenity. Even in times of cutbacks
the issue needs to be addressed. The consequences of child
poverty need to be addressed just as the consequence of the
deficit need to be addressed.
Poor children are often poorly nourished. The Canadian
Institute of Child Health states that without adequate nutrition
children will suffer from stunted growth, intellectual
impairment and a variety of infectious diseases. They will put an
extra burden on health care and on prisons as they grow up.
To sum up, I agree with my colleagues that the debt and the
deficit are serious problems. So too are a host of other problems
and the one I have identified most significantly is child poverty.
That is why I ask everyone in this House to join with me and ask
the government for an increase in the child tax benefit and for
some real solutions for child poverty.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
have liked to hear my colleague opposite talk a little about
unemployment insurance contributions. We know very well that
last year the Liberal government increased contributions from
$4.20 to $4.30 per $100 for employers, and from $3 to $3.07 for
employees. This is money which is taken out of the market and
that could create jobs instead of helping the unemployed.
8362
(1615)
Moreover, the proposed reform will cut $5.5 billion from
unemployment insurance over three years. So, contributions
were increased and spending is being cut by $5.5 billion.
Here is my question: What will happen with all that? What
will happen to the unemployed? Is it just a matter of transferring
people from the unemployment roll to the welfare roll, thereby
putting the burden on the provinces which will have to carry
those welfare costs by themselves?
[English]
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
First I would point out that the UI program as with every
government program has to be sustainable. I would suggest that
a program that has grown from an expenditure of roughly $4
billion to over $18 billion in the space of 10 years is not
sustainable. That is one of the reasons why the UI program
needed to be reformed.
The other reason it needed to be reformed was that it did not
do a very good job in terms of helping people get back to work.
Consequently that is why the Minister of Human Resources
Development announced or started his social policy review.
I think the issue of unemployment insurance needs to go hand
in hand with the concept that the best social security is for
someone to have a job. That is why we need to spend more
money on training and that sort of thing and perhaps less on
benefits.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the member who just gave his presentation a question.
Earlier today during statements by members one Liberal
member indicated that the Reform's recommendation of $20
billion to $22 billion in cuts over three years is too draconian.
The member following the presentation by my colleague from
Lethbridge asked whether the severity or size of the cuts that the
Reform is suggesting would hurt the economy.
The finance minister of the Liberal government said he is
looking for $9.5 billion in cuts over two years. That is an
average of $4.5 billion. We are recommending $7 billion a year
over three years. The difference is $2.5 billion per year. Ours
represents a 1 per cent reduction per year on the rate of the GDP.
I would ask the member if he thinks our cuts are severe. Are
we really just debating over $2.5 billion per year? If so, what
about the question in reverse. Does he not think $4.5 billion a
year is too severe and too draconian from that side of the House?
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I understand the question. I think
the debate between the Reform Party and the Liberal Party is not
only on the size of the cuts but where they are made. I do not
want to underestimate the impact of that debate.
My understanding of the numbers is the finance minister is
looking for roughly a little over $3 billion to meet his targets for
the following February and an additional over $3 billion for a
total of six. I may not have a proper understanding of that but I
did not think it was nine. I thought it was slightly over six.
Whether it is $6 billion or $9 billion I agree that we need to
make our target of 3 per cent of GDP within three years and some
people are going to be hurt by that. I know the member did listen
but I would like to remind him of what I said. I think some of the
money should be found from a tax increase. I think it is
outrageous when the top 20 per cent of income earners in this
country are getting 44 per cent of the income while the bottom
20 per cent only get 2.7 per cent. It is patently outrageous. It is
unfair and it is wrong.
I do not think we need a $15,000 annual limit on RRSPs. This
limit helps people with an annual marginal tax rate of 50 per cent
and that is the well off.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this debate is part of the process leading to the budget
expected in February 1995 and in consequence we must presume
that no specific measures have yet been decided by the
government.
(1620 )
In scheduling this debate the government is asking us what
direction the budget should take and what have Canadians been
telling us about budgetary matters. Consequently I will make
my remarks in that spirit, that nothing has been specifically
decided, that budget policy is still open.
It is understood of course that the government intends to
pursue the principles set out in the red book, to take the
two-track approach, the first track being jobs and growth and
the second track being deficit or debt reduction. In this respect,
Mr. Speaker, the government as you know published several
policy discussion papers. As part of its jobs and growth agenda it
published the famous green book ``Improving Social Security in
Canada''. Then it published two others. One is ``A New
Framework for Economic Policy'' known as the purple book and
``Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate'' known as the grey book.
It has asked two committees to undertake consultations with
Canadians, the finance committee on the last two and the human
resources development committee on the other. Both will report
to the House before the budget. I have to make clear that the two
are very closely interrelated. One of the goals of the social
8363
security review is to decide whether our present social programs
are affordable.
The three goals mentioned in that document for the social
security review are fairness, effectiveness and affordability. It is
this question of affordability which links the social security
review to the economic and fiscal questions and to the budgetary
review.
I want to take this opportunity to state categorically, and I am
speaking on my own, that our traditional social programs are
affordable. They are not the cause of the deficit. They certainly
need improvement. Inadequacies must be corrected, but they
should not be cut. They must be improved and in some cases
expanded.
In this respect the discussion papers are sometimes
ambiguous. For example this one is entitled ``Improving Social
Security in Canada''. On the other hand it questions the
affordability of those programs. As I said, our social programs
are not the cause of our deficit. They are not the cause of our
national debt.
Most of our social programs were started in the post-war
forties, fifties and sixties and were built during that period.
During that period we had one of the strongest economic
growths in Canadian history. As we built our social programs
during those decades, we attracted very strong capital private
investment. It is the same with other advanced countries. We
must take note that the countries with the strongest economies,
the highest standards of living, and the highest quality of life
have also the strongest and best social programs: Germany,
Holland, Sweden, Canada, Japan.
The fact that they built those strong social programs did not
deter economic growth and investment in their countries. Nor
did they cause the economies to go into decline once those
countries brought in these strong and very important social
programs.
I have been listening to the Reform Party members. I believe
that if we did what they suggested we would bankrupt this
country. Not only would they not solve the deficit problem, they
would drive the country and send it in exactly the opposite
direction. We would end up a third world impoverished country.
There would be a few rich people. If we did what they suggest,
we would not solve the deficit. We would drive the country into
almost a third world status.
The causes of our deficit have not been the social programs,
but have been on the other hand the general weaknesses in our
economy, high interest rates, unplanned structural change,
unplanned globalization, monopolistic practices and unfair
taxation-a lot of tax is not being paid that should be paid-and
several others.
In the red book we said that the Conservative Party was
obsessed by the deficit.
(1625 )
I want to refer to some of the things we said in the red book. At
page 10 we said: ``Without a doubt one of the greatest failings of
the Conservative government has been the tendency to focus
obsessively on one problem, such as the deficit, without
understanding or caring about the consequences of their policies
in other areas such as lost jobs, increased poverty and
dependence on social assistance. Social costs are real''.
At page 85 in the red book we said: ``Conservative
government decisions to cut social programs were made without
acknowledging the effect these cuts could have on crime rates.
Access to health care, housing, jobs and training is essential if
crime is to be prevented''.
We said on page 20 of our red book: ``The goal of deficit
reduction would be to cut the deficit to 3 per cent of gross
domestic product by the end of the third year in office''. We
said: ``In doing that expenditure reductions will be achieved by
cancelling unnecessary programs, streamlining processes,
eliminating duplication, and doing that in partnership with
provincial governments''.
We gave some examples of the things we would cut. We
started off in the right way. We said we would cancel the
helicopters, reduce national defence spending, reduce the $4.1
billion consulting and professional services budget, reduce
grants to businesses, reduce the size and budget of cabinet
ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's office. Nothing
about social programs in there. On the contrary, in chapter 5 of
the red book we said that they should be strengthened and
improved.
At the very worst the social security review should be revenue
neutral. If we really mean to improve the programs the review
should not be a means of attacking the deficit. That is not what
we said in the red book, that is not what we said in the campaign.
So far the government has been good in honouring the
commitments to the red book. It should not forget what it said in
that red book about social programs and the deficit.
It is interesting to note that not all but many of the
businessmen who say we cannot afford such things as pensions,
health care, day care, training, post-secondary education,
unemployment insurance, a living wage for those who cannot
work, day after day try to convince us to buy, to buy, to buy,
more cars, more cameras, more TVs, more holidays, pet food,
jewellery, camcorders, cigarettes and liquor, with more and
more credit cards and no down payment. Obviously they either
think we can afford those things or they do not care.
Is there not something wrong with a society where we are
closing hospitals and schools, where there are more people
living on the streets, where the gap between the rich and the poor
8364
is growing, when at the same time the business sector is
pressuring or encouraging us to buy more and more goods which
really are not in any way as important as the things I have just
mentioned. More yo-yos and less hospital care.
Those who talk about waste in government sell us products
with built-in obsolescence so that after three or four years we
have to buy more and more again. That is waste. That is real
waste.
The whole question about affordability must be looked at in a
much broader context as to what this country can afford. Can we
afford more and more consumer goods that do not really count in
our lives or can we afford better hospitals, better schools, better
training, better pensions, making sure people are not living on
the streets and that people who want to work can work?
In conclusion, if the government wants the views of MPs and
their constituents this is what I am trying to deliver today. I had a
townhall meeting in Montreal just last week. What I am telling
you today is what these people told me at that townhall meeting.
Cut the deficit, yes, certainly cut the deficit, but do it as we said
we would do it in the red book, not by cutting social programs.
We do not want the status quo. We have to improve things, we
have to make our social programs more effective and better, but
do not cut them. Do not cut the deficit on the backs of the middle
class and the poor.
(1630 )
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Beam me up, Scotty. Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce says he wants to
cut the deficit all right but in doing so he is going to ignore the
63 per cent of our budgetary expenditures that are used in
transfers. Then he makes this gigantic leap and says that all the
cuts that would be made in those would be made on the backs of
the poor. I have news for him. There is more money taken out of
social programs by the middle class, including the upper middle
class, than there is by the poor. He can read that in the statistics
in his own reports.
I give the hon. member some credit for telling us that the
programs work great as long as there is strong economic growth.
That is what we have been saying all along but we cannot
continue to throw money out the door with abandon when we
have a weak economy.
Let us not say that these programs have never caused any
economic decline in countries that have had them. Look at
Sweden. Sweden has hit the wall economically. I have personal
knowledge of that from people I am dealing with who are trying
to get past immigration into Canada because there are no jobs in
Sweden any more. Sweden is worse off than we are.
If as the hon. member suggests the deficit is not as great a
problem as we Reformers suggest, I find it passing curious that
the Liberals have accepted their half-hearted attempts at deficit
reduction. Either we have a problem or we do not. Let us be
consistent. Let us decide what we are saying here.
Finally, there is one part of his dissertation which I did find a
little bit offensive. He said the government and taxation are not
to blame for the deficit or government overspending. It is all
those evil, ordinary little people who insist on wasting their
money on consumer goods when mother government could
spend it so much more wisely on their behalf.
I would like to hear the hon. member's response to my
comments.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has mentioned
several points and I will try to deal with them all.
First, I did mention the middle class. I said not to cut the
deficit on the backs of the middle class and the poor. That is
what would be done if we seriously cut social programs.
Second, I did not say that the deficit was not a problem. It is a
problem but deficits can be attacked in two ways. You can attack
deficits by increasing revenue, by strengthening your economy
and by putting people to work, or by cutting out programs.
A family that has debt problems can take their kids out of
school, can sell the family car, their house and tools. They can
probably reduce their debt that way, or they can go out and work
harder and increase their revenue. By doing it the first way, they
might end up getting rid of their debt but they would be in a
serious situation of poverty.
I am suggesting that the second way be used. That is the way
we said we would do it in the red book. We would do it by putting
the emphasis on economic growth and jobs, by putting people
back to work so that instead of collecting money from the
government on unemployment insurance and welfare they are
paying taxes. Yes, the deficit is a problem, but we do not attack it
especially by cutting social programs.
The member referred to countries like Sweden. Since when is
the cause of the recession in Sweden due to social programs?
There have been social programs for a long time in Sweden,
Germany and many other countries as we have had in Canada
and they did not have the unemployment problems they have
today. The unemployment problem they have today is due to
many of the same things that I said were problems in Canada:
increased interest rates, globalization, unplanned structural
change, a lot of things like that, but not the social programs.
That is where Reform Party members make a serious mistake.
They blame everything on the social programs. We had good
social programs in Canada throughout the 1950s and 1960s and
we did not have the problem we have today. The cause of the
8365
problem we have today is not the social programs, it is other
things.
(1635)
The final point he raised is an important one. He says that I am
criticizing the poor consumer because the consumer might want
to buy consumer goods instead of spending money on things like
health care and education.
There are certain things that are important for nations which
nations can only provide for together as a people through their
governments. The people decide together that they want to do
that. A long time ago we decided to have free public education in
Canada up to grade 12. I do not know, maybe the Reform Party
would like to reject that and go back to private education.
There are certain things such as hospitalization, medicare,
social welfare programs, public education, environmental
programs, public highways and the justice system that can only
be done by the public sector. If we ignore the public sector and
simply put too much money into the private sector we have
private sector spending but the country falls apart because we do
not have the social capital and infrastructure needed to compete
with Europe, Japan and countries in other parts of the world.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Bourassa-Immigration; the hon. member for
Chicoutimi-Railway Transportation; the hon. member for
Yukon-Health Care.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to
start with, allow me to thank my colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe for giving me the opportunity to speak today.
Of course, it will come as no surprise that I am going to deal
with the financial aspect of the issue, particularly as it relates to
native people. I just listened carefully to my colleague from
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, and I was pleasantly surprised. For us,
it was a breath of fresh air to hear such a discourse, especially
following his colleague from
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, whose stand was quite
the opposite.
I do hope that what the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce
suggested will have precedence in cabinet. I hope that this point
of view will be adopted by the Liberal government. But judging
from the various views expressed so far, sadly, my colleague
from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce may well be the exception.
At any rate, I too have perused the red book. We all do, do we
not, inevitably? This book is supposed to provide guidance as to
the intentions of this government while it is in power. The thing
about this red book that is noteworthy is that it embodied a
fundamental principle from the very outset, and that is the
principle of equity. It was clearly stated in this book that this
government would not forget the underprivileged, but all we
hear about these days, with the forthcoming ministerial social
program reform in particular, seams to indicate and lead us to
anticipate the worst for the underprivileged. Yet I do hope this
will not materialize.
I just mentioned the principle of equity set out in the red book.
But recently, certain lead ministers have indicated in their
remarks that it was more a matter of fighting the deficit. We will
soon be in a deficit and debt fighting mode, hence our fear that
the underprivileged will be made, unfortunately, to foot the bill.
Now, I am listening to what this government is telling us and I
cannot help but be reminded that this is the government that was
responsible for starting this national debt spiral in the years
1976, 1977, 1978.
I reviewed the facts carefully. As a matter of fact, the Prime
Minister was the Minister of Finance at the time, and when he
was the Minister of Finance, in 1977-I looked up the
figures-the deficit grew from $3.3 billion in 1976 to $7 billion
in 1977, when he became the Minister of Finance. It more than
doubled. And the following year, the current Prime Minister, as
Minister of Finance, brought down estimates indicating that the
debt would reach $10 billion in 1978.
You can see that the debt spiral was instigated by the Liberals,
who were however very quick to blame the previous
Conservative government for it. But if you look at the situation
since 1985, you can see that it is the debt and the interest on the
national debt that have driven the deficit spiral.
(1640)
I think that the Liberals can also blame themselves for this. I
wish to respond to the comments made by my colleague from
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I hope that he is now
listening to me on the parliamentary channel. I do not agree at
all with his statement that Canada has functioned admirably for
125 years. My findings are totally different.
It started off on the wrong foot with the Act of Union. We
think that things started going downhill when the Act of Union
uniting Upper and Lower Canada merged Upper Canada's debts
with Lower Canada's sound management. Why are we in 16th
place in terms of competitiveness when we used to be among the
top five?
Why are we down in last place among G-7 countries? He
keeps talking about the prestigious G-7. We should not forget
that we are the poor relations of the G-7. How much overlap and
duplication do we have and how much is it costing us every
year? Very conservative reports now estimate that overlap is
costing us up to $3 billion a year because the federal and
provincial governments are continuously short-circuiting each
other.
8366
We are told that Quebecers' debt rate, I must point this out, is
much lower than that of other Canadians. Quebec government
management is in much better shape than federal government
management. That is recognized by everyone.
As for the consistently higher unemployment rate, the Gaspé
region, among others, is a typical example. The Gaspé is
probably among the Quebec regions with the highest
unemployment rates. Why is the unemployment rate in Quebec
always higher than the Canadian average? I say that the system
does not work and that as soon as Quebec gets hold of all the
tools, I can assure you that its unemployment rate will fall
substantially and compare favourably with countries that are
much more advanced that the one we are now a part of.
I would like to add that the First Nations are concerned, and
for the reasons I just enumerated. They think that this
government will really go after the poorest people and hit the
poor and middle classes in this society; if Canada has a class of
poor people, it is certainly the First Nations.
Not only social programs, which are a sort of safety net for
them, are endangered. In a few moments, I will tell you how we
must get out of this trap. It is probably not by always giving the
native people more social programs and making them more
dependent; it is quite the opposite, as I will explain shortly. They
are concerned not only with threatened cuts in the Department of
Indian Affairs but also about other departments that have
specific programs for the First Nations.
Take the Department of Health, for example, which has an
annual budget of about $900 million for the First Nations. So
clearly, if cuts are made in health, the First Nations will be
affected and if there is a class of people in Canada who do not
need to be affected by such cuts, it is certainly the First Nations.
It is the same in the Department of Industry and Commerce.
This department has specific programs for the First Nations and
so there is a danger that the economic development proposals of
that department will make the First Nations even more deprived
than they are now. Parts of other departments, such as Canadian
Heritage, are concerned with Indian affairs.
In any case, we must realize that any cuts affecting the First
Nations would be disastrous for them since they are considered
to be Canada's Third World.
Although the government congratulates itself on having
increased contributions to the First Nations by 119 per cent
since 1983, the figures show that the money spent was already
provided for in treaties, a point which is often made by the First
Nations, and I think that they are right on that. Our predecessors
signed a dozen treaties with the native people in Canada and
these treaties required the government to provide some services
and compensation; today, the commitments made then must be
honoured by the government.
I remind you of the social contract of that time, because
something incorrect is being put forward now to the effect that
the government is trying to keep the First Nations under its
wing.
(1645)
It has often been said that First Nations people were all lazy.
However, the social contract of the time was not about that at all.
It basically said that the government would take 99 per cent of
the land belonging to First Nations, and relocate these people on
the one per cent left. The government would also develop all the
resources. You will see later, in the proposals I am making,
which are also those of the First Nations, a desire for better
sharing as well as for putting an end to this paternalistic attitude
and this dependency.
Here are some interesting figures. Native families receive
about $7,480 yearly. Considering this annual income of $7,480,
my earlier reference to third world people was not an
exaggeration.
If you take the Canadian economy as a whole, it is very
difficult for a family to make ends meet on $7,480 per year. In
fact, this is unacceptable in today's society. Our society prides
itself on having the best quality of life in the world, but if you
take a close look at the situation of the First Nations and the poor
in this country, you will notice an increasing gap between those
who have money and those who do not. I believe that the First
Nations are the real poor in Canada and in Quebec.
They have a very high degree of dependency, as confirmed
last week by the Auditor General. Indeed, 43 per cent of natives
are completely dependent on the government. The
unemployment rate is seldom below 30 per cent. I visited some
reserves where it was somewhere between 60 and 70 per cent.
The only people who had jobs were those who were employed by
band councils and were paid with money provided by the federal
government. Except for these people, the others are totally
relying on the government, not by choice, but because they find
themselves in the ultimate situation of dependency and isolatin.
They cannot get out of it under the present Indian Act. I will
explain later how it would be possible to do so.
Over a period of ten years, the number of native people aged
19 increased 80 per cent; it did so in a situation of dependency,
in the field of education among others. This situation puts
enormous pressure on the education system.
I frequently receive First Nations people in my office who tell
me that they cannot pay for the education of some children on
these reserves, because they simply do not have the money to do
that. They do not have the money, because the population under
19 years of age is growing at such a fast pace that the budgets
cannot keep up. So, we will be faced with a problem not only in
the education and health sectors, but in all the activities
affecting our First Nations.
8367
The rate of the native population growth has been increasing
regularly since 1983 and has now reached 60 per cent, twice the
rate of population growth for all of Canada. So, it is normal that
the budgets will be getting increasingly tighter and more
difficult to manage. The youth population is growing at such a
breathtaking pace that young Natives cannot attend school and
receive the same education that any other Canadian can enjoy.
Housing is also a problem. We addressed this issue last week
during the debate on a private member's motion. Right now, we
are 40,000 housing units short in all of Canada. This whole
situation, as I said last week, was decried by the Auditor
General, according to whom health and education related costs
are staggering and sky-high, because these people live in
undesirable and unhealthy conditions.
In fact, the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, and I will come
back to this issue later, stated in 1992 that 50 per cent of all
housing units on reserves were practically unfit to live in. So,
the housing policy needs to be reexamined. Unfortunately, it is
not being reviewed. We are always told that there is the deficit
and the budget is tight, but in the meantime people continue to
live in crowded housing. The houses are inadequate and do not
respect the Indian culture, but what is worse is that you can find
up to four generations living under the same roof, as I have seen
for myself. I think that is unacceptable in our society.
Budget decrease for native programs and services.
(1650)
We know that the answer, and I am getting around to it, as I
promised earlier, is for aboriginal people to take responsibility
for their own affairs through more self-government and jointly
administered programs, for instance. Normally, the government
provides special allowances for aboriginal people so they can
prepare their negotiations.
However, there has been a 7 per cent decline in the amounts
allocated under these programs over the past few years. We have
a situation where aboriginal people have to negotiate with a
party that can afford the best lawyers and the best consultants.
The federal government comes to the negotiating table in a
position of strength, and the First Nations who want to face this
impressive federal adversary are told: ``Listen, we cannot
subsidize your preparations for the negotiating process. You
will have to make the best of it''. I think the situation is even
being used as a way to get a cheaper deal in negotiations with
First Nations. I think that is also unacceptable.
I discussed at length the relative decline in subsidies for
aboriginal housing. Of course, health problems, especially in
connection with housing, are pretty obvious. As I said earlier,
the Auditor General has been critical of the situation on many
occasions. So that is not the answer.
What can we say about the participation of aboriginal people
in the Canadian economy? So far, there has been a policy of
exclusion. Only one statistic has gone up: welfare payments. In
fact, that is something Quebec has criticized on many occasions.
We represent 25 per cent of Canada's economy through our taxes
and we never get the equivalent back, except in the form of
welfare or unemployment insurance. We do not think that is the
answer.
The answer to providing for the future of the first nations is
not to tell them: ``Here is unemployment insurance. Do what
you can. That is all we are prepared to do''. Obviously, a society
based on joblessness and unemployment insurance is not a
society that bodes well for the future, and I think we will have to
change our approach here.
There is a better way to invest this money. But how? Probably
through self-government. We have had a few examples in the
Yukon. We had examples with the Sahtu Tribal Council in the
Northwest Territories. Probably the first example we had in
Canada was the James Bay agreement. If we look at the living
conditions of the Cree in Northern Quebec today, I think there is
probably not a single first nation in Canada that has reached the
degree of economic development we see here, where the Cree
have become quite wealthy, although I agree, they are not riding
around in Mercedes.
In any case, a Mercedes would not be very useful on a Cree
reserve. They would be better off with a snowmobile. In any
case, compared with other first nations in Canada, these people
would probably be the first to agree that the James Bay
agreement was a model of its kind and that self-government
gave them the tools for their economic development. This is
proof that self-government is the way to go.
If I look at my Quebec counterpart, who is the Premier, since
he is dealing himself with aboriginal affairs, he is also
contemplating a new way of doing things: joint management. I
talked about it earlier. At one point in time in the history of
Canada and Quebec, we told these people: ``Go live on a small
piece of land, and of course it was often an unwanted piece of
land, and we will pay for all the costs''.
As of now, the Quebec government is thinking about a
different approach, that of joint management. Therefore, in
Quebec, probably with a bigger land base in mind, they will
examine the possibility for these people to get part of the
royalties for natural resources, among other things.
This is an example where not only native people will have a
responsibility towards natural resources, but they will also have
the opportunity to create their own wealth and give work to their
8368
own people. Putting people to work is very important because it
promotes pride. The right to work is there for everyone in
Canada and Quebec and it should also exist for First Nations.
There are a few solutions. For example, the Minister of
Finance says that everybody will have to participate in the
effort.
(1655)
I look at people of Third World countries and native people of
Canada and Quebec and I say they have one thing in common,
their despair. Some situations are absolutely outrageous. I said it
before and gave a few examples, but I have others right here.
Inadequate housing. I spoke at length about housing, but allow
me to mention that overcrowding is 16 times higher for native
people than for Canadians in general. The infant mortality rate is
four times higher. The suicide rate among young people is six
times higher. Life expectancy is eight years shorter for natives
than for other Canadians.
The imprisonment rate is astronomical. In a given city where
natives may represent 5 per cent of the population, you will find
that as much as 25 or 30 per cent of the inmate population is
aboriginal. That is an enormous problem. There are also
problems of alcoholism and drug addiction. Finally, we can
realize that, for the First Nations, the solution no longer lies in
dependency, but that does not justify the minister in making all
kinds of cuts there. It does justify maintaining the amounts
going towards their safety net, such as social programs, and
directing these amounts towards self-government and resource
distribution.
Once again, I thank my colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot for giving me the opportunity to speak
on behalf of the aboriginal nations.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
noticed how you listened carefully to the description that my
colleague from Saint-Jean just gave about native people. It
needs no comments. With his statistics on their housing, health
and education problems, he gave a very real picture of the
situation. Of course, we realized then that unemployment was
very high. Here again, we see that the reforms about to be
introduced always go after the same people-the unemployed
and the poor.
It is hard to ask a question following such a presentation. I
will simply ask the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce,
who made a very impressive presentation that also struck me, to
convey, besides the message he sent earlier, this message about
native people to his Liberal caucus and to Cabinet. Given the
presentation we just heard, I am sure that he will be able to make
this reality sink in and that he will be listened to carefully by his
caucus.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate I
want to verify whether there are any more questions or
comments to the hon. member. I must advise the House that
following the intervention from the official opposition the next
group of eligible speakers would be from the government side.
If someone rises from the government side he or she will partake
in debate. Then of course we will continue and refer to the
opposite side of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank you for
giving me the floor. I cannot help it if I am also interested in the
native issue. I may have been faster on my feet than the
government members. People in this chamber will draw their
own conclusion.
The point I would like to raise today for the benefit of the
finance minister, and I would like the member for Saint-Jean to
comment on this, is the appalling situation of the native people
that my colleague referred to. These people have their pride.
(1700)
They said so to the committee on fisheries and oceans. They
want the tools that would enable them to help themselves. My
colleague for Saint-Jean pointed out their appalling situation
but, on the other hand, the native people are asking us, in other
committees, to give them the tools to help themselves.
I know that my colleague also met some First Nations
regarding this issue. I would like to hear his comments on this. I
know that it is difficult to settle this matter. Right now, I have no
authority to do it, but the minister opposite does.
However, I would like my colleague for Saint-Jean to
describe, first, how native people could help themselves in the
fisheries area.
Second, he mentioned that the average native family income
was $7,480. I would like to hear more about this. I know that,
last week, the member for Saint-Jean asked the minister a
question, but the minister did not say when nor how the situation
will be remedied.
The cost of food in remote areas was also mentioned. I do not
know if my colleague has more information on this topic, but I
would like him to ask the government some pointed questions on
this subject.
Mr. Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for giving me this opportunity to explain how we
might be able to deal with the issue of fisheries, which is typical.
I think that the problem with the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development or the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, is that they decide on programs here, in Ottawa, without
ever going in the field to see how these programs are experi-
8369
enced, to see the level of poverty the aboriginal people live in.
Were they to do so they would find that aboriginal people often
have the solution to their problems. Decisions are taken in
Ottawa, but the solution is self-government. We have to give
aboriginal peoples the opportunity to take matters into their own
hands, to develop windows of opportunity which will pull them
out of the dependency they have been kept in for 125 years.
They were always told: ``Do not worry, we will give you
money''. That does not solve the problems. The government
committed itself to some movement in this area, but I am
anxious to see how they are going to switch from talk to action.
In the Far North, another very good example mentioned by my
colleague, the minister said last week that he had reached his
objective, he had made me 60 per cent federalist on the issue of
financing in the Far North. I know, Mr. Speaker, at 2.15 p.m. it is
Question Period, not Answer Period. Still, I would have liked a
more accurate answer. I know that the federal government
spends $14 million in the Far North, but the grocery basket is
still double what we pay here. The costs are twice what they are
here, but the salaries are probably about half.
I went to Iqaluit and I made a speech on food distribution in
the Far North. I took Madam the Acting Speaker shopping in the
Northern Store in Iqaluit. I made a note of the prices. The pack
of three one-litre bags of milk was $12, while here it costs only
$5 or $6 and we earn twice as much as they do.
There are solutions and they all involve self-government of
aboriginal people. The Bloc Quebecois will support any
government initiative in this regard. I join the hon. member for
Chicoutimi in urging the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce to promote this idea among government
members. We must not alter social programs, especially not
social programs geared to native people.
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the motion we are
debating today reads: ``That this House take note of the opinions
expressed by Canadians on the budgetary policy of the
government''. The reason we are having this debate is because
of the foresight of the Minister of Finance who in his February
1994 budget launched the most extensive prebudget
consultations in the history of the country for the 1995 budget.
(1705 )
In unveiling a new economic framework for the government
known as the purple book on October 17 the Minister of Finance
has identified five key areas: improving skills; adjusting to
change; making government more productive; providing
economic leadership; and getting the nation's finances in order.
The finance minister also released a second paper known as
the grey book on October 18. It outlines the current state of
federal finances fulfilling a 1994 budget commitment. The
finance minister has made available to all Canadians through the
offices of their MPs copies of a workbook prepared by the
Canadian Foundation for Economic Education. This is a
national non-partisan, non-profit organization with a history of
efforts to promote economic understanding among Canadians.
According to the preface of the booklet the goal of the
workbook is: ``to provide you with background information that
might be useful as you consider the issues and options that face
Canada. We have tried to clarify the government's views so that
you can decide whether you agree or disagree with the
government''.
The workbook poses questions such as: what should be
priority areas for cuts; which government services should direct
users pay a larger share; how can we deal with potential effects
on other levels of government; and what is the right balance
between cutting spending and raising more revenues.
The finance minister will not be able to read all the responses
submitted but he will read a representative sample and a
summary report of all the responses. As well, all responses will
be reviewed by a team of officials in the department that will
pass on to the minister any that are exceptional or unique. I
encourage all Canadians to take the time to work through the
book.
To support the minister's efforts the House of Commons
finance committee has also travelled across Canada to listen to
Canadians' proposals. In my riding I held a prebudget
consultation meeting in order that the views of the constituents
of Essex-Windsor could be submitted to the finance
committee. I will be holding a second prebudget consultation
meeting on Tuesday, January 17 in Essex, Ontario at 7 p.m. in
the county council chambers to allow my constituents another
opportunity to participate in the prebudget consultations and to
respond to the finance committee's report.
In my opinion there are basically four things that can be done
to address the national debt when considering a national budget.
First, total government revenues can increase as a result of
economic growth. Growth in sales and in income generate more
tax revenues. Second, total government expenses can decrease
due to economic growth. For example if more people are
working and fewer people are collecting unemployment
insurance or welfare then government expenses decrease. Third,
total government revenues can be increased by changes in tax
policy. Tax rates can be increased and more items can be taxed.
Fourth, total government expenses can be reduced by cutting
government spending.
Two years ago the current finance minister, then the finance
critic for the Liberal Party, addressed these four points by
arguing that there are only two tracks that can be followed to
8370
tackle the national debt. The first track is to stimulate economic
growth which increases revenues and decreases expenditures.
The second track is to reduce government spending and/or
increase taxes.
The minister correctly argued that to deal with the national
debt government would have to address both tracks. The reason
the former government's fiscal plan did not work is that it
concentrated on the second track, increasing taxes and cutting
programs while economic policies pushed the country into a
recession which led to a reduction in economic growth. The end
result was that the deficit remained relatively untouched.
In order to prepare for this debate I held a prebudget
consultation session in LaSalle, Ontario. As well I have received
hundreds of letters on the budget. I would like to report to the
House the views expressed. I want my constituents to know I
may not agree with all the suggestions but nevertheless I think it
is important that they be reported. The proposals put forward by
the constituents of Essex-Windsor at that meeting fall into the
four categories outlined above and they do address both tracks.
To increase revenues and decrease expenditures through
economic growth my constituents suggested that money needs
to be spent in research and development to ensure growth in jobs
and to ensure current jobs. They also suggested that eliminating
RRSPs will hurt Canadian businesses as investments in stocks
and mutual funds will be made offshore. This in turn will lead to
slower economic growth.
(1710)
They thought that taxing health benefits may be
counterproductive. If people opt out of health plans then they
will be sicker when they seek treatment. This will increase the
cost of health care as more people are hospitalized and
hospitalized longer. They also thought that cutbacks on health
care can lead to increased health care costs in the long run. For
example, in funding on education and research for AIDS, every
person in which AIDS is prevented by education saves $100,000
in health care costs.
They also thought that we should be negotiating with the civil
service. Federal employees account for only a small part of the
government's budget. A result of the cuts has been poor morale
which has not led to more efficient service. An efficient public
service is also required to produce economic growth.
To tackle the national debt through changes in tax policy,
constituents had a considerable number of suggestions. They
suggested that RRSPs should not be eliminated as not only do
they shelter income but they are responsible ways for planning
for retirement. Responsible retirement planning will save the
government money in the long run.
They also thought the government should eliminate the
business entertainment tax deduction and that it should focus
more on the underground economy as a source of revenue.
They thought that banks should pay higher taxes and that the
GST problem should be fixed. They believed and were told when
it was introduced that it was supposed to generate revenues to
pay down the national debt. They also want the government to
collect outstanding taxes. They believe that Canada's tax system
should be reformed.
Most of the recommendations made dealt with the fourth
option, when drawing up a budget in the face of such a large
government debt: where and where not to cut. The constituents
of Essex-Windsor made the following suggestions. We could
reform MPs pensions, eliminate double dipping in the public
service, reduce government overlap, allow legislation of whistle
blowing so the waste of public resources can be reported, and
eliminate the Federal Business Development Bank. A federal
employee suggested looking at reducing the civil servant forced
benefit package instead of reducing the number of federal
employees. They want to reform Canada's social security
programs.
Many of the items my constituents raised are ones this
government is addressing. I would like to take a moment to
address those. I started off my statement today by noting that the
finance minister believes that we follow both tracks to tackle the
problem of the deficit and the national debt. The minister's first
budget demonstrates that belief and as a result of that the
economy is growing.
Canada's economic performance in recent months has been
very encouraging. I will repeat what I stated earlier today. There
is real growth at 6.4 per cent in the second quarter, far
outstripping the performance of any other G-7 country. Retail
sales are up in the third quarter and up 7.8 per cent over last year.
Real exports are up 5.6 per cent in the third quarter which is a
record level and the fastest growth since 1983.
Employment is up by 307,000 jobs since January and these are
all full time jobs. Employment growth in recent months has been
the most rapid in almost six years. The unemployment rate has
fallen from 11.4 per cent in January to 10 per cent in October.
The help wanted index is up 2.1 per cent in October and stands
16.5 per cent above the pre-election level.
This economic growth pays dividends and has helped reduce
the deficit. Over April to August the deficit is $4.5 billion lower
than in the same period in 1993-94. Furthermore, it is results
like these that lead the IMF to project that Canada will have the
strongest growth in output and the highest rate of growth in
employment in all the G-7 economies in both 1994 and 1995.
Another suggestion made at my LaSalle meeting was that the
business entertainment tax deduction should be eliminated. It
should be noted that the government's last budget reduced this
8371
deduction from 80 per cent to 50 per cent. It also suggested that
government revenues should be increased by clamping down on
the underground economy.
In terms of the underground economy it is important to note
that 95 per cent of all taxes are paid voluntarily. However,
enforcement activities are also expected to add $3.8 billion to
tax assessed in the fiscal year 1994-95. Revenue Canada's
underground economy initiative alone will result in $750
million in additional taxes assessed before the fiscal year is
over.
(1715)
Another point raised by constituents dealt with the question of
uncollected taxes. It should be noted that this money does not
represent an untapped source of funds for the government to
apply against the deficit.
As I told the Canadian Tax Foundation's annual meeting on
November 23, 1994, these moneys will be collected with
interest except where there are legitimate reasons to adjust the
assessment such as additional information provided by the
taxpayer or an error in the original assessment.
As I noted above, constituents suggested reducing
government duplication and reforming social security as two
means of addressing the deficit. The government is currently
reviewing both social security and all government programs to
ensure the most productive and efficient services for Canadians.
In addition to holding a consultation meeting, I also receive
hundreds of letters from constituents in my riding offering their
suggestions and comments. Two resounding themes were heard
over and over ahead: first, that governments must cut spending;
second, that painful measures that are implemented must be fair,
equitable and not betray former trusts or commitments that
governments made to Canadians.
On the first theme, there is recognition and an understanding
that the debt and deficit must be reduced. Canadians understand
that our total provincial and federal debt is approximately $700
billion. Furthermore, they recognize that if we want to pay off
all our debt, both federal and provincial today, we would need
more than $24,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada.
This figure is ominous, as well it should be. To further put it
into perspective, they realize that interest costs on our federal
debt alone are rising by $85,000 per minute. Last year, more
Canadian tax dollars were used to pay interest on the debt than
were spent on any other area, more than was spent on health
care, welfare or programs for seniors, far more than was spent to
run the entire federal government.
We spent $38 billion in interest payments on the debt. In
comparison, we spent and paid $7.6 billion in UI transfers and
$19.9 billion in transfers for seniors. Furthermore, our net
foreign indebtedness is 44 per cent of our gross domestic
product. It is the highest of all the G-7 countries. Italy comes
second at 11.6 per cent and United States foreign debt is 8.7 per
cent of GDP.
The workbook released by the Canadian Foundation for
Economic Education states our problems best. In 1993-94, our
deficit was virtually all interest payments, $38 billion of a $42
billion deficit. In 1994-95, this current fiscal year, our entire
deficit will be due to interest payments on a debt. If things
persist we will leave the next generation and future generations
an extraordinary burden, a burden that would likely guarantee
they experience a lower standard of living than those who
preceded them and incurred the debt. It will be like leaving a
mortgage still to be paid but no house to show for it.
A resounding theme that permeated from the numerous letters
I received from my constituents was a plea to reduce
government spending. So grave is the problem that many in their
letters wrote: ``I have never written a letter to any member of
Parliament before but I feel it is necessary that representatives
in government realize that we have had enough taxes and ask
that spending be reduced co-operatively with the provinces''.
One of my constituents could not have expressed the problem
clearer. He wrote: ``I am pleading with you to understand that
new taxes are not the solution. Please reduce government
spending drastically. If I am not making enough money to live
the way I want to, it is up to me to come up with more money or
change my lifestyle. That is my responsibility. I expect the
government to change its spending style''.
Another constituents wrote: ``In hard times we do not have to
give money away so freely. We should not give interest groups
handouts at the drop of a hat. If all this nonsense was cut off we
could probably do away with the GST. That money was
supposed to pay off the debt and nobody seems to know where
this money goes''.
The second theme was the belief that painful measures that
are implemented must be fair, equitable and not betray former
trusts or commitments that governments made to Canadians.
Along this line I received hundreds of letters on the issue of
RRSPs. The message was: ``When RRSPs were introduced, the
government promised us that we would be taxed in the future
when we used that money. Now I am shocked that you are
considering breaking this commitment we both made to our
combined future''.
8372
(1720 )
Further expanding on this theme the president of the
Windsor-Essex County chapter of the Canadian Association of
Retired Persons, known as CARP, stated: ``Historically
governments have encouraged Canadians to save for their
retirement by investing in RRSPs. This has not only provided a
tax deferral on earned income but has also allowed these
contributions to grow tax free until such time as the funds were
withdrawn. Now that millions of Canadians are using this
investment strategy it would be a serious breach of trust to now
start taxing RRSP contributions and earned interest prior to
withdrawal''.
The possible taxation of dental plans was also expressed as a
matter of treating all people fairly. One constituent wrote:
``Dental plans definitely assist individuals and families to visit
dental offices on a regular basis for preventive dental
procedures and dental treatment when required. To tax dental
plan benefits would result in less net income for my family and
myself because I have a dental insurance plan. I think that is
unfair. I am sure that many people like myself will have to
consider whether to continue their dental plan and be taxed or
discontinue their dental plan and not be taxed. Without my
dental plan I know my dental health will suffer but I remain
unconvinced that this tax will provide the economic impact that
the government is banking on. Don't betray a trust. Don't tax
health''.
Sustainable economic growth can only be achieved through
solid planning and real productivity and growth. In the purple
book the minister stated that productivity growth is the
foundation of economic progress and must therefore be the
primary focus of economic policy. A more productive economy
is the only dependable route to more and better jobs for
Canadians.
Research and development can assist in this goal. Between
1974 and 1993 employment in industries which use high
technology grew almost three times as fast as in those that use
low technology. It is estimated that almost half of the new jobs
that are likely to be created during this decade will require more
than 16 years of formal education and training combined.
Government must maintain research and development in all
areas.
Especially in my area one area of concern that has been
brought to my attention is agricultural research and
development. Without the agricultural research and
development in my area, for example, Essex county would not
have several flourishing wineries as it does today. It is important
that we continue to promote such research and development.
In conclusion, these prebudget consultations have offered my
constituents a forum for expressing their opinions and concerns.
In summarizing their statements today the two recurring themes
are that we need balance and we need fairness in the cuts which
we make. That in my opinion is the answer. The 1995 budget
must be fair for all Canadians. Only then will it be accepted.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened to the hon. government member with great interest and I
would like to tell her that the deficit we are currently
experiencing was initially caused by the Liberals in previous
years and then fed by this deficit caused by the Conservatives.
So, the two old parties are equally responsible for the economic
disaster we are now faced with.
The member delivered a speech fit for the Canadian Club or
an audience of scholars at a university. Now I think that the
House of Commons is a place where things have to be put in
pragmatic and practical terms. Her speech was packed with lip
service, with pious wishes as to what the government could do.
However, the people do not want to know what the government
could do, but rather what it will do to resolve the problem. That
is what matters. Any member of this House can rise and say fine
words that do not add up to much and I was very disappointed.
The people of Canada and Quebec expect from government
that it take its responsibilities, but we have been denied this
from day one by the government across the way.
(1725)
We will recall, Mr. Speaker, that at the time the red book came
out, we were supposed to be able to find all the answers in it. As
it turns out, after all these consultations and delays, this
government is no further ahead than it was a year ago, the reason
being that it does not know what to do. It keeps delaying and
delaying and delaying. The people of Canada want answers now.
The problem is that in the 1970s, this Liberal government
took steps to distribute wealth, which in itself was very
commendable, but now, it is distributing the deficit. I would like
my hon. colleague to tell me how the government intends to
distribute the deficit, all the while ensuring that the
underprivileged, the poor and the middle class will not be
targeted as the ones having to pay the greatest part of this deficit.
[English]
Ms. Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I feel that first I must reply to the
comments made by the hon. member with regard to my
constituents.
As I stated several times in my speech today, my constituents
came to a prebudget consultation meeting and hundreds of
constituents wrote to me. I felt it was my duty to present their
views today. Those are the views of my constituents, not my
views, with regard to the majority of the speech I made today. I
think it is only proper and fair that the constituents of
Essex-Windsor have the same rights as constituents in other
provinces. They wanted those rights and that is what I put
forward today.
8373
With regard to the problem of the deficit and trying to put the
blame on the Liberal government of the 1970s, I would like to
remind the hon. member that in the late 1970s and the early
1980s we had a recession in Canada. Everyone knows that you
can expect to have a higher deficit during recessionary times.
However, the 1980s, during the previous Tory government,
should have been a time to curtail spending and bring down the
deficit. It was not. It increased spending.
To try and blame the Liberals of the 1970s I think is a very
poor effort on behalf of the hon. member, when everyone knows
that during economic growth, which we are experiencing now, it
is the time to cut spending and get our finances under control.
That is not what happened during the 1980s when the Tory
government had the opportunity.
I do not believe we should blame past governments. We
should be giving credit to this government and to the Minister of
Finance for undertaking this effort to allow Canadians to
express their opinions and to allow for this debate today and in
the future. It allows us an opportunity to put forward views and
ideas and allows all Canadians to have input. That is what is
happening. That is what this government started and it is
unprecedented.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the member for her speech. I wonder if she could
clarify something that caught my interest in the previous
question. We talked about who is responsible for deficits.
The province of Quebec has the highest provincial deficit of
all provincial governments. It represents $9,400 for every man,
woman and child in that province. Of this debt, 40 per cent is
owed outside the province of Quebec and outside Canada. It is
owed to foreigners.
Interestingly enough, I went back and discovered that over the
last seven years of the PQ administration it raised deficits in that
province by 285 per cent at a time when transfer payments from
the federal government actually increased to the province of
Quebec. After the PQ government, I think in 1985, the deficit
continued to increase but less than half the increase occurred
while the current premier of Quebec was the minister of finance.
I wonder if the member could possibly give some comments
on the previous speaker's dissertation about how all the debts
have been created by the federal government.
Ms. Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
intervention. I would like to expand on that.
We all know that every government, whether it be provincial
or federal, has a responsibility. We know that the debt, as I stated
today, of $700 billion is both a federal and provincial number.
There are a number of provinces that need to get their financial
houses in order. If the finance ministers of all provinces were to
follow the example of the federal Minister of Finance, we would
have a more open process across the nation. That would be
wonderful.
(1730)
As I stated earlier, one problem today with our debt is the fact
that over 44 per cent of it is foreign owned. With the problems
developing in other provinces, as my hon. colleague pointed out,
we have to get control of it both federally and provincially. The
consultation process, openness in asking Canadians for their
input and listening to their ideas is the way to do it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if I may seek
some assistance from the House. If members are splitting their
time would they please indicate it to the Chair.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I advise the House that I am splitting the time with my
colleague. I will take 10 minutes.
I am pleased to rise today to take part in this important debate
on budgetary policy. I think it was Will Rogers in talking about
the weather many years ago who said: ``Everyone talks about it
but nobody does anything about it''.
We are doing a lot of talking about it today. I heard some very
sensible things being said in the House and some not so sensible.
I wonder what the fallout from all that will be. Will someone
actually do something about it? Is the Minister of Finance
listening to the words being said in the House, or does he have
some staff available to sift through it all and separate the wheat
from the chaff? I hope something is being done because some
words of value are being spoken here today.
Government policy in this whole area, as restated last
Thursday in the House by the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions, is to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent
of the GDP. This is not an acceptable policy. Many financial
experts have stated it. The C. D. Howe Institute is urging the
government to move faster in the area of deficit reduction. There
are some signs the Minister of Finance is getting the message,
but I do not know if he has it all yet.
The policy of simply taking 3 per cent of the GDP as the target
is unacceptable. It would leave us with an $25 billion deficit
annually in a couple of years. It is unacceptable for another
reason. In response to a question from one of my colleagues on
Thursday, the same secretary of state stated that while their
fiscal policy was to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP it was
only an interim target. That can be good news and bad news.
What will the final target be?
How does the government expect to inspire economic
confidence when its fiscal policy is geared only toward an
interim target? This is not acceptable to the financial markets.
This is not acceptable to Canadian taxpayers. Both expect more
from the government than a vague financial policy based solely
on an interim target.
8374
I am beginning to think that not only is it an interim target; it
is a moving target. The statement of the Reform Party on targets
indicates that we have to target our spending. I heard statements
in the House today that social spending should be preserved for
those in need. I totally agree. We should target our spending to
those who need it, not those who do not need it.
(1735 )
Last week Reform finance critics released a paper detailing
about $10 billion worth of cuts. It was quite a worthwhile paper.
I will not go over it all but I remind the House that last week the
Reform proposed that people at the top of government must be
the first to make visible and significant sacrifices such as
reforming the pension plan of MPs.
Last week in the House a private member's bill was proposed
to reform the plan and the government and other members voted
against it. They did not want reform if it was going to cost them
money.
Mr. Cannis: Read the red book.
Mr. Ringma: That is unacceptable. I have read the red ink
book.
The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions
described the paper brought in by the Reform as containing
positive suggestions. It is refreshing the hon. minister
recognizes the value of some of the ideas being batted around in
the House.
I remind everyone of the precarious situation of our country.
We have a debt at the federal level of $530 billion or $540
billion. We are increasing that debt. As of this year our deficit
spending looks like another $40 billion, which works out to a
rate of $110 million each and every day we go deeper into debt.
It is a serious problem. The public at large in Canada is finally
starting to haul it aboard. Certainly the financial institutions
have hauled it aboard. It is time the government did so.
I will touch on one small area today and perhaps two if I have
time to show what we can do to wrestle with reducing spending.
I am the critic for official languages. I would like to suggest that
we can save in the area of $310 million annually. This is not a big
deal relative to the amount of deficit spending we are going
through, but if each area can pick up $310 million in a year and
spread it across the board we can get this thing under control.
Because I am talking about savings in the area of official
languages I know they are waiting across the way to jump all
over me and tell me how terrible our policies are. Let me
reiterate with regard to bilingualism and official languages that
the Reform Party is pro-bilingualism, not anti-bilingualism.
The more people have French and English the better off we are.
The more multilingual people in the country the better off we are
in trade with the Pacific rim, with Europe and around the world.
We are not anti-bilingualism; we are anti-waste. A lot of waste
spending is incurred under the aegis of the Official Languages
Act. We have to cut that out.
Another policy would be to give language and culture to the
provinces and say they are theirs to take care of; if they want to
spend money on them they can go ahead and decide to do so. We
would leave it to the provinces. From the $310 million I am
talking about we could trim about 30 per cent or $80 million
from funding for official languages education. We could leave
that to the provinces, keep the federal government out of it and
save $80 million. Education, after all, is a provincial
responsibility and should be left to the provinces like culture
and language.
(1740)
It should also be noted that most of the money is used to fund
immersion programs. Immersion, especially French immersion
of youngsters, has been touted by powerful special interest
groups like Canadian Parents for French as the best means to
create bilingual children. This is simply untrue. Several studies
indicate that French immersion, especially at the younger ages,
has been a failure.
Dr. Hector Hammerly of the linguistics department of Simon
Fraser University has done extensive research in the area and
has concluded that French immersion is based on a series of
incorrect assumptions. Rather than producing graduates fluent
in both languages, it turns out people who he says speak
frenglish. They speak and write French poorly and they have
difficulty in English. Dr Hammerly has discovered that core
French is as effective in producing bilingual graduates as French
immersion and costs less to operate.
Therefore, if we are spending money on something that does
not work, surely we can afford to cut that spending.
[Translation]
I am always available to discuss any problem involving
bilingualism or French immersion with anyone.
[English]
Second, we can save $41 million by eliminating grants-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I regret the
member's time has lapsed. Possibly he will have the opportunity
to conclude his remarks within the context of a question or
comment from a colleague.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the quote from my
colleague with respect to French immersion. I have worked for a
number of years in the field of education and have known the
best experts not only in Canada but throughout the world.
8375
It was my understanding there was a consensus that the
immersion model was the best one in terms of learning a second
language. I am really quite surprised with his assertion.
However I recognize it is always possible to find someone who
will disagree with any body of knowledge.
Is it true that those educated through the immersion mode
supposedly do not speak it very well? The studies I have seen
show that they do as well as their peers do. In fact they very
often do better even when we throw in factors such as
socioeconomic status and intelligence.
Why is it that people such as I who have French as a first
language and others who have Greek, Italian or another
language are able to learn English? They are able to learn their
own languages and not speak frenglish. I think my English is
reasonably good.
Could the hon. member somehow try to explain to me what
appears to be a contradiction? Most French speaking people I
know whose first language is French and most other Canadians
who have another language as a first language end up speaking
the English language very well. If that is the case, why should
English speaking students who have English as a first language
and learn French not be able to do the same? It does not make a
whole lot of sense to me. I would certainly like some
clarification.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, English speaking people are able
to learn French. There is no difference in brains as I understand
it. I am trying to tell the hon. member for St. Boniface and
anyone else who wants to listen that there are problems with
French immersion training among youngsters. This problem has
been brought out in a most recent issue of Saturday Night
magazine. I would be very happy to pass a copy of it to the
member. I would also be happy to give him a copy of Professor
Hammerly's book. This evidence of the failure of immersion
training of youngsters is being swept under the carpet because
this group of parents for the French language receive a grant of
$900,000 a year from the federal government. They parlay that
apparently into more. They are not at all interested in doing
anything but continue touting immersion training, whatever its
deficits.
(1745)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very attentively to the comments made by my colleague from
the Reform Party and I think he is right on the issue of early
language training. However, that is not what I want to talk about.
What bothers me a little is his proposal to transfer language and
culture to the provinces.
We know full well that if Canada implemented the hon.
member's proposal at this time-since I have always thought
that Canada was an artificial country kept together from coast to
coast to coast by the policy of the two official languages-, we
would have a problem because we in Quebec have a long
tradition.
As you know, Quebec anglophones have their own elementary
and secondary schools as well as their own school boards,
hospitals and universities in and outside Montreal. So this is not
a problem for Quebec but I think that francophones in the rest of
Canada would lose all their services, which would be very
dangerous. I do not know if the hon. member has thought about
it, but I think that there would be no problem in Quebec but that
francophones in the rest of Canada would simply lose their
services. Could he comment on this?
Mr. Ringma: First of all, we must realize that Quebec already
has a problem with Bill 101. I believe in Quebecers' generosity
so there should not be a problem in the future because the people
themselves will decide what to do and for whom and how much
to spend. I assure you that the same applies elsewhere in Canada.
Canadians are quite generous by nature; they care about their
fellow citizens whatever their origin and will do what is needed
to protect languages or anything else.
Mr. Leroux: That is not the reality.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is truly an
honour to be able to speak on such an important subject. I would
like briefly to go back to my involvement and interest in the
subject of debt and deficit and why I became involved really in
politics.
In 1984 all of us realized that this country had a major
problem and that we had to deal with it. At that point we were
$190 billion in debt and we had someone who promised to help
us get out of that. Of course by 1988 we realized that those
promises were not going to be kept and that even though we were
promised with some more time something could be done, an
awful lot of us said no way, and so the birth of the Reform Party.
Basically there were a number of test cases that came for
where the Canadian public was at. We had the elite and the
media saying that Charlottetown was the answer to a lot of our
problems and the Canadian people sent their first message.
In 1993 we had another very sound second message sent
which stated: ``You had better deal with that debt and deficit or
you know what is going to happen''. The PCs suffered from that.
To the Liberal's credit they have realized that is exactly where
people are coming from. We must deal with this and we must do
it right now.
However, when we look back to February 22 of this year that
probably was the darkest day in this House when we found that
nothing had changed and that nothing had happened. Now we are
8376
into the fall and winter of 1994 and we now hear that come hell
or high water we are going to deal with this debt and deficit. I
hope that these are not just more words because if so the third
message will come from the Canadian electorate and that will be
borne out on the Liberal Party.
(1750)
Three per cent of GDP by 1996 or 1997 is just not good
enough. That is so minor in terms of what has to be done. People
will not accept that. We have to do things to change. We have to
show lower taxes so people will have the incentive to spend
more money and leave their money at home. We need to
downsize government dramatically. We need to help people help
themselves. Certainly taxing RRSPs is not the answer to that.
We need to get government out of business. We need to stop
duplication between the provinces and the federal government.
We need to solve the Quebec problem, the native land claims
problem. We need to show leadership in areas like the WTO and
the OAS to name just a few. We need to reform the whole
government starting with pensions, as we have heard so many
times. We need to look at many other areas of government to
reform, not the least being the Senate.
Many speakers have dealt with our zero in three plan which
we have had in place for a number of years and which we have
now fine tuned. Each of us as critics in our areas has been asked
to specifically go after the things that affect us most.
As the foreign affairs critic I will deal just with that area and
the sort of deficit reduction that we would see there. As an
earlier member said, we do not have the specifics, I would like to
let him know that we have a lot of specifics, certainly more than
we have heard from the other side.
In talking about foreign affairs and how we would do our
share as part of government to reduce, I would go back to our
foreign affairs review on which we spent the last seven or eight
months listening to hundreds of witnesses across the country.
The strange part was that so often we spent our time dealing in
an academic exercise, not dealing with any real policy and never
did we talk about the kind of cost cutting that we would
recommend to the minister when the time came for his call to
say here are the cuts that we can make.
Instead of asking key questions like what can we afford, what
should be the priorities in foreign affairs, we conducted major
discussions as to whether human rights abuses should be
considered as being grave, severe or serious before Canada
should respond with positive measures to help.
I point out that all of the above words are synonyms and have
no quantitative or qualitative differences. It was like arguing
whether the movie ``The Omen'' was frightening, scary or
horrifying. We spent our time discussing words that really were
in the area of academia interesting, but in the actual area of
making a difference not very.
As a result while the final report was precisely worded it did
not deal with some of the key things like how we are going to cut
our debt, how we are going to reduce our spending and yet still
try to get the job done.
As a result we did put forward a dissenting report on the
foreign affairs review. Our number one issue that we talked
about was fiscal responsibility. We pointed out that the report
had asked for numerous spending increases and had asked for no
cuts. Not one place did we suggest a cut.
Since we found this unacceptable we went ahead with our zero
in three proposal and said how can we make cuts. Out of that we
came up with $1.3 billion worth of cuts that we feel are essential
if we are going to balance that budget.
In this proposal we looked at a number of areas. The first one
was operating expenses of government. In the area of foreign
affairs and CIDA we have a number of administrative costs.
There have been cuts in the past.
(1755 )
If you talk to the bureaucrats, they will tell you that you
cannot cut any further. In the tough times we are in we have to
cut further. We do not have a choice. In the unreal world, in the
utopia that we often hear described around this place, we would
not have to make those cuts. That utopia does not exist and those
cuts are necessary. We cannot go on any longer without making
those cuts.
We have to cut government to government aid programs. As
many members are aware, at our recent convention held here in
Ottawa we passed a resolution which asked for a tough analysis
of this whole area of aid. The big thing we cannot avoid is this
whole aid question as being one of a slush fund for the minister
or the Prime Minister whenever they travel.
I have press releases here that I got today showing again $2
million here, $80 million there. It is like a slush fund, like when
we go to a cocktail party we simply hand out a cheque just to
show what good guys we are. The Canadian people are not going
to accept that anymore. They want NGOs to handle the aid
program. They want NGOs who are responsible and who are
prepared to raise equal funds on a one to one basis. They are not
prepared for 100 per cent funding any longer. They are asking
for transparency and an evaluation of the programs they get
involved with. That would be the way the Reform Party would
approach that area.
I am not saying we would cut foreign aid. I am saying we
would target it. We would look at it and try to get the best bang
for the buck. We cannot be all things to all people.
8377
The third area we might look at is the whole area of
international grants. We give a lot of grants and in many cases
there is no accountability for those. I could go on if I had more
time to talk about those. Again, the Canadian people are asking
us to evaluate those international programs and to be sure that
the money is being spent in the best possible way. We are cutting
money to our students but we should be looking at what we are
getting for some of these international grants.
As well, we have to take a look at some of the institutions we
belong to. The policy of the Canadian government has been that
we have to belong to everything that is international. We belong
to more organizations where we do not know what they do.
When the Auditor General took a look at this three years ago he
could not even find out what the aims of some of these
organizations we belong to are, who their boards of directors are
and what they hope to accomplish.
What I am saying is that in all areas of government, it does not
matter what department, we are going to have to make some
cuts. There is no question about that. We must recognize that and
we must expect the ministers in each of those departments to
come up with those kinds of cuts. That is our goal. That is what
must be our goal. It is what we in this House must all agree on.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I really
enjoyed the hon. member's speech. I think that it is very
sensible. He is an opposition member and the opposition's role
is to ask questions. The role of the government is to find
solutions and solve problems. I think that the Liberal
government facing us was not in opposition long enough to
really prepare for governing, but you know that Canadians,
outside Quebec and the west, decided that it would be the
government so it should govern.
I would like to discuss something about my colleague's
speech, his reference to the Quebec problem. Quebec does not
have a problem; I think that the rest of Canada has a problem,
because Quebecers will decide freely in a referendum.
(1800)
He talked to us about Charlottetown. That accord was a
historic event which shows us beyond any doubt that Canadians
and Quebecers voted no, but for entirely opposite reasons. So
Charlottetown clearly shows the differences between Quebec
and the rest of Canada.
My question for the hon. member, who made a very good
speech, is this: Is it not time now to see what Quebec wants and
let Quebec develop fully?
[English]
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I certainly did make
reference to the Quebec problem. Maybe problem is the wrong
word. I should have said concern.
Members know where we come from on that sort of issue is
that basically we believe the day of two founding nations was
the case back in history. Now we have 10 equal provinces. We
have 12 million people in this country whose original language
is not English or French. Therefore let us get on with it is the
point. Let us get on and make this country Canadian.
We are Canadians. We are proud of it. We want Quebec to be
part of that. We believe that grassroots Quebecers also want to
be part of it but they are tired of the old line way of dealing with
things. They want to deal with things now in 1994 style. That is
let us deal with the problems, the jobs, the debt, the deficit, the
criminal justice system. Those are the areas they want to hear
about.
They do not want to hear us talking about this constitutional
garble. Let us get on with it. Have the referendum. Tell the
people the facts and then let us get on with it.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like the member for Red Deer to clarify something for
me. During his presentation he indicated that taxing RRSPs was
not the answer. Earlier today one of the members from the
Reform Party indicated that RRSPs should be taxed. I am a little
bit confused. Maybe he could clarify.
Mr. Ramsay: Who?
Mr. Cannis: Maybe it came from a different fax machine, I do
not know. The other question I have is this.
He indicated chopping, chopping, chopping and this
government is not coming forth with any proposals. Often the
Minister of Finance is asked these questions. As custom has it in
this House at the appropriate time the minister will come forth
with those answers. Right now, as we all know, we are going
through the consultation process to hear what the people are
saying so that we can collect this information and come forth
with the proposals. I would like clarification on the RRSPs.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, the less government we
can have and the more we can let people be responsible for
themselves, an RRSP is the way to do it. To tax something like
that, one is saying: ``Hey, we are not even going to let you take
care of yourself''. Had we stayed out of CPP back in 1965, we
would have been better off if it was not going to be run like an
insurance program because look what government did to it.
What we are saying is this. Encourage people to take care of
themselves. The RRSPs are doing that, do not touch them. Do
not raise taxes. I would be really surprised if anyone over here
agreed with that.
As far as the studies in 1984 we knew we had a problem, $190
billion in debt and we said: ``Fix it''. Mulroney said: ``I will''
and then he chickened out. In 1988 he said: ``Hey, I need a little
more time. I just did not have enough''. By then we said:
``You're lying''. We had an election but people believed him. In
1993 they did not believe him any more and members saw what
8378
happened. That is what will happen to anybody else here who
does not deal with that number one problem.
That is why we are losing our jobs. That is why it is not
working.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the vast majority of
speeches made today. I really appreciated them and I would like
to briefly summarize the key arguments of each party.
(1805)
When Bloc members take the floor, we hear about the deficit.
We are told that the debt is huge and even more than huge. But
then, they tell us not to change anything because if we do we will
create problems-I think we understand that-the big problem
of course being Canada. This is the essence of the Bloc's
message.
The notion that Quebec could be a problem was rejected by
these people, but they were quick to say that Canada is the major
problem. I do not think it is the case and people should be honest
about this issue. The fact is that, for years, we spent a lot of
money; now, we all have a big problem on our hands and we all
have a responsibility to try to find solutions together.
I appreciate listening to speeches made by Reform Party
members.
[English]
The main thrust is cut. It is easy. It is so simple to bring in a
balanced budget. It is not difficult. I did it as a former deputy
minister. You have to realize, and I think my colleagues do but
they will not admit it, that whenever you cut something there are
victims at the other end.
For example, when we talk about cutting aid to other countries
we forget that there are potential victims there. We would like to
make Canadians believe we do that out of the goodness of our
hearts. Let us be honest. We get a lot in return. We also add to our
own security when we do that. Let us be fair when we talk about
whatever it is that we are going to do, to cut or to add or to
subtract. Let us be fair. Let us share the impact.
I was really shocked, Mr. Speaker, and I think you noticed it
when the colleague previous to the last, and perhaps he did not
see it that way, attacked Canadian Parents For French, which is a
very honourable organization. The suggestion was that because
they get some assistance from government that they go on
promoting immersion as opposed to believing that immersion is
the appropriate model.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that I said that there are
roughly seven million French speaking Canadians whose first
language is French and there are probably 12 million others
whose first language is other than French. We all learned
English in an immersion setting. In fact we have learned it so
well that some of us speak English better than we do our own
native tongue.
I reject completely the whole hypothesis that immersion is not
effective. I reject it totally. I have already made a call to look at
the most recent research. If I am wrong I will come back and I
will tell the member.
It is easy to come in here and make those kinds of accusations.
Take one Saturday Night magazine article and that is it. That is
not good enough. It is absolutely and totally unfair to attack a
group of responsible Canadians who have been working for
years to give their children the best of all possible educations
and then just slough it off on one reference, one supposed expert.
[Translation]
Well, I better change gears because, frankly, it upsets me
when I think about the exaggerated and insensitive comments
which were made.
I want to say a word on the consultation process. As you know,
before undertaking that process, about a month ago, the minister
and his department had the good sense of providing us with a
number of documents on economic development in Canada, in
times of deficit, debt, et cetera, so that we would have a
background, based on facts, to better understand the problem.
As you well know, the finance committee started to travel
throughout Canada to consult the people, to find out what
Canadians think of this pre-budget consultation process and
what they think about the cuts, the taxes, et cetera.
The Minister of Finance himself has gone to a great number of
Canadian cities to attend all kinds of meetings where he listened
to people who expressed their concerns and then he told all
members of Parliament, not only members from his party, but all
the members, to feel free to share with him their views on the
budget.
I think this is an initiative that deserves to be supported. When
I heard someone say that these were phoney consultations, I
found that allegation insensitive and unfair. I think it is really
very ill-considered to claim that the Minister of Finance has
undertaken pro forma consultations.
(1810)
Frankly, people who make such statements are going too far. I
am only a private member, but I have had the opportunity to talk
with some of my colleagues, with businessmen and women, as
well as a number of constituents not only in my riding of St.
Boniface, but throughout Canada, and here is what I found out.
8379
[English]
After having talked not only with my own constituents and
having had a number of meetings with them, but having chatted
with Canadians across the country, here are some of the things
that I have found, noted and shared with the Minister of Finance.
Surprise, surprise, surprise, virtually everyone I talked to said
they were taxed too much. I suppose I would probably agree
with that. Interestingly enough, they wanted to see how our
taxation rate compared to that of other countries and particularly
those countries that are major trading partners such as the U.S.,
Japan and a number of other countries. They also felt that if one
was a wealthy person one had the means to avoid paying one's
fair share of taxes. These are impressions, opinions and views
they shared with me.
They also believed, rather passionately I might add, that rich
Canadians should not be allowed to pay no or few taxes.
Whether or not this is totally true is not the issue. The issue is
that these people believed it. They also believed the same thing
of what they call rich corporations.
There was a bit of a problem when they were asked to define
rich. They could not agree too quickly as to what the definition
might be. However, they were really annoyed that banks
supposedly, according to their perception, do not pay a
sufficient amount of taxes. I think banks would probably
disagree with that. In fact I have met some bankers who have,
but that was the perception by Canadians.
I have more. They wanted loopholes blocked. These are
Canadians from different walks of life who do not have loophole
opportunities. They really feel that many of those loopholes are
not there in order to assist Canada and Canadians generally but
that they are there in order to assist those who have more. They
felt that probably in most instances those should be closed.
There was also unanimous feeling that people earning profits
on their investments in Canada can avoid paying Canadian
taxes. I have been looking into that. Apparently people can make
money on their investments in Canada. If they shuffle the money
out they pay less tax if their money is in another country. They
said: ``If that is so is it really fair that they come and make their
money in Canada and then take it elsewhere in order to avoid
paying some of their taxes?'' That is what they believed.
There were a number of cases on student loans concerning
people who are supposedly very wealthy or relatively wealthy
today who still owe student loans. They have not paid those
loans. The people are angry because many of them had student
loans. Many of them today have families with children who have
student loans. They have paid off their loans and will help their
children go through college or university.
They also had a lot of good, common sense. They said:
``Clearly, if somebody cannot pay off a student loan why give
them a hassle? Why go after them? Why not set it aside for the
time being until they can get their lives financially together and
then later on, if it straightens out, they can collect?'' There was a
strong feeling that anyone who today is relatively well off and
still owes the government money on student loans should pay off
that student loan and the sooner the better.
There has been a lot of discussion today about family trusts.
These people with whom of I spoke also mentioned it. Whether
the perception is correct or not, there is a belief that there is a lot
of money put away in family trusts that is not being taxed at the
same rate as my own, your own or their own earnings. They felt
that was wrong.
They also asked a number of interesting questions. Is it time
for this country, supposedly one of the few that does not have an
inheritance tax, to look and see whether or not that would be a
useful measure?
(1815 )
They also had the equally strong feeling that the black market
economy needs to be addressed. Some of them were rather
sympathetic and said it was the way the poor man and the lower
middle class got around taxes. They think that wealthier
Canadians have a number of mechanisms to assist them in doing
that if they choose. Then perhaps it is not so bad after all. The
general feeling was that once the richer paid their fair share that
much of the black market economy would disappear.
Of course it would not surprise you, Mr. Speaker, that the
whole question of MP pensions came up. They are pleased to
know the government will be addressing that issue shortly. If for
no other reasons than symbolic ones, they are aware that
features of that pension plan are significantly different from
what most Canadians enjoy. They want that matter addressed.
They want not just MP pensions looked at. The general feeling
was that all Canadians should be able to retire with a pension
that permits them to live their remaining years with some
dignity. They felt that all pensions should be looked at so that we
could strengthen pensions generally and where they are too
generous perhaps tailor them. They really felt Canadians should
be able to retire with a pension that would permit them to live in
dignity. I was extremely pleased.
A final point that came out of these discussions is that the
Auditor General has a great deal of credibility. They felt that
those issues the Auditor General raised pointing out serious
problems in terms of money not being used as appropriately as it
should be need to be addressed. They would like them addressed
in the budget each year.
After a number of weeks of talking with constituents and
Canadians across the land those are the points that have been
made to me. I might add those are the points I have shared with
8380
the Minister of Finance hoping that he might be able to address
some or all of them when he comes forth with his next budget.
I think the Minister of Finance is looking for that kind of
input, that kind of precision, that kind of assistance. When he
does come forward with the budget it will address our
government's goals to reach 3 per cent of GDP in terms of the
deficit by the third year of government.
[Translation]
I have shared with you and my colleagues some of the
concerns expressed by a number of my constituents and
Canadians concerning the budget to be tabled in this House in
February 1995. What the Minister of Finance is looking for, I
think, is the same kind of information from other members of
Parliament, so that he can take their viewpoints into
consideration.
These are the comments I wanted to share with you and my
colleagues in the House of Commons.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully, although with a little bit of difficulty, to the remarks
made by my colleague opposite. He talked about the
consultations that the Minister of Finance has been holding for a
month now.
We could easily accept his arguments if the Minister of
Finance were the only one holding consultations. Unfortunately,
we have a government that is continually consulting. The 25
committees consult and so do the departments. And while all
these consultations are taking place, no decision is made. I think
the government is trying to muddle the issues by making
Canadians believe that it is taking their opinion into
consideration. After all these consultations, decisions will
eventually be made, but they are constantly being delayed.
Instead of talking about what divides us, I would like to ask
my colleague from St. Boniface a question about what unites us.
(1820)
The redistribution of wealth has united this country for more
than 25 years. We have, in Canada and in Quebec, a unique
social system and I think we should be careful not to lose it. My
concern and the concern of all members of the Bloc is that the
government may destroy this system, reduce it, make it less
effective.
And our greatest fear is that middle and low-income
Canadians will end up paying the price. My question is this: Can
the member for St. Boniface assure this House that it is not only
middle and low-income Canadians that will end up paying for
these changes?
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
comments and questions. Yes, absolutely, the Prime Minister
said in the House that social programs needed to be changed
because they were created many years ago for conditions which
are no longer the same.
He also said a few days ago that saving money was not a
priority. If we can make savings at the same time, fine. I also
said in my speech-and this is why I was surprised to hear my
colleague say that he listened carefully to my speech, but had
some difficulty with it-, that we should not take money from
the most disadvantaged.
I said it many times. I even gave several examples. So why did
he have so much difficulty? The other thing that I am really
afraid of is that he accused the government of consulting. Does
that mean that if his party ever formed the government, it would
not consult? Aha! That is what is being suggested. If it were the
government, the Bloc Quebecois would not consult.
Of course we are consulting. We do not need to present a
budget until February 1995. What should we be doing? Make
decisions without consulting? That is what the Bloc would do. I
find that most disturbing.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
much of what the member said.
Certainly consulting with constituents is what we have all
been attempting to do for quite some time. Whether it is at a
farmers' market or a town hall meeting all of us have heard the
message. A lot of what he said is the same message we are
hearing.
One thing really interests me when he talked about the
underground economy. There is a sort of dream that if they
thought it was fair they would all just rush in and start paying
tax. I question whether that is true. I think the underground
economy is huge and is much greater than what we have
imagined.
I wonder what the member thinks about the single tax
proposal or the flat tax proposal. The reason I ask that is does he
not think that if we totally reformed the tax system and
everybody felt they were being treated fairly that is how we
would get back to people being willing to pay their taxes? It is
not just by the cosmetic changes we are talking about.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's
question. It is a fair one and he makes a number of good points.
If in my remarks I suggested that I thought Canadians all of a
sudden would want to pay taxes as a result of some changes in
the system that was not my intent. My constituents told me with
respect to the black market economy that they felt there were
loopholes for some individuals, perhaps wealthier Canadians
and perhaps government ought to consider whether or not
certain aspects of the black market economy were loopholes for
poor or lower middle class or middle class Canadians.
The question was raised. I do not know the answer to the
question but I certainly do not want to give the impression that
people thought that would correct the problem. The problem is
much more complex. It is very difficult to quantify as my
colleague has mentioned, and as the Minister of Finance or the
8381
Minister of National Revenue indicated today. I want to make
sure we are on the same wavelength and I think we are.
With respect to the flat tax, I must confess that I have done
quite a lot of reading on it. One of my colleagues has taken a
great deal of interest in it. I do not know enough about taxes
generally to be able to say that is the way to go. Not only have I
read the material but I have read critiques of it both in favour and
not in favour.
(1825 )
It would bother me if the flat tax was not sensitive to those in
the lower income brackets. I think it could be. We are talking
about Canadians who earn $7,000 to $12,000 a year. Those
people really should not pay any taxes. Therefore I could not
support it from that perspective.
Let me say as a final comment that I am quite willing to
support any type of taxation that is sensitive to the various
economic realities in the country. I want it to be fair but I also
want it to be perceived to be fair by Canadians because if they do
not have that perception it does not matter whether it is flat or
what have you it just will not work. It simply will not work.
What we have to be aware of is if we were to change the
taxation system completely, and for the moment let us say it was
a flat tax, there could be many potential ramifications that we
had not anticipated. We have to anticipate the potential negative
impacts on Canadians. I would want to make sure those were
understood before going forward with the change.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
always appreciate what the hon. member for St. Boniface has to
say in this House. I would like to ask the hon. member whether,
to his dying breath-I was going to say, looking at the hon.
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, when it
really comes to the crunch-he will objet to any tampering by
the government with RRSPs?
For the average Canadian taxpayer, it is practically the only
vehicle available, one that was used by our parents and
grandparents to save some money for their retirement. Today,
however, that feeling of security has vanished because they are
concerned government policies may cut into the savings that
many have been keeping for their retirement. In view of
galloping inflation, they may think this vehicle is no longer a
safe one. Has the hon. member for St. Boniface met people in his
constituency who have the same concerns? And how did he
respond to those concerns?
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's
question. Yes, that question came up several times. I am not
prepared to support taxes or measures that will prevent any man,
woman or couple from retiring with the money they need to live
with a certain amount of dignity.
Before making a statement, however, and this is not to evade
the issue, I want to understand the larger picture, what the
Minister of Finance intends to do. If you ask me today to say yes
or no, I cannot do that as a responsible member, because I do not
know yet-I have the impression I will probably know as soon
as you do-what will be in the budget that is brought down in
February.
However, I can assure the hon. member that the question was
raised. Yes, my answers were similar to the one I just gave and
yes, I intend to support measures that will make the system
fairer, if possible, and also fairer in the perception of the general
public. I do not want measures that will prevent people from
retiring with enough money to live with a lot of dignity, not just
a little.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member's time has
elapsed and rather than ask someone to begin an intervention
with little more than a minute left would there be unanimous
consent that I see the clock as being 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed from November 24 consideration of Bill
C-57, an act to implement the agreement establishing the World
Trade Organization, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee; and Motions Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9 and 10.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.30 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 45 the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-57,
an act to implement the agreement establishing the World Trade
Organization.
Call in the members.
(1850)
[Translation]
And the division bells having rung:
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is
unanimous consent for proceeding first with Motion No. 10.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The first vote will be on
Motion No. 10, standing in the name of the hon. member for
Verchères.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
8382
(Division No. 118)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
McLaughlin
Ménard
Nunez
Solomon
St-Laurent
Taylor
Venne-30
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Collenette
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jennings
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Richardson
Ringma
Rompkey
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood
Young -138
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Augustine
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Bélisle
Caccia
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Copps
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dubé
Dumas
Fewchuk
Fontana
Gagliano
Goodale
Guay
Keyes
Lalonde
Laurin
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
Marchi
McCormick
McTeague
Mercier
Minna
Mitchell
Nault
Ouellet
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Simmons
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Zed
(1855)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion lost.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent that the vote taken on report stage Motion No. 10 be
applied to report stage Motion Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9.
(1900 )
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be registered as
opposing Motion No. 9.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All other votes stand as
recorded on Motion No. 10. Accordingly, Motions Nos. 1, 2 and
8 are negatived.
[Editor's Note: For Motions 1, 2 and 8 see Division No. 11B.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on
the following division:)
8383
(Division No. 119)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
McLaughlin
Ménard
Nunez
Solomon
St-Laurent
Taylor
Venne-30
NAYS
Members
Adams
Anderson
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Collenette
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jennings
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Richardson
Ringma
Rompkey
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood
Young -137
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Augustine
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Bélisle
Caccia
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Copps
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dubé
Dumas
Fewchuk
Fontana
Gagliano
Goodale
Guay
Keyes
Lalonde
Laurin
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
Marchi
McCormick
McTeague
Mercier
Minna
Mitchell
Nault
Ouellet
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Simmons
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Zed
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
8384
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent that the whips of each party indicate the way the
members of their party will vote. For my part, the Liberal
members will vote yea to that particular motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will also support this motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members present
today vote yea.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New
Democratic Party vote no on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 120)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Collenette
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
Daviault
de Savoye
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jacob
Jennings
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Richardson
Ringma
Rompkey
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood
Young -163
NAYS
Members
Blaikie
de Jong
McLaughlin
Solomon
Taylor-5
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Augustine
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Bélisle
Caccia
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Copps
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dubé
Dumas
Fewchuk
Fontana
Gagliano
Goodale
Guay
Keyes
Lalonde
Laurin
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
Marchi
McCormick
McTeague
Mercier
Minna
Mitchell
Nault
Ouellet
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Simmons
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Zed
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, for those of
us who must continue with the proceedings on the adjournment
motion, I would ask those of you not involved to please retire
8385
from the Chamber so that we might continue with the
proceedings.
_____________________________________________
8385
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
November 16, I asked a question of the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration about the system of patronage created by the
previous government in the IRB and maintained by this
government in its appointments to the board.
Indeed, there are very serious internal problems within the
board between members appointed by the Conservatives and
others appointed by the Liberals. That patronage had been
denounced in the report commissioned by the minister himself
and written by Professor James Hathaway of York University in
Toronto. Unexpected and unexplained resignations and
suspensions have occurred recently in that quasi-judiciary
body.
For instance, we can mention the cases of Michael Schelew,
deputy chairman, who is actually under a judiciary
investigation; Greg Fyffe, executive director, who resigned
under unexplained circumstances. Board member Singh Bal had
to resign following a review of appointments by the Standing
Committee on Immigration and Citizenship because he came to
Canada illegally.
(1905)
For all those reasons, the Bloc Quebecois has asked and will
continue to ask for a thorough investigation on the general
operations of the board.
I take this opportunity to once more draw to the attention of
the government the genocide in Rwanda and the tragic situation
of its people. Unfortunately war has not ended in that country.
Thousands upon thousands of people are murdered or forced to
leave their country and Canada does very little to help those
refugees.
As opposition critic for citizenship and immigration, I receive
complaints just about every day regarding the unjustified
refusal to grant visas as well as the red tape to which Rwandans
in Nairobi, Kenya, are being subjected. The government must be
more open, more generous with Rwandan refugees.
Finally, I would like to say a couple of words about
proposition 187, adopted by referendum in California, on
November 8, during the American elections. If enacted, this
proposal will deny illegal immigrants and their family,
especially their children, access to health care, education and
social services. The victims of this attack against fundamental
human rights are, for the most part, Hispanics from Mexico and
Central America.
I recently travelled to Costa Rica where I witnessed the
unanimous condemnation of this proposal by the different
governments of this region. The Secretary General of the OAS
also criticized this measure. In the United States, President
Clinton, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, and agencies
fighting racial discrimination denounced this measure.
I join the thousands of Hispanics living in the United States
who are protesting this proposition, and assure them of my
support.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while I
thank the hon. member for his intervention, I have to say that I
am at a bit of a loss as it bears little or no relation to the question
that he asked at the time. However, I will be happy to respond.
I certainly agree with the hon. member, as would just about
everybody on this side of the House, with regard to his
comments relating to the situation in California. I would like to
assure the hon. member that he need not fear any such situation
ever taking place in this country, at least not while this
government is in charge of policy.
With regard to the situation in Rwanda, as the minister has
told the member on several occasions, the situation is extremely
difficult and complicated. The immigration service overseas is
doing the very best it can given the chaotic situation. It would be
unwise of us, not to say criminal, to put Canadian personnel at
risk. It would not help the situation of refugees if we put
Canadian personnel in a situation in which they would be
unsafe.
We are dealing with the matter as expeditiously and as quickly
as we can under the auspices of the UNHCR and we will
continue to do so. We thank the member for his interest. We
suggest to him that if he knows of specific situations in which
things are going wrong through some difficulty with the
department he should let us know.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week, last Tuesday to be more precise, I asked the Minister of
Transport, following the two train tragedies, if he had instructed
VIA Rail officials to immediately correct the shortcomings with
respect to emergency measures and first aid for passengers in
case of a train accident.
The minister did answer my question, confirming that he had
asked VIA Rail to take all necessary measures on a provisional
basis to try and correct the shortcomings, thereby ensuring to the
extent possible the safety of passengers and employees. That is
where the problem lies. The minister said: ``to the extent
possible''.
8386
(1910)
Does the minister realize that what is possible is determined
by his office? Indeed, the emergency measures and all first-aid
kits met DOT standards. It is up to the minister to upgrade these
standards.
I am not satisfied with the minister's answer when he says that
the measures required, the applicable measures will be
determined on the basis of the investigation. The Minister of
Transport knows full well what safety measures are required. It
is those he has implemented in other means of transportation.
The minister must have the same measures apply to rail
transportation, starting immediately. The minister may be
hiding behind the fact that trains are the safest means of
transportation. He even told me that it was an unprecedented
situation.
However, that is no reason not to review safety standards in
case of accident. We should not wait for another accident to
happen before taking action. It is up to the Minister of Transport
to act, and he must act now by upgrading safety standards. We
must not forget that the statements of accident victims show that
VIA Rail is not prepared and equipped for emergencies, as
evidenced by the fact that the passengers could not open the
doors, that they had to break the windows to get out, that
first-aid kits only contained bandage rolls.
The facts are obvious. Safety standards are clearly inadequate
and must be upgraded without delay, especially since even VIA
Rail employees feel that they lack the training and the
equipment needed to respond effectively to such an emergency.
It is a very serious situation when the employees themselves feel
they are poorly trained to deal with a situation like this.
I reiterate my question to the minister: Does the minister
intend to upgrade safety standards? The minister must be aware
that more people could have been hurt or killed in this accident
and that we must do all we can to avoid this kind of tragedy in the
future.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to respond to the comments of the hon. member for
Chicoutimi with respect to the railway accidents at Brighton and
Rimouski.
I would like to start by saying I probably travel more by train
than any other member in this House and, incidentally, my
father was on the train going to the Gaspé when it jumped the
tracks, so what the hon. member said touched a personal chord.
I have nothing to add to what was said by the Department of
Transport last week. Emergency exits, first aid kits and
emergency evacuation procedures are all matters of concern. I
may remind hon. members that the Minister of Transport, the
government, VIA Rail and Transport Canada see these elements
as a priority and intend to ensure there is a thorough
investigation.
However, the Transportation Safety Board, as the minister
pointed out, is the body that was created by Parliament to
investigate transportation accidents, which it is doing in this
particular case. If the investigation reveals any irregularities
with respect to the ability to intervene, it will be in a position to
advise Transport Canada immediately.
The police forces concerned, both the VIA Rail contingent
and the public police forces, are either conducting their own
investigations or pooling their efforts, as well as stepping up the
application of regulations and their own readiness. Furthermore,
VIA Rail has already started a preliminary review of the
accident and internal procedures.
In concluding, I would like to quote what was said by the
minister: ``We are going to do everything we can at VIA Rail, at
Transport Canada, and at the police forces. Every possible
avenue will be explored to make sure that the people who travel
in Canada on VIA Rail trains can do so in safety and security''.
[English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
September 20, I asked the Prime Minister a question that I think
is extremely important if we are to have a federal health care
system in this country. The question related to the private clinics
in Alberta and what action the right hon. Prime Minister was
prepared to take on this contravention of the Canada Health Act.
At the time the Prime Minister responded that he was committed
to maintaining a system where medicare was free and portable
for everybody.
(1915)
Clearly what we see in Alberta is a two-tier health care
system in operation. It is not hypothetical but in operation.
There is no doubt that private clinics are part of the two-tier
system. Certainly any research that has been done indicates that
it would be a contravention of the Canada Health Act. Yet the
federal government has refused to act.
At the same time we see the premier of Alberta cutting back
general health care by some 20 per cent from the province's
health care budget by 1997, as he has projected. While it is clear
that many ordinary Albertans will have difficulty getting health
care, at the same time the two-tier system is allowed to flourish.
If one looks at the current situation in Alberta, one example is
that the number of hospital beds in Edmonton has been reduced
by 20 per cent. These cuts have had very tragic consequences for
many Albertans. Now we hear many stories coming from
Alberta about the devastating effects of some of the cuts. If the
transfer payment system continues as it is, federal transfers will
be phased out for all provinces by the year 2015. That indeed
would be the end of a truly national system.
8387
On the one hand in private clinics patients are being charged a
fee on top of what the clinic charges the government health
insurance plan. Clearly it is a case of government health care
plans paying and the consumer paying on top of that.
It is clearly a violation of the Canada Health Act. It is one that
must be dealt with immediately and effectively if the federal
government is to fulfil its commitment to have a Canada health
care system and preserve the five important components of the
system. Of course it will not be done if the federal government
does not continue its contribution through the equalized
program funding.
In answer to my question on September 20 the right hon.
Prime Minister concluded by saying: ``I hope that Mr. Klein will
respect the laws of Canada''.
I would like to raise the question again. Hoping that this
breach of the Canada Health Act will be dealt with is not good
enough. I repeat my question: What is the government prepared
to do?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
leader of the New Democratic Party for keeping to the question
that she had originally asked. It is refreshing.
The government believes it is very doubtful that a private
system offering health services as consumer goods for profit
would benefit the health of Canadians.
At the September 1994 conference of health ministers all
ministers present, with the exception of Alberta, reached an
agreement to regulate private clinics. It is clear that all
provinces, with the exception of Alberta, are ready to take steps
to end charges for medically necessary care at private clinics.
The imposition of facility fees is not a direction in which
these provinces and the federal government see our health care
system moving. Our health care system is evolving.
Alternatives for health care may involve care clinics instead of
an institutionalized setting. This can be beneficial. However, if
it is accompanied by charges for medically necessary care, it
will not be consistent with what has been the history of our
publicly funded system.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38 the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 7.20 p.m.)