CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 15, 1995
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 9647
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 9649
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 9649
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9650
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9650
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9650
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9650
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9650
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9650
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9651
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9651
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9651
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9651
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9652
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9654
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9654
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9654
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9656
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9656
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 9657
Motion for concurrence in 60th report 9660
Motion moved and agreed to 9660
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9660
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 9667
9647
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 15, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
premier of Alberta recently received a B-plus grade from the
Fraser Institute for his government's approach to fiscal
management and deficit reduction in my province. In its eyes he
is an honour student.
However in another report card, one given by the people of
Alberta, the premier received a failing grade for his approach in
cutting essential services. The disapproval is growing. Some 69
per cent believe changes in health care services have been
brought about irresponsibly while 67 per cent disapprove of how
the province has handled cuts in education.
Albertans, like all Canadians, support leaner and more
efficient government but they will not accept an assault on their
most valued and essential services. The premier's approach may
be praised by a few but it is not a responsible one in the eyes of
many.
The federal government on the other hand will act responsibly
in the upcoming budget by controlling spending and reducing
waste. However we refuse to sacrifice the things that Canadians
value most for the sake of a few accolades.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Quebec seniors' federation or Fédération de l'âge d'or du
Québec celebrated its 25th anniversary yesterday. On this
occasion, its president, Mr. Philippe Lapointe, reiterated the
FADOQ's commitment to participate in the important
discussions on sovereignty and on the reform of social
programs, in which the Fédération was quick to support the
students.
Seniors are currently taking part in the vital process of
consultation on the future of Quebec. Every day, the
Commission des aînés meets with many seniors who come to
voice their questions, fears and aspirations.
Mr. Lapointe said the FADOQ would follow the debate
closely. The Bloc Quebecois is delighted by the calm and
watchful attitude of the FADOQ and hopes that its members will
participate actively in the consultation process so they may
define the country they helped build.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over
the years western economic diversification has sunk taxpayers'
money into all kinds of projects: the Custom Gourmet Coffee
Shop, Dave's Pizza, Imperial Oil. Even Novatel had the pleasure
of receiving taxpayers' dollars courtesy of WED.
Today taxpayers can take delight in knowing their hard earned
dollars are going to yet another worthy project, the Artificial
Reef Society of British Columbia. WED is loaning $160,000 to
this group so it can buy a ship from DND. It wants to use
government money to buy a government ship so it can be towed
out to sea and sunk.
What an investment. To top it off this group claims it will pay
WED off by selling salvaged boat parts. We hear old boat parts
are selling like hotcakes. WED will be repaid its $160,000 in no
time flat at the used boat flea market.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House of the visit to Ottawa today by Mrs.
Cathy Ingram, a teacher at the Fellowship Christian School, and
her students from the city of Waterloo. I am pleased they are in
Ottawa today as we celebrate the 30th anniversary of Canada's
maple leaf flag.
As a former refugee who came to Canada with my parents,
brother and sister in 1957, I now have the privilege of represent-
9648
ing the constituency of the federal riding of Waterloo. I bear
witness to the idea of compassion, sharing and equity that
Canadians represent and what our flag symbolizes.
Our flag represents a beacon of hope in a troubled world, a
world that is too often torn by strife based on ethnic, race,
religious and national intolerances.
Let each and every one of us appreciate the model that Canada
represents and commit ourselves to working together to enhance
what we have built-Canada.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to honour the life of a great
Canadian and former Lieutenant-Governor who passed away
recently.
Dr. J. A. Doiron was one of the first Acadians on Prince
Edward Island to serve as the Queen's representative as
Lieutenant-Governor.
Dr. Doiron was a true patriot both to his country as well as to
his Acadian heritage. It was his belief that to understand the
heritage of all Canadians was the first step in building a strong
Canada. He took pride in serving as one of the only bilingual
dentists on Prince Edward Island and was a member in many
island francophone organizations. Dr. Doiron received honorary
doctoral degrees in humanities, laws and the social sciences.
Perhaps one of his proudest moments was receiving the Order
of Canada in July of last year. Dr. Doiron was a true gentleman,
was loved by all who knew him and will be missed dearly by his
family, friends and all Islanders.
* * *
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
December 21, 1994, the National Biomass Ethanol Program was
announced committing up to $70 million in contingent loan
guarantees to ethanol producers.
(1405 )
On behalf of the ethanol task force, I wish to thank the Prime
Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the
Minister of the Environment for their commitment to making
domestic ethanol production a reality.
This program has already inspired nearly $300 million in
private investment for two ethanol plants in Ontario alone.
These plants are expected to create 1,500 construction jobs, 150
permanent jobs and add $175 million annually to the local
economies of Chatham and Cornwall.
As the name of the program suggests, this is a national
program and all of Canada will benefit from this announcement.
Canadians will now be able to use renewable, clean air fuel which
is domestically produced from Canadian biomass.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is delighted at the decision by the
Mexican president, who ordered the army, yesterday, to stop its
offensive action in Chiapas and who proposed a truce to the
rebels of the Zapatista National Liberation Army.
We hope that the resignation of the governor of the state of
Chiapas will help bring peace once again to the region.
Let us hope now that the Mexican government will take
whatever steps are required to improve the appalling living
conditions of the Indians in the state and that it will succeed in
changing the region's political and economic structures in the
near future, so that the claims of the people of Chiapas may be
defended fairly within the law. By proposing to bring a return to
peace and avoid armed confrontation, the Mexican government
is giving us hope for the future.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Sunday, February 12, 1995, 2,500 citizens of Surrey, B.C.
braved the elements to join Mr. and Mrs. Steven Carpenter's
walk in memory of their daughter Melanie who was tragically
slain in early January.
Today in my riding, the citizens of Cranbrook, British
Columbia are conducting their own march in support of the
Carpenter family and to speak out against early parole of
dangerous offenders. The march is spontaneous. It is grass roots.
I commend the efforts of my constituents and only wish I could
join them.
Fernand Auger, the suspected assailant of Melanie Carpenter,
only served two-thirds of his sentence and was obviously not
rehabilitated, let alone ready to be released into society.
The Liberal government has shown in the past that it is not
interested in listening to the concerns of Canadians. I therefore
implore the justice minister to listen to the hundreds of
thousands of Canadians who are worried for the safety of their
families and support my Reform colleague's Bill C-240 which
would prolong the detention of these high risk offenders.
9649
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, as we approach the release date of the federal
budget, Canadians are expressing some very strong opinions
about what should be and should not be contained in that budget.
One thing we should not overlook in this process is that the
current emphasis on expenditure cuts will leave people living in
rural areas of Canada more adversely affected than their urban
neighbours.
If the emphasis remains where it is today, the reduction in
rural services, which began with former Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney's cuts and closures to post offices, will continue in
transportation and rural support services. For example, the
national highways program is threatened, the rail system is
under attack and rural local airports have lost support.
Rural residents will find that they have to go further and spend
more money to maintain their quality of life because of these
and other cuts.
The policies expressed and implied by the federal finance
minister are not being delivered in a fair or even handed way and
Canadians should take note of this.
* * *
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the past number of weeks Canadians
have expressed abhorrence concerning videotaped hazing
rituals and other deplorable conduct that has occurred within our
military service.
The reputation of the Canadian military has been significantly
harmed by these revelations. To suggest that these activities are
innocuous or nothing more than male bonding essential to
teamwork is an affront to dignity and common sense.
What we have witnessed is human degradation, racism and
other completely unacceptable activities. The Minister of
National Defence has acted prudently, expeditiously and
decisively in order to send a clear message from the bottom to
the top of the military establishment that these activities are a
disgrace to our proud military tradition and that they will not be
tolerated now or ever.
I commend the minister and those within the department who
are working hard to restore integrity and professionalism in the
military and to restore its now tarnished image.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a New Brunswicker, I am pleased to pay tribute
today to Dr. George Stanley.
(1410 )
Dr. Stanley is a former Lieutenant-Governor of New
Brunswick and a key player in designing the Canadian flag.
During Dr. Stanley's tenure as dean of arts at Canada's Royal
Military College in Kingston, he drew a design of a maple leaf
placed on a red and white background. This design Dr. Stanley
modelled after the college's own flag.
On February 15, 1965, the maple leaf was raised over
Parliament Hill. To quote Dr. Stanley:
A flag is more than a means of identification. It is the embodiment of what a
country stands for: It is the symbol of the ethos or spirit of a people, its
aspirations, its will to live and its determination to play its role in history.
How true are those words, Mr. Speaker. I add that our flag is
also the symbol of unity, one that speaks for all the citizens of
Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, a decision handed down by the Ontario Court
highlights the need to adopt legislation to establish the legal and
ethical framework for new reproductive technologies. After
separating from his wife, a man was declared the legal father of
a female child, although the child was conceived by artificial
insemination from an unnamed donor.
In the absence of legislation on new reproductive
technologies, the judge gave priority to the child's interests, but
there is nothing to say that this will always be the case.
This situation points to the important impact of new
reproductive technologies on the people who use them. The
government has not yet stated that it will soon introduce a bill to
prevent potential abuses in this area. Is it waiting for a mockery
to be made of children and parents' rights before taking action?
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 30 years ago, I was moved by a ceremony at the Citadel
in Quebec during which the Canadian flag was hoisted for the
first time.
9650
[English]
I was impressed then, as I was two hours ago, to stand on the
lawn in front of this building to participate again in a memorial
to our flag of 30 years.
I would ask Canadians in this House to join me right now in
singing O Canada.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members rose and sang O
Canada.]
The Speaker: Colleagues, a little earlier in the House one of
our members, as I said, was using a prop. He used the Canadian
flag. I am very hard pressed to intervene at any time.
I am not sure the statements were designed for the singing of a
song, but I am very hard pressed not to have you, the members of
the Parliament of Canada stand and sing our national anthem. In
keeping with this, I was going to wait until three o'clock, but I
think I will proceed now.
(1415)
I would like to introduce to members and to all of the citizens
in Canada the two designers of our Canadian flag, Mr. Stanley
and Mr. Matheson who are with us today.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
9650
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Prime Minister said in this House that his
government was preparing to offload financial responsibilities
on the provinces without giving them sufficient resources, let
alone tax points, to deal with this new development.
Would the Minister of Finance confirm that in his next two
budgets, thus reflecting what was said by the Prime Minister, he
is planning a wholesale shift of certain federal commitments to
the provinces, without transferring the requisite financial and
fiscal resources?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had
an excellent meeting and some very useful discussions with the
provincial Finance ministers. I presented them with the main
parameters of the reforms we have in mind. First of all, I told
them there would be no surprises and second, before anything is
done affecting the provinces, we will first look at federal
spending. I think the message was very well received and that
these discussions came at the right time. I am very pleased with
the meeting we had yesterday.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would
the Minister of Finance agree that no matter how he intends to
shift the burden of financial problems on to the provinces,
nothing will change as far as the Canadian taxpayer is
concerned, since if the federal government manages to lighten
its debt load by transferring part of it or part of the deficit to the
provinces, as far as the average citizen is concerned, the
financial problem remains the same? Would he agree that is
basically what his approach boils down to?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is, of
course, no. We are not dumping our problems on the provinces.
Yesterday's discussion was about the fact that we have a national
problem, at the federal level and at the provincial level. The
Quebec Minister of Finance agreed, incidentally. Upon leaving
the meeting, he said there was a consensus on the need for all
levels of government to work together. And that is what we
intend to do.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance may wish to refer to certain statements by
the ministers, including the minister from Quebec who said that
this approach would become a disaster for Quebec in 1996.
Would the Minister of Finance agree that his decision to
postpone until next year the drastic cuts he intends to make in
transfer payments to the provinces for social programs
financing was made in order to avoid weakening the federal
position on the eve of the referendum? Will he be frank and
forthright and admit that major cuts are to be postponed until
next year, for purely political reasons?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in our last
February budget, we made it very clear to the provinces that we
intended to examine the matter of transfer payments in 1996-97.
In other words, what we did yesterday was entirely in line with
what we said in our last budget.
Second, what I did yesterday and my announcement about the
one year postponement was something we promised in the red
book, and I would advise the hon. member to read his copy
again.
(1420)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, during his meeting with his provincial counterparts,
the federal Minister of Finance carefully avoided discussing the
issue of the GST replacement which, according to the
commitment made in the red book, should normally be
implemented next year. I would ask him to reread the red book,
since the commitment was made in it.
9651
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister
concede that he refused to discuss the issue of reforming the
GST because Alberta, and especially Quebec, want nothing to
do with a national sales tax that would limit their freedom to
tax when Ottawa is also preparing to reduce transfer payments
to the provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the specific
purpose of yesterday's meeting was to exchange points of view
on budgetary issues because the federal government is getting
ready to table its budget, and several provinces, for example
Saskatchewan and Alberta, will also be tabling theirs very
shortly. So, the meeting was quite short and its only objective
was really to air viewpoints on the upcoming budgets.
Furthermore, I do not need to reread the red book;
unfortunately or fortunately, I know it by heart.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how can the Minister of Finance plan, on the one hand,
to reduce the provinces' transfer payments, which will cause a
shortfall in social program funding, and on the other, to shrink
their tax bases by putting in place a Canada-wide sales tax
which would replace provincial sales taxes? Can he explain this
to us?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's
meeting which I must say was very constructive all the
provincial finance ministers without exception basically
recognized that we have a huge problem at the federal level and
at the provincial levels and that it is crucial we work together to
solve it. That is really the spirit that animated the entire
meeting.
As far as the sales tax is concerned, that was not the purpose of
the meeting. I find it incredibly difficult given the tremendous
desire of the business community and consumers across this
country in every province, including Quebec-all one has to
look at is the Conseil du patronat, the consumers associations in
Quebec-that everybody in Quebec wants a national sales tax so
that we can lower the cost and make it fair.
The only people I know who are against it are Bloc Quebecois
members. Then again, they are against everything.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after weeks of telling this House that he could not
reveal the contents of the budget, the finance minister appears to
have spilled the beans to his provincial counterparts and the
national media. He indicated yesterday that he intends to raise
taxes on corporations and so-called better off Canadians.
At what levels of household income does one become a better
off Canadian and therefore a target for a tax increase?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the discussion we
had yesterday with the provincial finance ministers, which was
actually the second because we had one prior to the last budget,
was very worthwhile. It is really part of making federalism work
when finance ministers can sit down and basically off the record
exchange views and build a common consensus. It was very
good.
I did not go into complete detail. What I did was provide the
broad outlines, and they did as far as I was concerned.
The point I made yesterday in terms of taxes was that I pointed
out what I thought was a reasonably perceptive glance into the
obvious. However, I will draw it to the member's attention
again. We are going to close loopholes. To the best of my
knowledge it is not the poor in this country who are utilizing
loopholes.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance of all people must understand
the impact of tax increases on the economy. If tax levels or other
charges paid to governments are increased, one effect is to drive
capital, jobs and companies out of the country.
Canada Steamships, for example, which is owned by prudent
and patriotic people, has registered a number of its vessels under
foreign flags of convenience to no doubt avoid paying
astronomical registration charges, et cetera.
(1425 )
Does the minister not agree that there will be a flight of
capital, companies, jobs and productive individuals out of
Canada if they are the targets of tax increases in the next budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to
the leader of the third party that if he wants to go into the details
of any company with which I happen to have had some
association all he has to do is talk to the Ethics Commissioner
who would be delighted to lay the whole thing out in front of
him.
I would also suggest that if the leader of the third party wants
a lesson in international taxation I am sure that some of his
colleagues might explain it to him so that he might begin to
understand it.
There is no doubt that any country must be competitive in its
tax policies. I can assure the hon. member that we are not the
party that brought in 39 tax increases in a row. We are the party
9652
that in the last budget dealt very fairly with the whole question
of taxes. I do not believe that corporate Canada is so shaky that
making the tax system fairer is going to make it leave the
country.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the present premier of Ontario was chosen as citizen of
the year in Buffalo, New York because his tax and spend policies
drove so many companies across the line to Buffalo, New York.
Is it the aim of the finance minister to become citizen of the
year in Panama by including tax increases in his next budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not the height
of my ambition to stand up in this House and defend the current
premier of Ontario.
All I can say to the hon. member is that he is obviously a far
greater expert on taxation in Panama and so I will let him answer
his own question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
After stalling for over five months, the Minister of Justice
finally decided to table his gun control bill. This bill represents a
retreat from the government's original intentions, especially
with regard to handguns.
Since the minister claims to be settling an urgent social
problem, why must we wait at least eight years for his bill to
have an effect?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
knows full well that this legislation has the support of the vast
majority of Canadians, particularly Quebecers.
As I mentioned yesterday, I am disappointed at the approach
she is taking to this initiative. I would call upon the hon. member
to stand with this government in support of this legislation to see
it enacted as soon as possible.
In the meantime, let me address the specific questions asked
by the hon. member. With the enactment of this legislation
commencing in January of next year the registration system will
be under way. Two years after that the registration of firearms
will commence. By reason of incentives for early registration
we fully expect that registration will be in place within two or
three years of the undertaking of the program, which I think is an
objective for which we should all work together.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are
we to understand that this eight-year delay is the price the
minister had to pay for the support of his Liberal colleagues and
the cabinet?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the implementation of
the registration program is timed and organized as a rational and
sensible approach to the implementation of such a program on a
national scale. It is the way it should be done to be done
properly.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the news reports today that Lieutenant Colonel Alan
Stephens, Commander of the Canadian Logistics Battalion in
Croatia, was on Saturday relieved of his command for
inappropriate conduct. Will the minister provide the House with
the details of this incident as he knows them?
(1430 )
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member obviously knows that with respect to the privacy of the
individual concerned, while investigations are pending I cannot
make any comment.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am still looking for information.
The Royal Kingston Curling Club hosted the Labatt Tankard
competition over the weekend. For no apparent valid reason, a
team of five Canadian forces video technicians spent three days
on full pay and allowances filming the event. As a result, they
were unable to film military activities for which they had been
scheduled.
Can the minister explain to the House the rationale which has
a military video team filming a civilian event at the expense of a
valid military commitment?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think
Canadians are getting sick and tired of this line of questioning.
The Canadian Armed Forces not only discharges its very
noble efforts outside the country but assists many Canadians,
worthy causes and communities in local events across this
country. They just assisted with the flag ceremony outside the
House of Commons.
I really do not want to politicize this too much, but is the
Reform Party saying that the Canadian Armed Forces has no
business helping communities with their local events? Is that
what he is saying?
9653
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Yesterday in this House, in responding to a question I asked
him, the Minister of National Defence did not seem to know
about the Eagle River exercise, which is nothing but a
sumptuous fishing trip at Canadian taxpayers' expense.
Did the Minister of National Defence make inquiries and can
he assure us that there was no Eagle River exercise or any other
similar activity in 1994?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
reasons I said this should be put on the Order Paper yesterday is
that I could not believe the hon. member was asking a question
about a facility that was closed two years ago and before this
government came into power.
As far as I am concerned that facility is closed. The province
of Newfoundland has indicated some interest in taking it back.
That is all I have to say.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
still think that the minister did not answer my question. I asked
him if there had been other similar activities. I did not get an
answer.
Did the Minister of National Defence issue directives to
Canadian Forces officers forbidding them to organize activities
similar to the Eagle River exercise and, if so, will he table them
in this House?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure
to which activities the hon. member is referring, but I will
certainly take this as a representation and draw it to the attention
of the chief of defence staff.
* * *
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Sports Canada receives $64 million a year to help
Canada's athletes. Unfortunately a paltry 8 per cent or
approximately $5 million of that $64 million actually reaches
Canadian athletes. Over $42 million is being spent to administer
a huge, cumbersome sports bureaucracy.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Is
Sports Canada there to benefit the athlete or the bureaucracy?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our colleague presumably must have been
listening to my speeches. I have said repeatedly that I consider
the athlete should have first priority. And I have done more than
say it. We are in the process of putting into place a sports
funding and accountability framework that will ensure at long
last that the athletes receive the rewards they deserve.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians want action, not more studies. Will the
minister act to rectify the gross mismanagement in Sports
Canada?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I already gave the answer. We are acting. We
are putting policy into place with no more studies but action
from now on.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
The minister herself claims that everything is now being done
to ensure the quality of blood products and the safety of the
blood supply in Canada. But we learned that the Canadian
Bureau of Biologics has yet to approve two factor IX products
used to treat haemophilia B.
How can the minister justify that these products, which are
purer and of higher quality than existing products, have not been
approved by the Canadian Bureau of Biologics after more than
two years?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have taken the necessary steps, i.e. the steps that
can be taken at this time to ensure the safety of the blood supply
system, and we will continue to do so.
This does not mean that we are closing the door to new
developments or new measures. If you have any information
that may help us, by all means, share it with us and we will act on
it.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the minister realize that, because these drugs have not yet been
approved by the Canadian Bureau of Biologics, some doctors
have to use lower quality products to treat haemophilia B? Does
she not realize that?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a process for approval of drugs within the
Department of Health. This process is based on scientific study
of the
9654
products being offered. That process is ongoing. The idea is to
ensure the drugs that are approved are safe and effective. That is
what our job is about and the orders I give Health Canada ensure
the safety and the health of Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Young people in Canada experience the highest rate of
unemployment due to the legacy of nine years of Tory
mismanagement of the economy. What has the minister done to
make sure there is hope, opportunity and jobs for our young
people in Canada?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to
point out that since October 1994 we have been able to achieve
some 60,000 new jobs for young people in this country. The
unemployment rate is now down to its lowest level since 1990.
Of those 60,000 jobs, over 15,000 were as a direct result of
initiatives we have taken under strategic initiatives of the red
book policies.
For example, one important initiative has been partnerships
with both business and labour in areas like electronics,
horticulture, tourism, and car repair. Over 5,000 young people
are now involved in major apprenticeship and internship
programs working with private industry so they can get good
careers for their future. We hope to have close to 20,000 enrolled
this year in that very good program.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows that a number of
countries have tried to implement a universal firearms
registration system. Can the minister tell us, how do successful
universal firearms registration systems work in reducing violent
crime in those countries and what percentage reduction can we
expect in Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the connection
between universal registration, reduction in crime and increase
in community safety is sufficiently obvious that today the
initiative of this government was endorsed by the Canadian
Medical Association.
May I say as well that if the hon. member does not find my
explanation for the justification sufficiently persuasive, then
perhaps he can ask the question of others who endorse it. Did I
mention that they include the Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police, the Canadian Police Association, the police services
boards from Brandon, Manitoba; Calgary, Alberta; Edmonton,
Alberta; Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; Nova Scotia; the Ontario
Association of Chiefs of Police; Sudbury Chief of Police; the
Thunder Bay police-
(1440)
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as usual, the minister is skating around the issue and is
not answering the question.
Many countries have tried registration and he knows they
have abolished it. The minister will not do an evaluation as the
Auditor General has recommended. We know that registration
will not work but surely the minister must know that lives will
not be saved.
My question very simply is: How will this minister measure
success? How will he do it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we shall measure
success by providing the police forces of this country with a tool
they have been asking for, for a dozen years.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Next week, the Prime Minister is scheduled to ratify with
President Clinton a treaty to liberalize Canadian-American air
space and provide Canadian carriers better access to the
lucrative U.S. market, particularly at the New York and Chicago
airports.
Since the Minister of Transport deprived Air Canada of the
very lucrative Asian market, to the benefit of Canadian
International, can he tell us if, this time, he intends to favour Air
Canada as regards access to the U.S. market?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, the question asked by the hon. member is based
on an absurd statement. Indeed, since I was appointed Minister
of Transport, the government granted Air Canada access to the
new Kansai airport, in Osaka. Air Canada also has flights to
Seoul, in South Korea, and has landing rights in Singapore, even
though it does not go there. You can rest assured that when the
time comes to allocate U.S. routes, assuming the bilateral
agreement with that country is ratified, we will-as we have
always done-ensure a balance and a reasonable sharing of the
benefits for the two Canadian airlines.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister knows that Hong Kong is a more important
destination than Osaka. Does he not agree that his decision to
9655
reserve international routes for only one carrier, except for the
U.S. market, is likely to favour Canadian International, at the
expense of Air Canada, whose employees are mainly located in
Montreal?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should recognize that it is
government policy to recognize there are two great Canadian
airlines in this country: Air Canada and Canadian Airlines
International.
What we have achieved with respect to what we hope we will
be able to sign when the president comes to Canada is something
that has been worked on in this country for nearly eight or nine
years.
I would have thought that instead of playing petty parochial
politics the hon. member would have recognized that Canadians
from coast to coast in every province and both airlines have
accepted this deal as the biggest step forward in Canadian
aviation history in the last 15 years.
* * *
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration sponsored
a meeting and flew writers and bureaucrats on short notice to a
four star west coast hotel to ask them: What should we do with
the citizenship oath? The meeting was purposely kept secret and
the new so-called pledge omits the head of state.
(1445 )
Was the minister aware of this meeting and does he approve of
its final result, a pledge that is no longer an oath that leaves out
any and all mention of the Queen?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was aware of the
meeting. The recommendation to the government to hold such a
meeting to bring together Canadian writers was by the Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, and the Reform
Party agreed with the recommendation.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am aware of the recommendation of the standing
committee. However they did not recommend a secret meeting.
On this day 30 years ago Canadians chose their new flag in an
open forum that included the whole country. Today the minister
uses backroom politics in a four-star hotel to try to slip in a new
oath by Canadians on the sly. Canadians are saying: ``Stop the
secrecy but above all stop the waste''.
Will the minister tell Parliament that he will put a stop to
these backroom meetings and that any future changes of such
profound importance will be brought before the Canadian
people as was done 30 years ago?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member's long preamble
is simply absurd. The member knows full well-he was a
member of that committee-that one of the major
recommendations was to try to engage some leading Canadian
writers to bring some vigour to a Canadian oath, to a charter of
values for Canadian citizens.
Rather than undermining the voluntary efforts of the 10
writers who came together, he should be complimenting those
Canadians who are prepared to give of themselves like
Canadians gave of themselves 30 years ago for the flag.
* * *
[
Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
[English]
The previous government had a clear bias toward contracting
services within the public service, with little control on the
costs, numbers or quality of this shadow public service.
What means will the minister take to rigorously examine and
restrain contracting so that public service employees do not lose
their jobs while the shadow public service continues to prosper
and grow?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a close encounter. The government does not have
the bias of the past government with respect to the matter of
contracting out. We believe in getting best value for the
taxpayers' dollar and ensuring efficiency and effectiveness in
how we spend those dollars.
In respect of the downsizing that will be occurring, certainly
we will want to look at it very carefully and take into
consideration the concerns the hon. member has raised here
today.
It is our effort to treat our employees fairly and reasonably.
We will make every effort to try to put them in other jobs if their
current positions have been declared surplus.
However the whole question of contracting out is also a
matter that is before the government operations committee.
9656
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance who has obviously been
hearing like the rest of us about a lot of taxpayers who are fed up
with hitting the wall. Some taxpayers have not hit the wall.
Some taxpayers have never even seen the wall and others have
jumped over the wall.
Over the last few days the minister has talked about tax
loopholes. I am pleased to hear him actually using that term as
part of his vocabulary these days.
Will the minister as part of this theme seriously address the
fact that capital gains in Canada are not taxed as other income as
we find in the United States? People who inherit vast amounts of
money do not pay tax. Would he consider the mother or father of
all tax loopholes, the family trust, and remove that tax option in
his budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said in
the House on numerous occasions I will not comment on
specific suggestions. When bringing down the budget I will
obviously give an answer to the member's question. In the
meantime I will take it as representation.
(1450)
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the
theme of fairness that the minister has commented on so much
recently, would he ensure in whatever provisions he brings down
in his budget that urban Canadians and rural and small town
Canadians take an equal hit?
There is a lot of concern out there right now, particularly
around the whole matter of transportation policy and so on, that
rural and small town Canadians will be adversely affected by the
budget much more than urban Canadians.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon.
member that a great deal of effort has gone into and is going into
making sure that the budget is fair.
The comments of the hon. member are well taken. Between
urban Canadians and rural Canadians, in fact between
Canadians in each region of the country the budget must be fair.
If we are to face up to the tremendous problem of the debt and
the deficit, it is clear the budget will only be accepted if
Canadians feel that everybody is bearing their fair share of the
burden. I can assure the hon. member that is our intention.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of heritage. Canada is celebrating the
30th anniversary of the flag today, at a cost of a million dollars
in this era of budget cuts, while the 25th anniversary was only
marked by a simple ceremony on Parliament Hill.
How can the minister explain why the government will invest
over one million dollars this year, half of it in Quebec the year
the referendum will be held, when a simple ceremony sufficed
for the 25th anniversary?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have several things to say in reply. The
first is that in the year of the 25th anniversary, the government in
power was perhaps not interested in Canada's symbol, was
perhaps was not as interested in the Canadian flag as we are.
The figures you gave were wrong. Only 25 per cent, not 50, of
the budget for the event will be spent in Quebec. I was asked how
many flags there were, and I can say that approximately 30 per
cent of them are for Quebec. You were misinformed, Madam.
The Speaker: I would like to remind the hon. minister to
always address the Chair.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
instead of clumsily justifying himself, why does the minister not
just admit that we have a clear case here of a vast federal
propaganda campaign gearing up in Quebec during the year of
the referendum?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may suppose that I am using
the 30th anniversary of the flag to detract attention from a
referendum that has not even been called yet. I would say that
some people have a very narrow mind on these issues, so narrow
that their ears are stuck together from the inside. Now I
understand why they need to separate to broaden their vision and
their minds.
The Speaker: Sometimes, these exchanges give me such a
headache. Let us move on.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Many Canadians feel that the Achilles' heel of the gun
legislation is the registration of long guns, not of handguns nor
the other aspects of the bill but the registration of .22s and
shotguns.
9657
The justice department considers that the cost may be as
much as $85 million and others have said considerably more
over five years. Could the Minister of Justice tell the House
whether this money would not be better spent in cancer research
or, better yet, not spent at all in so far as this is money we have
to borrow from future generations for registration and there is
no proof that it will do one iota of good?
(1455 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the first place may I
say that the estimates as to costs which the Department of
Justice has arrived at will be put in detail before the
parliamentary committee that will consider the legislation. It
will examine our assumptions. It will see our calculations. We
will establish that they are real and that they are dependable.
Second, may I say that the registration system, together with
the other elements of this package in the bill, are going to save
lives in the country. May I close by saying that I am not the only
one who believes in that.
May I point out that a survey done by the hon. member in his
own riding established that 69 per cent of the respondents agreed
with registration. I would like the hon. member to tell the House
whether he is going to vote with his constituents on this issue.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to advise
members opposite that I was elected by 100 per cent of the
people who voted for me for three very distinct reasons. The
first was to get our nation-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Usually the answers are to my right and the
questions are on the other side. Would the hon. member please
put his question.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I will vote in absolute fidelity
to the best wishes of my constituents.
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. It
is a most serious question because we are facing a most serious
debt crisis in the country.
Will the minister, before universal registration of long guns is
implemented, bring before the House the quantitative
information that will attest to the veracity of his decision to
register all long guns before it is implemented?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already made it
clear that we will put the details of our calculations before the
committee.
In so far as the wisdom of the registration system is
concerned, first we rely upon the advice of the experts, the
police chiefs across the country who have been asking for this
for years.
We say as well that if the approach advocated by the hon.
member was to have been taken by the person who first proposed
a traffic light at an intersection it would never have been
installed.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, several
women in my riding are extremely concerned about the ability
of defence lawyers to subpoena the confidential records of
sexual assault crisis centres for use in court. They are afraid that
the protection gained by the rape shield legislation is being
eroded as lawyers use a back door to gain access to their
confidential information.
What actions will the Minister of Justice consider taking to
ensure that the personal records of assault victims remain
confidential?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of and
share the concerns identified by the hon. member.
The House should know that at my direction as Attorney
General the federal government intervened in a case recently
argued before the Supreme Court of Canada in which the
circumstances under which such evidence can be compelled and
the circumstances under which it can be introduced at trial were
canvassed and argued.
In that case the federal government argued that the Supreme
Court of Canada should adopt and strengthen guidelines
stipulated by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia to protect
sexual assault centres from harassment. The court reserved its
judgment and we will await the disposition.
(1500 )
Let me make it clear to the House that if necessary the federal
government is prepared to introduce legislation under the
Criminal Code to ensure that we strike the right balance between
full answer and defence on the one hand and the freedom of
sexual assault centres to operate without harassment.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to draw your attention
to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Trevor Pinnock, Artistic
Director and Principal Conductor of the National Arts Centre
Orchestra who will soon be representing Canada in a major
European tour.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
9658
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for the record I would like to correct a factual error that
was made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in
answer to my question.
The Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member might consider
another avenue. Question Period is over. I sense that this would
probably be getting us into a debate.
If the hon. member wants to correct something that the hon.
member said I would accept that but to correct another member
would be out of order.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that I was not
a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration at the time the decision was made to have a group
of writers write a new oath.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, I am now ready to rule on the
question of privilege raised by the hon. member for
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing on February 6, 1995 concerning
media disclosure of the report of the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development prior to the report's
presentation to the House.
[Translation]
I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to the
attention of the House. The hon. member submits that the
privileges of the members of the House of Commons have been
breached because this report was given to the media before
being tabled in the House.
[English]
The hon. member pointed out that until they are presented in
the House committee reports should remain confidential. On
this he is absolutely correct. However, as all members are aware,
the Speaker is loath to intervene in committee matters unless
difficulties arising in committee are brought to the attention of
the House by way of a report from the committee. This tradition
has been outlined by many Speakers before me and in particular
by Speaker Fraser on November 7, 1991 in a ruling on a question
of privilege involving committee proceedings.
[Translation]
In circumstances similar to those currently before us, a
standing committee might decide to examine the matter of a
breach of confidentiality and decide to report it to the House.
Only then can the Speaker intervene.
Although I do not find a prima facie question of privilege in
this situation, the premature release of a committee's
confidential information is nonetheless a very serious matter.
[English]
In his submission the hon. member further noted that as an
associate member of the committee in question he was denied
access to the report.
Let me remind the House that the role of associate members,
as outlined in Standing Order 104(4), is basically two-fold.
They can be designated by a standing committee for
membership on a subcommittee it establishes and, as such,
become full members of that subcommittee and enjoy all the
rights of a permanent member.
(1505 )
They can also serve as substitutes in the committee for which
they have been named as associate members, thereby having the
same rights as those of the permanent members they are
replacing.
However, in the case now before the House these situations
did not occur. Furthermore, according to citation 766 in
Beauchesne's sixth edition, non-members of a committee
normally retire when the committee is about to deliberate upon
its report.
Therefore, in this case the fact that the hon. member was not
given access to the draft report does not, in the view of the Chair,
constitute a breach of his privileges.
Finally, the issue of confidentiality is one of great importance
for the House. I would remind all members of their obligation to
see to it that the confidentiality of committee deliberations and
reports is respected.
_____________________________________________
9658
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
two petitions.
* * *
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a
document that outlines the expenditure management system of
the Government of Canada.
9659
[Translation]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the report of the committee
reviewing the Railway Safety Act.
* * *
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to table before this House a document on
the expenditure management system of the Government of
Canada, which describes the government's new
decision-making process in matters of programs and
expenditures.
[English]
With this overhaul, the first in 15 years, we ensure the system
responds to today's economic and fiscal realities. It recognizes
the way this government has been doing business since elected
in October, 1993.
To reduce spending to meet our fiscal targets and to free up
resources for reallocation to new priorities requires that we
make tough spending and program choices. Our ultimate
objective is to deliver quality programs and services within the
resources that Canadians can afford.
We are demonstrating to Parliament and to all Canadians that
we are fulfilling our red book commitment to fund new
initiatives through reallocating expenditures, not with new
money, not with adding further to the debt, but to set our
priorities by reallocating for new expenditure items.
The document outlines the formal mechanisms that will foster
greater fiscal responsibility and help this government to meet its
targets.
I would like to bring to members' attention some of the
system's major features, quite briefly. It formally eliminates
central policy reserves. It integrates practically all decisions
about spending into the budget planning process. The document
clearly outlines the cycle that will now be followed.
We will deliver information on program performance to
Parliament in better and more timely ways. Departments will
produce documents on the outlook for their program priorities
and expenditures over the next few years and provide them to
Parliament. These documents will increase parliamentary
involvement by assisting the standing committees in fulfilling
their mandates to examine future year expenditures, trends and
priorities. These outlook documents are new to this Parliament
and expand the involvement and role of members of Parliament
in the budgeting and estimates process.
We will adjust these processes over the next few years. It will
take some evolutionary time as we gain experience with them.
[Translation]
I am confident that they will help us make the difficult
decisions that are involved in providing quality services and
reducing the cost of government.
(1510)
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
must tell the President of the Treasury Board that I will carefully
read the document he has just tabled on the expenditure
management system of the Government of Canada.
Like all Quebecois and Canadian taxpayers, I am concerned
about the current management of federal public expenditures. In
view of the information supplied to us every year by the Auditor
General, it is high time for the federal government to make an
in-depth review of its expenditures and, above all, of its
management practices.
I hope the document tabled today will address the concerns
voiced by parliamentarians and that the proposed improvements
will be consistent with the auditor general's recommendations.
The criticisms expressed by the auditor general regarding
program evaluation, for instance, should be taken into account.
Given the abysmal performance of the Canadian government in
the area of program evaluation, the Bloc Quebecois hopes this
new document will contain not only new tools to more
adequately inform parliamentarians of public expenditures, but
also real solutions to evaluate the results of such programs.
Each year, the auditor general presents us with an impressive
list of waste in the use of public funds, and the government must,
as a first step, clean up its expenditures before it can justify
cutting programs.
By eliminating the central policy reserves, the government
will lose its flexibility to fund new projects. Since such projects
will be funded by reallocating moneys committed elsewhere, the
government must clearly express its priorities for the coming
years.
The Bloc Quebecois will be keeping a very close watch on the
political choices to be announced in the upcoming budget. I
would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the
minister for expressing himself so well in French.
9660
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, if I
have to congratulate the President of the Treasury Board on the
introduction of this policy it must surely be with a very small c.
The country is crying out for cuts, elimination of waste,
downsizing, less government, and yet the number one item in
the minister's statement is that he will formally eliminate
central policy reserves. Surely we could do much better than
this.
There is nothing in this statement about departmental cuts or
elimination of departments. The minister is shuffling the policy
chairs on the deck of the Titanic. These policies provide a
different look at a serious but old problem of runaway deficits.
There is not one single word in this statement about cuts, about
smaller government, about downsizing the civil service.
We can only say that we are extremely disappointed in the
statement and we look for more, bigger and better news in the
budget.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to table today the 60th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the membership of the Standing Committee on Human Rights
and the Status of Disabled Persons.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move that the 60th
report be concurred in later today.
[English]
I also have the honour to present the 61st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
changes to the Standing Orders as they relate to the printing of
papers and evidence of standing committees.
Madam Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent of
the House to dispense with the reading of the 60th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. If the
House gives its consent I move that the 60th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented
to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1515)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I think you would also find that there is unanimous
consent for the following motion:
That, regarding consideration of Bill C-64, an act respecting employment
equity, the House authorize the necessary staff of the Standing Committee on
Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons to travel within Canada in order
to prepare and hold videoteleconference hearings during the weeks of February
20 and 27.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I would like to table before this House a petition on
behalf of senior citizens from my riding of Richmond-Wolfe.
I would like to do so by stating the facts. It reads: We, the
undersigned citizens of Disraeli, Danville, Lawrenceville,
Maricourt, Valcourt, Saint-Élie d'Orford, Rock Forest,
Richmond, Windsor, Saint-Claude, Stoke Centre, Chesterville
and Saint-Denis-de-Brompton, wish to call the attention of
Parliament to the following facts.
Whereas seniors are naturally more at a loss when faced with
voice mail technology; whereas seniors are entitled to adequate
service, particularly with regard to their income security
enquiries; therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon
Parliament to ask the government to abandon its plan to
introduce voice mail systems for seniors.
I table this petition, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, this petition concerns excessive violence in
our society, on the radio and on television.
[English]
Violence in our society is a concern of these petitioners:
violence in general, violence on radio and television or
wherever one finds it.
The petitioners ask the government and the CRTC to ensure
that to the extent possible we diminish and remove violence.
They point out that violence is not necessary to entertain or to
inform, that it is counter to what many families are trying to do
in their homes as they raise their children.
9661
They point out however that there has been some progress
made in this area and they applaud the government and the
CRTC for their efforts.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I present today three petitions from
constituents of New Westminster-Burnaby as well as from
other parts of British Columbia.
In the first two, the petitioners state that physicians should be
working to save lives and not to end them. They 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 that
would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or
active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in the third petition, petitioners from B.C.'s lower
mainland pray and request that Parliament not amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Human Rights Act to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present a
petition compiled by Jamie and Janet Bassett from my riding of
Prince Albert-Churchill River.
The petition has been signed by approximately 14,400
Canadians and requests that Parliament grant conditionally or
unconditionally a pardon to Mr. Robert Latimer of Wilkie for a
second degree murder conviction.
While I respectfully disagree with the petition, I hold the
Bassetts in high regard. I respect their viewpoint and their right
to express it, and the viewpoint of the many thoughtful
Canadians who have signed this petition.
I present this petition on their behalf.
(1520 )
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I have two petitions to table.
The first states that Canada's mining industry is a mainstay of
employment in over 150 communities across Canada, an
important contributor to Canada's gross domestic product in
total exports and a cornerstone of our economic future.
Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to take action
that will increase employment in this sector, promote
exploration and rebuild Canada's mineral reserves, sustain
mining communities and keep mining in Canada.
I concur with this petition.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
in the second petition the petitioners pray and request that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase, sexual orientation.
I concur with this petition.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of
constituents of Calgary North, praying that Parliament ensure
that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada
prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously.
This petition is signed by more than 25 members of the
Calgary North constituency.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of my constituents and
residents from the greater Toronto area. The petitioners claim
that the majority of Canadians believe that the privileges society
accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same
sex relationships.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined
phrase, sexual orientation.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, it my duty and privilege to present a petition
signed by approximately 3,000 Canadians, the majority of
whom reside in the Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency.
The petition was collected and brought to my attention by the
Woodrow family of Battleford, Saskatchewan. It notes the
conviction of Robert Latimer for second degree murder with no
chance of parole for 10 years.
The petitioners request that Parliament grant Robert Latimer
of Wilkie, Saskatchewan a pardon conditionally or
unconditionally for his conviction of second degree murder in
the death of his daughter Tracy Latimer.
9662
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, on behalf of my hon. colleague, the member for
Calgary Southeast, I rise in the House on day eight to present
petition number eight. These petitions are being presented on
behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early release from
prison of Robert Paul Thompson. April 11, 1995 is the date set
for the parole hearing.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a
petition.
The petitioners request that Parliament support laws that
severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the
commission of a crime; support new Criminal Code firearm
control provisions that recognize and protect the right of
law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms; and
support legislation that will repeal and modify existing gun
control laws which have not improved public safety or have
proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly
complex as to be ineffective and/or unenforceable.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
second petition is from the constituents of Wetaskiwin.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in
any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same
sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase, sexual
orientation.
(1525 )
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise
under the provisions of Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number
of residents of communities in western Canada.
The petitioners point out that the Canadian Mineral Industry
Federation has proposed a 10-point plan of action to be
addressed by both the mineral industry and the Government of
Canada to keep mining in Canada.
They call on Parliament to take immediate action which
would increase employment in this crucial sector, promote
exploration, rebuild Canada's mineral reserves and sustain
mining communities in order to keep mining in Canada.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, I have
another petition in which the residents point out to the House of
Commons that a company in western Canada called
Multinational Resources has indicated its plan to divert water
from the North Thompson River near Valemount, British
Columbia, in an effort to resell that water in San Diego,
California. This is one of the many proposals from the North
America Water and Power Alliance; that is, to divert Canadian
rivers into the United States and northern Mexico.
The residents call on the government to introduce legislation
that would categorically prohibit any permits allowing
freshwater rivers to be dammed or diverted into the United
States-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. I think we
are into debate.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Question No.
93, which I tabled in this House on October 19, 1994. Usually,
the response period is 45 days, but, in this case, 120 days have
gone by since the question was raised.
I would like to know why it is taking three times the usual
maximum time allowed. What is the point of having rules, if the
government is not going to comply with them? Despite whatever
excuses might be made, I would like to know when I will get an
answer to Question No. 93.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, as always, the government tries to prepare responses to
questions as quickly as possible. In this particular instance, I am
informed that the response is almost ready to be tabled in the
House. I will table it as soon as I receive it.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): If
Questions Nos. 112 and 113 could be made orders for returns,
these returns would be tabled immediately.
9663
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House that Questions Nos. 112 and 113 be made orders for
returns?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 112-Mr. White:
What was the total number of full time employees at each job classification in
the respective federal departments for fiscal 1993?
(Return tabled.)
Question No. 113-Mr. Caccia:
What is the total amount of federal public money given to the Atomic Energy
of Canada Limited (AECL) since its inception?
(Return tabled.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining
questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that the notice of motion for the production of
papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the notice of
motion stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2), because of the
ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
six minutes.
9663
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1530)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
That this House call upon the government in its next budget to avoid any tax
increases targeting low and middle-income taxpayers and to consider instead
trimming the fat from the government, eliminating tax expenditures which
primarily benefit large corporations and wealthy Canadians and collecting on
unpaid tax debts owed to the federal government.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to debate this motion
in the House because it is consistent with what the official
opposition has been defending, since the last election, as a
means of putting our finances in order, as short term or medium
term corrective measures, since most experts agree, as we do,
that, without fundamentally changing the system, it will be
difficult to get control over public finances again.
The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that the government
must, in its upcoming budget, substantially reduce its
expenditures and refrain from increasing income taxes for the
middle class or low income taxpayers. The Bloc Quebecois asks
that the federal government undertake a complete review of the
tax system in order to eliminate unfair tax expenditures and
ensure that companies currently not paying taxes pay their fair
share.
The federal government should, in particular, eliminate tax
shelters benefiting high income taxpayers and big business. Not
the measures which favour middle or low income individuals,
but the real tax loopholes benefiting very wealthy Canadians
and big business who have not been paying their fair share in the
federal system for at least 12 years.
The government has tried to justify a possible tax increase,
stating that the rise in interest rates is forcing them to do so,
forcing the Liberals, when in fact this rise is in large measure
attributable to their inaction in fighting the deficit in the last
year. I would like to remind you that just days after the Minister
of Finance tabled his first budget last February 22, Canada's
credit rating was lowered significantly for the first time in five
years and the interest rates demanded by domestic and foreign
investors on Canadian securities increased considerably, which
in turn caused mortgage rates in particular to rise.
Middle class taxpayers are past their tolerance level. Any
increase in their tax burden is unacceptable, and the Prime
Minister should be reminded that he made promises and
commitments regarding the issue on the Téléjournal newscast,
on October 1, 1993. He said then that he would not raise taxes
during his first two years in office. This is year two.
9664
Last December, the Liberal representatives on the finance
committee paid no heed to the Prime Minister's commitment
and recommended an across the board surtax on income. This
proposal, in the official opposition's opinion, is utterly
unacceptable, and I would like to remind you, Madam Speaker,
that according to the OECD, individual Canadian taxpayers pay
33 per cent more taxes than the average taxpayer in the United
States. We are neighbours, we have a free trade agreement in
common and it is inadmissible to have such a disparity between
levels of taxation.
The official opposition also warns the government not to
make any attempt to use devious means to increase the tax
burden of the middle class and others by hitting RRSPs. The
Bloc Quebecois is also firmly opposed to the option considered
by the federal government to impose a one per cent capital tax on
RRSPs. I would say to you that this hidden tax, which could net
up to 5 billion dollars annually, would be an insidious blow to
taxpayers who are trying to plan for a comfortable retirement, at
a time when public funds are inadequate and Canadians' savings
are at their lowest in thirty years. This would be an
ill-considered and irresponsible measure.
Neither should the federal government abdicate its
responsibilities by shifting its deficit onto the backs of the
provinces. This approach is irresponsible and has been resorted
to time and again in the past, by this government. As an
example, since 1982, in the health and education sectors alone,
the federal government has deprived the provinces of 48 billion
dollars-no small amount-by cutting transfers to the
provinces, a loss of 12 billion dollars just for Quebec. Members
will recall that, in his February 1994 budget, the present finance
minister again made additional cuts of over 2 billion dollars in
transfers to the provinces.
(1535)
Since meeting with his provincial counterparts, the Minister
of Finance has left open the possibility that the federal
government might make new cuts in transfer payments to
provinces. This dumping of the deficit and this scheme to force
the provinces to shoulder the burden of the cuts to social
programs are unacceptable and irresponsible.
The official opposition feels that the federal government must
withdraw from provincial fields of jurisdiction and provide full
financial compensation. After all, and in spite of what we are
often led to believe, transfer payments to provinces are not gifts
from the federal government. The money being transferred
comes from taxpayers, including Quebec taxpayers.
Between 1982 and 1992, taxes paid to the federal government
by Quebecers increased by 121 per cent. Over that same ten year
period, financial transfers from the federal government to
Quebec only rose by 50 per cent.
If the federal government makes cuts in transfer payments to
the provinces, it should also transfer to provinces tax revenues
or tax points equivalent to those cuts, so that the provinces can
assume their new responsibility.
The issue of duplication and overlap must be a priority in the
government's upcoming budget. Any attempt to eliminate these
problems will fail if it is not supported by a withdrawal of the
federal government from provincial fields of jurisdiction, as
well as full financial compensation. Our friends opposite know
that it would be irresponsible for the federal government, after
creating duplication by meddling in areas of provincial
jurisdiction, to cause a sudden and serious imbalance by
withdrawing from social programs while keeping Quebecers'
savings and taxes in Ottawa.
I wish to raise a last point. The Liberals have forgotten that the
fight against the deficit involves creating jobs. We will create
jobs not by cutting post-secondary education funds, as proposed
by the Axworthy reform, or by raising taxes, but above all by
assuming our responsibilities.
A consensus was reached long ago, in particular in Quebec, on
the generalized decentralization of everything having to do with
manpower training, job training, the re-entry of unemployed
workers into the labour force and even income security. The
time has come for the federal government to open its ears and
eyes and do what is needed to stimulate employment. It is not by
quoting the red book to us every day and telling us that their
infrastructure project has created thousands of jobs, when they
only created 45,000 casual jobs, that they will convince us that
they are concerned about employment. This government must
learn the difference between wasteful spending and investing in
human capital. That is something it has forgotten in the last year
and that is unfortunate.
Finally, last October and last December, when the Liberal
majority on the finance committee tabled its report concerning
the prebudget consultations, the official opposition made some
suggestions to put our finances back in order in the short or
medium run, but mostly on the short term. We made these
suggestions to allow the Minister of Finance to boast and to
reduce the deficit to $25 billion, or 3 per cent of the GDP, by
1996-1997.
We came up with measures to find the money where it is.
Cutting social programs will not help us to straighten out our
finances. Let me briefly recall the recommendations we put
forward.
The first thing the official opposition suggested was for the
federal government to withdraw from the provincial areas of
jurisdiction upon which it has encroached since the second
world war and from all the areas it has invaded, oftentimes by
ignoring the provincial governments' prerogatives. We suggest
that it withdraw completely from areas that belong to the
provinces, with financial compensation.
(1540)
This withdrawal must not be drastic, it must not steal away
like a thief, but in areas of provincial jurisdiction, it should give
9665
the provinces all the tools they need, especially fiscal, with full
tax points so that they can meet their new obligations. The
provinces are not asking for a handout. They just want the
federal government to have the honesty to say: We are pulling
out of certain areas, we are eliminating the costs of duplication
and overlap, and we are going to let the provinces, who are in the
best position to do so anyway, manage their own affairs, as
provided in the Canadian constitution, in the fields of health,
post-secondary education and social assistance, to name a few.
This proposal has a dual objective. First, it sets out to
eliminate contradictory policies and to allow the provinces to
adopt an integrated policy on job training, education, job
creation and health, in short truly comprehensive social
policies. Second, this proposal allows the provincial and federal
governments to reduce their operating expenses by eliminating
costly overlap and duplication in programs and services. In
Quebec alone, the cost of duplication and overlap is in excess of
$3 billion. I think it would be worthwhile for the minister to
consider this proposal.
The second recommendation from the official opposition
contained in the minority report submitted to the finance
committee in December, as part of the finance minister's
pre-budget consultations, is to stop providing subsidies to
business immediately, as these subsidies total more than $3.3
billion and are more a source of patronage than a source of
assistance for businesses facing modern day challenges, mostly
in terms of productivity and international competitiveness.
The president of the Conseil du patronat du Québec himself
made the same suggestion in his testimony. He said something
like this: these subsidies only foster competition between those
businesses which are subsidized and those which are not, and
this is unhealthy in terms of management and business growth. I
think that it is fair to say that, however much wisdom Mr.
Dufour may have displayed in the past, on several occasions, he
really outdid himself this time.
We are suggesting that the Minister of Finance immediately
cut business subsidies, in other words to forget about his
corporate chums for once and make sure that expenditure
restraint targets are met, this year as well as next year.
Third recommendation: these are times of reduced
international tensions. Experts we consulted before the last
election when the Bloc Quebecois became the official
opposition say that it is possible, practical and, in fact, desirable
that the defence budget be cut by 25 per cent. That is what they
said a year ago. National Defence's budget has since been
reduced by some 13 per cent, which leaves 12 per cent more cuts
to be made, for savings of $1.6 billion. It is definitely worth it in
times of constraint, when the Minister of Finance is actively
seeking to save. I think there is a good potential for savings
there.
We also recommended and continue to recommend that the
federal government withdraw from a huge money pit project in
which the government has already sunk over $3 billion in direct
transfers or loan guarantees. I am referring to Hibernia.
According to all the studies conducted, except government
studies justifying its continued involvement in this harebrained
project, oil prices are unlikely to rise in the next 20 years and
may even fall in relation to today's prices. If Hibernia is not
profitable with today's prices, how can it be profitable in 20
years with lower prices?
If the government really believes in sound financial
management, it should start there. I think it is an interesting
idea.
(1545)
Our fifth recommendation was that the government, the
Minister of Finance, undertake a full review of the taxation
system in preparing his next budget. We are no longer the only
ones asking, although we were the first in the last two years to
push for the establishment of a special committee, made up of
elected parliamentarians, to review the whole tax system, item
by item.
The Canadian tax system is very complex and has not
undergone a thorough review in 25 years. Some tax experts
mired in administration will, of course, tell us that changes have
been made, but these changes are nothing more than patchwork
and cannot be compared to a thorough review.
They added some provisions and removed others, and made
more additions and deletions. For example, they allowed big
businesses to hire renowned tax experts familiar with Canadian
tax loopholes. And there are many of them. We have discovered
new tax loopholes every day since becoming the official
opposition.
The time has come to undertake a thorough review of the tax
system. I do not understand why finance department officials,
the finance minister himself, the revenue minister and the
members of our third party are all opposed to this idea. I do not
understand why they are against reviewing the Canadian tax
system when many experts, if not the vast majority of them, see
this as a necessity at this time.
Our tax system-and particularly our corporate tax
system-is the most complicated one in the world. And I am not
just expressing my own opinion.
There are people in the United States, including tax experts
and economists, who simply cannot figure out our system. I
should point out that, towards the end of the Reagan
administration, the United States undertook such a process. The
Americans reviewed their whole tax system. They did not only
look at the corporate tax system, but also at the personal income
tax program. They streamlined their whole system to the
greatest possible extent. The Americans did not do that just to
simplify matters, but also to facilitate detection of tax evaders,
including those who take advantage of their financial means or
corporate income to hire experts who help them avoid the tax
man. It is
9666
now more difficult in the United States to avoid paying one's
due to the government.
Why not do the same here? Why is the government so
reluctant to follow up on our suggestions to target two sectors on
a priority basis? The first one is the tax conventions signed with
16 countries considered to be tax havens. Investment
management companies will tell you that they can easily find
loopholes. It is easy to establish subsidiaries in some of those 16
countries and take advantage of tax loopholes which will allow
you to save hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, or
even billions, in federal taxes.
Why does the government refuse to review these 16 tax
conventions? Is it because of possible conflicts of interest? Is it
because some friends of the party might be taking advantage of
these tax havens by creating bogus companies in these
countries? They also declare phoney operating losses in these
tax havens, so they can deduct them from their profits in Canada
and avoid paying taxes.
It is time something was done about this. When the
government talks about cutting back, when Quebecers and
Canadians are asked to tighten their belts and make incredible
sacrifices, maybe it is time the Minister of Finance acted
responsibly and stopped protecting his friends and the friends of
the Liberal Party of Canada, whose incomes are not necessarily
those of the average Canadian.
Tax treaties should be a priority in the next budget. The
minister should overhaul some of these treaties which are
riddled with tax loopholes.
Family trusts are another case in point. In November, and
even in his last budget, the minister tried to make a good
impression when he said he would create a sub-committee of the
finance committee to analyse the impact of family trusts on
federal tax revenues.
(1550)
The subcommittee was set up, but despite assurances that the
process would be completely open, first of all we never got the
co-operation of senior officials from the Department of Finance
who just laughed at us in committee; second, whenever we asked
for additional information and studies, the real stuff, we were
turned down; and third, before Christmas, when the official
opposition presented a motion in the finance committee to
review the policy on family trusts for wealthy taxpayers who
never have to pay a cent of capital gains tax, the committee's
Liberal majority and the Reform Party voted the motion down.
They even voted against a study of family trusts. I think that is
unconscionable.
In concluding, I have another recommendation. In his report,
the auditor general referred to federal accounts receivable still
outstanding. He mentioned the $6.6 billion, owed by taxpayers,
especially wealthy taxpayers, to the federal government. They
did not deny the fact that they owed the money, but because of
this government's spineless attitude, no attempt is being made
to recover the $6.6 billion. According to the auditor general, we
could recover 80 per cent of this amount.
If the minister needs a few more billion, we suggest that he
can get around $14 billion without even touching social
programs. It is high time government members woke up to this
fact, because people have had enough.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I listened attentively to the member's statements. As he well
knows, when leading up to a budget there is always speculation
and rumour. Indeed, what we have heard today from the member
is a lot of speculation and a lot of rumour.
The member started off by talking substantially about
somehow shifting the tax burden to low and middle income
Canadians. The member knows that when the Minister of
Finance addressed the finance committee on October 17 and 18
the very clear message was that the minister was not looking at
increasing taxes as a primary vehicle for deficit reduction and
meeting his target of 3 per cent of GDP.
As the debate and the work of the committee have gone on,
there has been no question that the committee, of which the hon.
member is a member, has concentrated on many items the
member has raised. These include the elimination of overlap and
duplication among different levels of government; the reduction
of subsidies to businesses; and dealing with loopholes that are
not illegal but were brought in to handle certain situations at a
certain time which may no longer serve their purpose.
The member also spent quite a bit of time referring to the rich
and making the rich pay. I thought it might be helpful to pass on
to the member for his information some facts that were
published by StatsCanada.
The top 10 per cent of taxpayers in Canada in 1992 started at
some $50,000 a year. Those top 10 per cent of taxpayers paid 34
per cent of all taxes. In addition to that, that top 10 per cent of
taxpayers also contributed 42 per cent of all charitable
donations.
When we are talking about who is paying for what, it is clear
we have to take into account the full dynamics of the financial
affairs of those people who are successful. I think the member
would agree that we want Canadians to aspire to do as well as
they possibly can. If we have successful leaders in businesses
and industry, we will also have successful people working
within those businesses and industry.
I have a question I want the member to deal with. He talked
about tax reform. I think most members will agree that tax
reform is an important process of this House. He talked about it
in the sense of reducing the complexity of our taxes and
simplifying them.
9667
The member then went on to talk about corporate taxation. He
abandoned the arguments about complexity on a personal level
and went on to tax havens and other exotic tax matters that do
not have anything to do with the ordinary Canadian. Would the
member care to comment on tax reform from the perspective of
making it simpler or less complicated?
(1555 )
Would he not agree that changing the way in which income tax
is calculated is not going to improve government revenues in
itself? Would he not agree that in fact we need fundamental tax
reform, not in the way we are doing things now but in the
fundamental way in which we actually assess taxation on
ordinary Canadians?
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Madam Speaker, I do not know where to start
with this question. It is huge, and it is more of a commentary
than a question as such. My statement contained neither
speculation nor rumour, it was based on fact. The facts are as
follows: since it came to power, the Liberal government has
done exactly the opposite, or just about, of what it said it was
going to do in the red book, except for infrastructure projects.
It said it would protect society's most disadvantaged; it said it
would not tax middle income Canadians. The first thing it did in
its first budget, on February 22, was cut unemployment
insurance by $7.5 billion. If these are not the most
disadvantaged-I think these are people who are somewhat
desperate. They are looking for work and have little to do as
well, because, with the tightening up of unemployment
insurance measures, whole families have been thrown on
welfare. This is what happened in my riding and in the ridings of
my colleagues as well. I hope my Liberal colleagues are still
checking on the people in their ridings.
Secondly, as for the taxation measures, in 1993 the Prime
Minister said: ``No problem, we will not tax, we will not
increase taxes or income tax''. Since we have been here, since
we started questioning the government, led off by the Prime
Minister, has not ruled out the possibility of an increase in taxes
and income taxes. So, they are looking at increasing taxes and
income tax for taxpayers, but they are not prepared to clean up
the tax system. Where is the logic? There is no way the tax return
can be simplified with the present tax legislation.
This is not what I was saying earlier. I was not talking about
simplifying tax returns. In any case, we have decided not even to
raise this issue any more. Each time we called for a simplified
tax return, senior government officials would complicate tax
returns even more. So we have stopped raising the issue. People
are beginning to get used to the present forms. What I am talking
about is an in depth reform of the tax system. I do not know
whether you have read the tax legislation for the past 40
years-it is awful.
I have tried to do my best. I have often taken those books out
of the library and have gone to consult them there as well. It is a
monumental mess. Only the experts can find their way around.
Secondly, you will admit that without this reform, we have a
serious taxation problem. Forty-five years ago, corporate taxes
accounted for 50 per cent of federal revenues, while the
remaining 50 per cent was drawn from individual taxpayers.
Now nearly 83 per cent of federal tax dollars are collected
from individual taxpayers. The remaining 17 per cent is
collected from businesses. This is an imbalance, an unhealthy
one, I would say, and people are increasingly aware of that. It is
no wonder that, just about everywhere, and I am not referring to
the revolt stirred up by Reformers, people are outraged to see
this, they see what is happening and see us walking away from
our responsibilities, they see that the government will not even
go so far as to review the tax system.
Even if it takes two or three years, it has to be done, such a
review must be done. This should have been the first step, the
first measure taken by the Liberal government. They talked
about it before the election campaign, during the campaign, and
even before bringing down the first budget and the Minister of
Finance has turned a deaf ear to it all. So has the Prime Minister.
Reformers are doing the same because it is a direct attack on
their friends, and even on a number of the people they represent
who have considerable personal assets.
This review must be carried out, I feel, and so must tax
expenditures be reviewed. There was talk earlier of tax treaties;
they really must be reviewed individually because, in this area
too, people are becoming aware that some large, very profitable
companies benefit by establishing phoney companies abroad, in
countries considered as tax havens, and thereby avoid paying
taxes. Ordinary people cannot do that. They cannot set up such
companies and, when they owe a dollar in taxes, be assured that
they are hunted down for it.
(1600)
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Madam Speaker, a motion introduced by the
Reform Party regarding the government's next budget was
debated in the House yesterday. Now the Bloc Quebecois is
taking a crack at it. Both parties' motions clearly demonstrate
that neither has what it takes to accomplish this imposing task or
to run a country like Canada, let alone an independent Quebec.
In both cases, political grandstanding takes precedence over
real and credible action. The two motions also prove that the two
opposition parties do not dare acknowledge the budgetary
principles the Minister of Finance applied in last year's budget.
I know that the historic budget he will soon table will be based
on these principles. The minister repeated several times that the
emphasis of this budget will be on spending cuts and not on tax
9668
increases. And he stressed that if tax measures must be taken,
their purpose will be to make the tax system fairer, not to
increase the tax burden of low income taxpayers, as the
opposition claimed today.
We have also clearly indicated that we believe that the first
steps that must be taken to pare down the government machine
are to downsize it and cut fluff and waste. This is what the
opposition has been telling us. We have already taken real action
on the issue.
Last week, the Minister responsible for Public Service
Renewal tabled a bill to dissolve or reorganize 22 organizations.
Taxpayers would save almost one and a half million dollars. I
understand that this is very little, really just a drop in the bucket,
but I know that this budget will be the result of the most
extensive review of government programs and operations ever
undertaken in recent history in this country.
I am also convinced that the budget will demonstrate to all
Canadians that we have the courage to do what we say we will do
and to keep our promises. We need to take action to reduce the
cost and size of government because it is vital to the deficit
reduction goals we set last year. And it is precisely this question
of the deficit, in the debates yesterday and today, which brings
out clearly the fundamental shortcomings of the two opposition
parties.
[English]
As for members of the Reform Party, eliminating the deficit
but without tax action seems to be their only concern. They seem
to think that deficit action alone will ensure Canada's economic
success and renewal. They refuse to recognize that there is a role
for government in promoting economic development and in
protecting Canadians in real need.
It is also interesting to note that where Reform sees only the
deficit, the Bloc seems to have completely forgotten it exists at
all. The result is a motion on the budget that ignores Canada's
real fiscal problems.
[Translation]
After all, the Bloc's separatist cousins in Quebec City include
a finance minister who feels that Quebec's obligations with
respect to the national debt need be honoured only when it is
convenient to do so. But our government refuses to slough off its
responsibilities. We are aware of the burden of decades of debt
and galloping deficits, which have given rise to an increase in
taxes and interest rates, and a certain mistrust on the part of
investors; all are factors detrimental to growth and job creation.
You know, the latest statements by the Quebec finance
minister did not help the province's ratings, and it is the middle
class that will pay the price.
However, our government is determined to do what is
necessary to maintain growth and create jobs in all regions of the
country, including Quebec. And in order to reach these
objectives, it is essential, and Canadians themselves are
demanding it, that we put in place an effective financial reform
strategy.
[English]
Our government believes that winning the debt challenge
starts with laying a clear, concrete and credible foundation. That
means keeping to the deficit track we set out on to bring the
deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP in three years.
That is exactly what we will do, as the minister said, ``come
hell or high water''. The federal deficit now near 6 per cent of
GDP has not been as low as 3 per cent since 1974-75, 20 long
years ago.
(1605)
[Translation]
In addition, setting specific deficit reduction goals is a
significant change from past practices. That is why our
government used a different approach. We set realistic goals and
we will take all necessary steps to achieve concrete results. Our
success in this regard will make our long-term objective of
totally eliminating the deficit more credible.
[English]
We believe it is best to set out short term targets, concrete
milestones, and achieve them. With short term targets there is no
excuse for delay, no acceptable grounds for not taking tough
action to address the problem. When we set unrealistic long term
goals, we can always find a reason to avoid tough action today,
tomorrow and the tomorrow after that.
Let us remember that we have done more than just set out a
goal. Last year's budget took dramatic bottom line action. It set
out measures to deliver $20 billion in deficit reduction over
three years. For every $1 of revenue action there were $5 of
spending cuts. No budget in a decade moved so strongly to cut
spending.
We also know that even stronger action might be necessary.
The problem is interest rates. They are much higher than we or
the private sector expected.
There is no mystery about the pressures at work. To begin
with, there is action by the U.S. central bank to control
American inflation. There is also the lingering concern about
the Quebec situation and the worry over Canada's debt and
deficit burden.
The problem is our accumulated $500 billion debt. It is so big
that an increase in rates has been a frightening wallop. Let us
remember that last year the interest charges on the debt
consumed almost $40 billion of taxpayers' money, the single
largest expense of government. Every time the rates go up one
per-
9669
centage point our carrying costs jump by $1.7 billion, and that is
just in the first year. By the third year it is a $3 billion penalty.
It is this punishing dynamic of compound interest that makes
tough budget action the right action. The fact is that we have
always recognized the need for continued fiscal action. The
1995 budget process started the minute we introduced the 1994
plan. That is why we combined immediate action with a
sweeping series of program reviews on government operations,
defence and social security reform. These have set concrete
foundations for this year's budget and the tough decisions
needed.
In this regard let me remind both opposition parties, given
their calls for eliminating government waste and inefficiency, of
the six questions that have framed our program review of
government operations.
(1) Do the program areas continue to serve the public interest?
(2) Is there a legitimate and necessary role for the government
in this area?
(3) Is the current role of the federal government appropriate,
or can the program be realigned with the provinces?
(4) What programs should or could be transferred to the
private or voluntary sector?
(5) If the program continues, how can its efficiency be
improved?
(6) Is the resulting package of programs affordable?
Before concluding my remarks I should also reiterate a point
made yesterday on the issue of tax increases. Only a foolhardy
politician would ignore the real ``tax fatigue'' felt by Canadians.
It is felt on this side as well. That is why cuts in government
spending must and will be our priority in reducing the deficit.
We proved that last year when we cut spending by $5 for every
$1 in revenue measures.
[Translation]
However, most Canadians know that in order to cut taxes in
the future and, in the short term, to ease the pressure on interest
rates and the dollar, we must bring the debt under control. And
this will only be possible after we achieve our deficit reduction
goals.
Given the magnitude of this challenge, I understand why the
Minister of Finance will not promise a budget without measures
to increase revenue. But, if such measures are included, I am
confident that they will be aimed at improving the tax system
and closing loopholes. To those who are opposed to tax
measures, I ask this: Do you really feel that the existing system
is totally effective, that there are no loopholes or unjustified
advantages? Given our financial situation, Canadians do not
want or need such stupid political games.
(1610)
I could say much more but I think that the budget will be more
eloquent. Yes, we have a long road ahead of us, but I think that
we are off to a good start. I am confident that the budget to be
tabled in late February or early March will show all Canadians
and world markets that our government meets its financial
commitments.
By doing this, we will reinforce the conviction of the vast
majority of Canadians, including my fellow citizens from
Quebec, that this country, Canada, will fulfil its destiny of
greatness and unity it deserves.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I wish I was as confident
about anything as the hon. member opposite seems to be about
everything, especially since it was the party opposite that was
the father, the parents and the grandparents of the present
dilemma our country faces today.
The member opposite is very quick to criticize opposition
parties. However it does not seem to sink into members opposite
that there is a good deal of distrust in the nation of the Liberal
government, the parents of the dilemma that our country is in
today, the very people who got us into this mess. A lot of people
perhaps mistrust the fact that the Liberals present themselves as
the people who have seen the error of their ways and are now
going to be the ones who will lead us out of this dilemma and
into the promised land. A lot of people in Canada have a healthy
degree of scepticism about the ability of the Liberals to come
through and do what they acknowledge must be done.
I have a question for the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine whom I know to be
earnest and hardworking. I honestly believe he speaks with
conviction. What in his opinion is the single most important
ingredient in getting our nation's finances back on track? What
is the single ingredient on which everything else hinges?
Mr. Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I think I will include some of
the very favourable remarks of the hon. member opposite in my
next householder.
Yes, being a Liberal I am somewhat confident. There is
confidence out there in the general population that the Liberals
can deliver. The minister said it very clearly when he said that he
would bring the deficit from a high of 6 per cent down to
approximately 3 per cent of GNP within the next three years.
This is something we are striving to do.
Of course it will not be done without any pain. We might be
talking about short term pain for long term gain. We are not
going to cut indiscriminately in every area. We still have social
9670
conscience on this side of the House. I believe it still exists
among certain members on the benches opposite.
After hearing what the member told me earlier I am convinced
a number of the members will recognize the efforts made by the
government to decrease the deficit and to make sure that we
eliminate the deficit by some time at the beginning of the turn of
the century.
It will be a long term process. This is what we have to prove to
outside investors and Canadian investors. Canadians are
expecting us to make sure that we come out with a reasonable
budget, given the situation we are faced with, so that we can look
at the future with hope and encouragement, thanks to the first
steps taken by the Minister of Finance. In the next few weeks the
course will be set.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Madam Speaker,
first of all, further to the remarks made by the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de la-Madeleine, of course Canadians as
well as Quebecers are aware of the fact that the national debt has
grown to $600 billion, with debt charges totalling about $115
million per day.
(1615)
We all know that, just to pay the interest on this debt, the
Canadian government now has to borrow money. We are also
aware of the need to paid off this debt someday, or at least to
reduce the deficit. The last budget the Minister of Finance tabled
in this House was passed with a deficit of approximately $52
billion, this being the biggest deficit ever approved by this
House.
Naturally, this budget was passed by the Liberal majority who
had approved in this House the biggest deficit ever in Canadian
history. Today, it is suggested to create a deficit to solve the
deficit problem.
The people are prepared to tighten their belts and make
sacrifices. What they will not accept is the shameless
government overspending. They have a problem with
expenditures like the $475,000 spent just recently on the
installation of the Governor General. They find it difficult to
accept that members of Parliament be entitled to a pension for
life after serving for just six years.
And this causes concern and social insecurity from coast to
coast. The concern caused by such things as the Minister of
Finance contemplating tax hikes, contemplating replacing the
GST with a tax hidden in product prices so as to be able to tax
everything that is presently tax-free, such as food, prescription
drugs and health care, is not making seniors feel any safer,
because there is even talk of taxing RRSPs.
Meanwhile, the Minister of Human Resources Development
is considering making cuts in education programs, loans and
scholarships for students, who represent our future. The
minister is considering making cuts in the UI program, which
should not be used for government administration purposes
since it is an insurance for those who lose their jobs. The
minister is also considering making cuts in the government
support to seniors and to low income families. When I think of
low income families, I am reminded of all the cuts made by the
previous Conservative government, including the subsidies to
provinces for social housing.
The minister is also considering making cuts in the subsidies
to women's organizations which promote employment and equal
pay. Then, there is the Minister of Finance who is also
considering cuts in airport and airline services, or even
privatizing these services. If the equipment is transferred to the
provinces, it is like shifting the burden onto their shoulders.
So, I ask the hon. member: Is it possible that, this year, the
government will manage to reduce its deficit without targeting
the poor and, if so, how will it do that?
Mr. Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I can assure you it was never
the intention of the Liberals to introduce budget cuts at the
expense of the most vulnerable in our society, and I said as much
in my speech.
As the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and
like the hon. member from the North Shore, I represent a riding
that has to live with financial, economic and social problems.
However, in his comments he referred to the fact that people
needed security, and I also heard him say that people thought we
spent too much money on the installation of the new Governor
General of Canada and all the activities that were organized
around this event. I would like to remind the hon. member
opposite that the Premier of Quebec is going to spend, not two
million, as he promised, but more than five million on the
commissions going around Quebec that want to discuss only one
topic: Quebec's independence. There is nothing that makes my
constituents feel more insecure, and I hear people say this. I hear
this from people in Quebec's remote areas, when they see a
provincial government that is intent on only one thing: the
break-up and, in fact, the end of the best country in the world.
(1620)
The only way we can survive is by introducing a new fiscal
policy, making certain cuts and reallocating our spending
priorities. Reallocation is necessary to ensure that we can
become leaders in important fields.
However, we must stay together, because dividing Quebec
and dividing Canada and making all kinds of statements, as the
opposition sometimes does, is not the answer. I am not
necessarily referring to members opposite, but it was the
Quebec finance minister who said recently that he felt Quebec
was not necessarily obliged to meet Canada's international
commitments in terms of paying off loans and servicing the
debt.
9671
In concluding, we want Quebecers to feel secure, and I think
we are going about it the right way. This is a caring government,
and I think the Chrétien government has proved repeatedly
during the past one and half years that we are in touch with the
grass roots, that we are fully aware of our financial obligations
in terms of the national debt and that we also realize that the
federal government has an obligation to take care of the
neediest in our society.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, for the benefit of those watching on television I would
like to read the Bloc motion once again. It is non-votable and it
reads as follows:
That this House call upon the government in its next budget to avoid any tax
increases targeting low and middle income taxpayers and to consider instead
trimming the fat from the government, eliminating tax expenditures which
primarily benefit large corporations and wealthy Canadians and collecting on
unpaid tax debts owed to the federal government.
How do we go about disagreeing with that? We cannot. It is
like motherhood and apple pie. Furthermore, it makes sense.
Why should we not be doing the things that the Bloc suggests?
As a matter of fact, we are doing most of them now.
Our party agrees 100 per cent with the notion that we should
avoid any tax increases targeting low and middle income
taxpayers. We are very adamant in saying that we should not
have any new taxes on anybody for any reason, period; not on
people, not on businesses, not on anyone for any reason, not
direct and not indirect. The reason for this is we have to
establish the political will to do what has to be done.
Earlier in questions and comments I asked the hon. member
for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to tell me what in his
opinion was the most important single thing that needed to be
done, what was the factor above all other factors that would
ensure success in eliminating the deficit and getting our
country's finances in order. For those watching and for those in
the House it is no surprise that we did not get an answer to that
question. I asked the question specifically because I wanted to
know whether the member opposite really had a sense of what
had to be done. We did not get an answer to the question. I
assumed that the member opposite did not know what that
ingredient was.
I am going to give him the answer. I am going to let him and
other members opposite know what the single ingredient is
which must be there. Without that ingredient there will not be
success. It cannot happen. That single ingredient is political
will. Members opposite control the purse strings. They have
their feet on the pedals and their hands on the wheel that steers
our nation. We in opposition can influence but we do not make
the final decision. It is the government opposite that makes the
final decision. Unless the government opposite has the political
will to do what has to be done it simply will not be achieved.
How does it go about getting this political will? What does it
take? That is why it is so important that the government not look
for tax fairness at this time. Tax fairness is not the issue.
Spending is the issue.
(1625)
If we allow ourselves as a Parliament to wriggle off the hook
instead of saying to ourselves our problem is that spending is out
of control, instead of being absolutely committed and convinced
of this and start burrowing around looking for little ways that we
can pick up a few bucks here and a few bucks there, we will very
quickly lose the political will to do what has to be done, reduce
spending.
Programs have to go. If we do not do it we absolutely will not
achieve the goal that has to be achieved. Our nation is quickly
getting behind the power curve financially.
For those present who do not understand what the power curve
means, getting behind the power curve is an aviation term. What
that means is that if a person is flying along and there is a
mountain ahead and that person pulls the nose of the aircraft up,
they will have to increase power so that they can climb up over
that mountain. If there is not enough power in that aircraft to
keep the nose up and to keep flying, they will very quickly lose
speed, lose control, spin, crash and burn.
Our nation is in an aircraft and there is a mountain of debt
ahead of us. That mountain of debt is growing rapidly through
the magic of compound interest which is people's greatest
enemy when they owe money and their greatest friend when they
do not owe money.
Here we are hurdling along in the sky. This mountain of debt
is in front of us and we have to keep pulling our nose up. As we
pull our nose up, which is increased taxes, we are losing power.
There is the point when our economy has lost so much power
because we have to keep increasing the taxes so that we can get
over the mountain we simply will not be able to do it. That is
why the political will to get our spending under control is of
critical importance.
That is not to say that there are not elements of our taxation
policy which should not be corrected. That is not to say that my
colleague and friend from St. Hyacinth-Bagot is not absolutely
correct in saying that in our tax life you have to be a Philadelphia
lawyer to fill in your tax form.
Have members ever tried to make money in this country?
People pay taxes on making money. People pay taxes on
spending money. Every time we turn around there is a
disincentive to be productive in our economy. There is an
incentive to be non-productive.
9672
We have to get those changed. We have to simplify our tax
regime in this country. As a matter of fact our hon. colleague
from Broadview-Greenwood has been working diligently for
years to introduce the single tax in Canada.
Our party is 100 per cent supportive of that but we have to set
priorities. Right now our nation and all Canadians are in a
lifeboat. We have already hit the iceberg. The Titanic is going
down and we are in this lifeboat. There are holes in the lifeboat
and what are we doing? We are talking about who should be the
captain and what colour we should paint it.
We better get some priorities together. We better be plugging
the holes in the lifeboat and bailing because if we do not, we are
going down, and we are going down together.
It does not matter if one is bankrupt in French or English. One
is bankrupt. It does not matter if one is bankrupt and cannot
afford to buy a gun. Does it matter if one has to register it? Does
it matter if one is gay or straight? One is bankrupt.
Our priority is to get our nation's finances in order. That is
what we have to do. Once we have done that, this Parliament
should rightly put its interests in all the other thousands of
things that drag us away from where we should have our noses
focused, one of which is on government spending.
We need as a Parliament to get our noses on the ground, to get
our butts in the air and work on priority number one, that which
is most important above all other things, to get the political will
so that we can make the tough decisions. We can look our fellow
Canadians in the eyes and say we have made the first sacrifice
ourselves. We have done away with this outrageous pension plan
that acts like a magnet for all the ire of everybody in the country.
(1630)
When they look at that and say: ``How can these people who
are elected to lead us write laws that protect them from the very
mismanagement they have put on to our country in the first
place? How is it that people can spend 20 years here and get a
pension that allows them to live so they do not ever have to
worry about the consequences of their mismanagement of our
economy?''
We have to restore the bonds of trust between the elected and
the electors. We have to put the rights of victims ahead of the
rights of criminals. Above all, we must get our nation's finances
in order and we must have the political will to make the very
tough decisions necessary.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am not able to
associate with this picture by my colleagues in the Reform
Party. Day in and day out they try to paint this as a sinking
country that one cannot live in and that has so many things
wrong with it.
For the third time in a row the United Nations has clearly
stated that Canada is the best country in the world in which to
live and raise a family. Twenty years ago when I came to this
country I knew Canada was the finest and best country in the
world. I say that over and over again.
I do not understand what is wrong with my colleague. Perhaps
we should establish a fund for our colleagues in the Reform
Party to send them abroad to look at the world. When they come
back to Canada, maybe then they will start talking about the
positive things that exist here. Then they could truly appreciate
all of the good things we have and will come to the conclusion
that we have to work collectively in order to make it even better.
This negativity day in and day out, the doom and gloom is not
serving anybody. It is not serving the interests of Canada.
Business people have told us over and over again: ``Give us the
tools and we will make it happen''. Government has to provide a
proper environment in order for business to create jobs and we
are doing that.
Economic indicators by all agencies, whether from Canada or
abroad, whoever we talk to, all of the economists agree that
Canada and this government is going in the proper, right
direction. We are leading the other industrialized countries in
terms of growth. According to the Minister of Finance and the
Prime Minister we are way over what we have forecast in terms
of economic growth.
What is wrong? In terms of what the government is spending
annually versus what we are getting in terms of revenue, we are
in a surplus position. However, we have a debt and interest to
pay on it.
For my colleague to turn around and attack the government
for its track record is unfair. He should stand up and congratulate
this government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance,
every member of the cabinet and government for a job very well
done. That is what he should do. Stop the doom and gloom. Talk
about the positive. Smell the roses. Have some coffee. Maybe he
would wake up.
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, it is such a delight to
respond to the hon. member opposite as he whips his rose
coloured glasses from his nose.
You do not have to be a brain surgeon to figure that if you have
been running up debts, you can live like a king if you are doing it
on someone else's money. The problem is the bank is about to
cut off our Visa card. Our Visa card, American Express,
Mastercard and our bank line are as high as they will go. We
opened up a home equity line of credit which we are using and
still we cannot pay our bills. We are going further into the hole
every day. That, sir, is the problem.
9673
(1635)
Step number one in solving a problem is that you must deal
with things as they are, not as you would wish them to be. This
Pollyanna wishing and saying that the United Nations says we
are number three in the world, why are we not number two or
number one in the world? We are borrowing it. We are going
down the hole. Our grandchildren and our children will be
paying off debts that our generation and the generation that
preceded us ran up. And these people are saying: ``Everything is
fine in the world''. It is insane.
Let me read from The Wall Street Journal about this number
one nation in the world. I am quoting Mr. Alan Reynolds in The
Wall Street Journal of Friday, October 14:
The drop in the Canadian dollar, 20 per cent since 1991, is largely caused by the
uncompetitive tax climate for both labour and capital. World investors do not like
to invest in countries with rising tax rates.
The article goes on:
The weak currency means Canadians, and the Canadian government, have
less buying power in the world. When the Canadian dollar falls, the government
needs more Canadian dollars to make the interest payments on its large foreign
debt. The increased tax rates after 1989 have thus increased the spending side of
the government's budget by sinking the currency and raising interest rates, as
well as shrinking real revenues.
Now this is not the party opposite. This is a world renowned,
respected economist from the Hudson Institute.
These are the kinds of comments, the kinds of articles that
affect our interest rate on the 30 per cent of the foreign debt
owned by other countries. Every time we make an interest
payment on that foreign debt we are putting German, Japanese,
and American people to work.
Why do you think our interest rates are five points higher than
the American interest rates? Is it because we are such great
money managers? Why do you think our unemployment rate is 3
or 4 per cent higher than the American unemployment rate, yet
our economies have matched each other for 40 years? Is it
because such masterful people have been running our economy,
the Liberals, the Conservatives, and again the Liberals?
In 1984 the Conservatives were elected with a mandate to get
our country's finances under control. They did not. They blew it.
There are two Conservatives in this House today. Count them.
The Liberals have the same opportunity today to address the
number one problem. If they do not do it there will be two of
them left after the next election, maybe. Canadians are sick and
tired of this Pollyanna attitude to what is really hurting our
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Madam
Speaker, the Reform Party member is right when he says that
Canada is heading for national bankruptcy. The hon. member is
also pretty much on target when he says that the government
lacks the will to put some order in its finances.
This lack of political will, as well as the fact that we are
obviously heading for bankruptcy, has been quite noticeable
since the Liberals took office. Foreign investors are extremely
concerned about the state of the federal government's finances.
The fact that Canada's economic situation is truly out of control
may not be the main reason why Quebec wants to become a
sovereign state, but it is certainly one of the reasons. As the
Reform member pointed out, this government lacks the will to
act.
We can accept the fact that Liberal members rise in this House
to say that Canada is the best country in the world. However,
with impending bankruptcy looming on the horizon, Canada
may not hold that honour for much longer. This reminds me of
the captain of the Titanic who, in 1912, said that his ship was the
most beautiful in the world and referred to it as ``the unsinkable
Titanic''.
(1640)
The Titanic sank, but that does not justify the fact that Canada
is experiencing very serious problems. The whole world is
aware of that, and particularly investors. Yet, this government
does not have the political will to correct the situation. This is
serious, especially since the government and the minister could
take a whole slew of realistic measures to help the economy.
However, they simply will not do that. On the contrary, the
government is bent on eliminating the debt at the expense of the
poor. And that makes this federal regime even more unfair.
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague
from the Bloc hit upon quite a salient point. We are facing yet
again this question of how we are going to survive as a nation
united with Quebec as a part of Canada.
The Bloc brings forward the notion that what is it about the
federation of Canada financially, is this country so well
managed that we could not manage on our own just as well? I
guess it does that because of the mess we are in and that
argument has some weight. In my opinion, and I think in the
opinion of most Canadians, we would all be much worse off,
Canada and Quebec, in the event of a separation. That very
question is hurting us today in interest rates.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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 Saint John-Trans-Canada Highway; the hon.
member for Mercier-Manpower training.
9674
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to add my words on the issue of Canada's financial
circumstances.
The other day I heard it described as a prize fight in Canada. It
was a prize fight between the fiscal disciplinarians, and I would
characterize the fiscal disciplinarian as our Minister of Finance,
and the social capital advocates. I would describe the minister of
HRD as the social capital advocate. This prize fight had been
won by the fiscal disciplinarians. The commentary was that this
was a tragedy for Canada because our social programs were
going to be eaten away by fiscal disciplinarians, those who had
understood and realized the depth and severity of our debt
problems.
My difficulty with that discussion and argument is that surely
there is a connection between our social programs and financial
responsibility. Surely there is a connection that will not allow
that to be broken.
I would like to go over a few individual statistics. I hear over
and over again that the way out of our debt problems is simply to
close loopholes and make our taxation system fairer.
Taxes now account for a much bigger proportion of the
average family budget than shelter, food and clothing combined.
It is a complete reverse of what is normally present in the
country. In 1961 the reverse was true.
(1645 )
There are those who say that the rich in our society should
take a heavier hit from taxes. Last year the top 30 per cent of
families, those earning $61,660 or more, paid 62.4 per cent of
the taxes. ``Let's hit them harder'', say some. To those who say
that we are not taxed too highly compared to our major trading
partner, Canadians pay $50 billion more tax per year than
Americans after adjusting for the size of our economy. We are
taxed to the eyeballs. We are taxed until we are drowning. We
are taxed so much that anyone who says we can pay more taxes is
dreaming.
I liken this to two individuals. One is a prize fighter who is
lean, mean, quick and knows all the tricks. The other prize
fighter looks like a Sumo wrestler. The Sumo wrestler waddles
into the ring and says: ``I'm going to take you on'' and does take
on the quick, alert prize fighter by lying on him and squashing
him. There is no talent in that at all.
The overweight, bloated debt in our country is a Sumo
wrestler and it is going to kill completely the prize fighter who
has the ability to move quickly, to adjust to circumstances and to
be competitive.
I tried to look for an international comparison to see if Canada
could look at some other location. I looked at New Zealand. I
took an opportunity to review what happened in New Zealand in
1984. New Zealand has a House much like ours and these same
conversations were going on in 1984. The government of the day
said: ``Everything is fine. We are in third place in the world. We
are the third best country in the world. Everything is fine''. We
heard that.
One day after the debt wall-the member opposite said not to
be so violent-I was going to say smack into the debt wall but
instead I will say gently nudge up to the debt wall and hip check
the debt wall. New Zealand did a hip check of the debt wall.
They did not smash into the wall. In one day New Zealand went
from the third highest in the world to twenty-second.
My field is health care so I looked at what happened to health
care in New Zealand in that one day. The same scenario faces
Canada. In one day they ended up with advertising on the
ambulances to pay for the fuel. To go to sick patients they had to
advertise chocolates and booze, in order to get the sick patients
to the hospital. In one day they went from a system very similar
to ours where everything was free to a system where there were
user fees for everything.
One of my friends who practised medicine in New Zealand
said: ``The tragedy for those individuals who came to the
hospital with a coronary was that they lay sweating in bed
worrying about how much it would cost''. This was from a
society that said: ``Everything is fine. All is well''. One day
later, their health care system was gone. Can members sitting on
the other side tell me that is not a problem?
What do I see in our health care system that caused me to
come to Parliament, to leave a medical practice that obviously is
better than doing this? What caused me to come here? These are
the things that caused me to come here.
First, the waiting lists for my patients were getting longer. I
am told there are no problems in Manitoba today. Hip
replacement is a 60-week wait. The standard for Canada should
be 12.7 weeks. No problems in Canada.
I watched technology in our country slipping behind other
countries. We have in Canada 1.1 MRI machines per million
people. The U.S. has lots of them. They are techno freaks so I
will not talk about the U.S. Germany, a country very close to us,
has 3.6 MRI machines per million people. Where do we go if we
need an MRI in our country? We go to the U.S. We cross the
border. We put our Canadian dollars on the table in the U.S.
(1650)
The technology that we need, that we deserve, that we must
have, is being denied by a rigid set of rules that say we cannot
provide more funds to the health care system. That might
privatize something.
9675
If an individual here needs health care should we wait for
New Zealand? I suppose that is the answer. Monumental
waiting lists will be the legacy of a government that will not
pay attention to our debt.
I had a young student face me not so long ago and say to me:
``You are so hard-hearted. All you care about are finances''. All
I care about is a health care system that will survive. If we go
New Zealand's route and I say to my grandchild that everything
is fine, my grandchild will say to me, ``You are not a good
grandad''.
Health care will not survive with a government that does not
pay attention to its debt. I will not allow that to happen.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Because the last
speaker's time ran over by five minutes on questions and
comments I will allow one comment and one question in
response.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I was somewhat surprised by the comments of the
Reform member, especially when he talked about health care.
Obviously the Reform Party wants to privatize health care. It is a
party that has not defended social programs. We are the only
party that has defended social programs in this House, in spite of
the attacks and reductions by the Liberal government.
The Reform Party has not spoken in defence of social
programs. It is obviously opening the door to privatization of
health care. Our health care system is one of the standards of
Canada, one of the hallmarks of Canada, one of the
achievements of Canada. This party is talking about privatizing
health care and giving us the model, obviously, of the American
system where if a person gets sick he or she risks going bankrupt
very quickly.
Under the cover of comments of New Zealand's problems and
success story, among all the other comments that have been
made, which unfortunately Americanize things that have been
good for Canada, he is again opening the door to a system that
has proven to be costly and wasteful and even dangerous, where
people go bankrupt if they become ill.
That is not an avenue which is very constructive. It is
probably even worse than what the federal government is now
doing. The federal government has not been doing very much in
terms of helping people, in terms of the social programs, in
terms of health care. The government in trying to reduce its
deficit has attacked unemployed people and senior citizens. It
has tried to put more debt on students. It is now even increasing
the rent of the poorest people in our society. That is what the
government is doing now, which is probably the worst thing that
I can imagine, and the hon. member is suggesting something
which is even worse.
(1655 )
I ask the member how privatizing the health care system in
Canada would improve the debt problem?
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Madam Speaker, I will have to be brief.
That was quite a discourse.
The response of the health minister in Quebec to the new
proposals from the federal health minister is quite interesting to
me. The health minister in Quebec said simply: ``Health is a
provincial responsibility. The federal government should keep
its nose out of health''. That is a proposal I strongly support.
Alberta, my province, says that Quebec has it right. We may
disagree on whether or not there is any place in health care for a
safety valve. We may disagree but surely we do not disagree that
health is an important program. Surely this is not a partisan
issue.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
happy today to speak to the motion presented by my colleague,
the member for Saint-Hyacinthe. I think it is important for the
official opposition to raise once again this pressing matter
which the government should address, but about which it keeps
on procrastinating.
The government is supposed to present its budget very soon; it
was said to be in early February; but it would appear that it will
not be until late February or even early March. The social reform
was announced for the fall; it had been postponed until winter
and now it is postponed indefinitely. In the meantime, the
situation is deteriorating, the deficit and the debt are increasing.
Why is the government dragging its heels? It is dragging its
heels because it knows it must take steps which are going to hurt.
It is afraid to do anything which will make it the enemy of the
people or which will cause the vast majority of Canadians to
hate it.
In the past, we have made many suggestions on how to solve
the deficit problem. We have offered numerous options to the
government in order to solve this problem without raising taxes,
but it refuses to listen. The solutions it favours, the only ones it
is considering are those aimed at the majority of people, namely
the under-privileged members of our society.
What we are proposing instead is that the government target
the minority of Canadians who are more fortunate, the people
and corporations which are in a position to contribute more
through their taxes. However, because these corporations, these
executives, these wealthy people are friends of the government,
it is reluctant to tackle a job which is most urgent. It refuses to
assume its responsibilities for fear of alienating those
Quebecers who are about to vote, in the referendum, in favour of
a flexible Canada, a flexible constitution.
9676
The present government is playing hide and seek, when we
require openness. In my speech, I would like to emphasize the
collection of unpaid taxes owed to the federal government.
(1700)
My colleagues already talked about other aspects of the
motion. They talked about trimming the fat from the
government. True, we could save millions by doing that, but
when we talk about trimming the fat, we do not mean simply
cutting jobs in the civil service. It is not true to say that all
depends on the number of civil servants. If there are too many,
fine, by all means cut, but I hope the cuts are going to be fairly
spread among the various provinces, not made in the way
recently announced by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal. If
a 25 per cent reduction in spending is anticipated, I hope we will
not see a 33 per cent cut in Quebec, as is expected.
That is not the only way to trim the fat from the government.
To trim the fat, we could have only one bus service to take
members of Parliament from their offices to the House of
Commons. The same bus service could be used by members of
both houses to reduce the cost. We never talked about that. Each
House wants its own staff, its own accommodations, its own
transportation system, its own allowances. We have two sets of
everything; yet we still wonder what purpose the other place
serves. However, no expense is spared.
I will not dwell on this issue any longer, because I want to
come back to what I said earlier about recovering delinquent
taxes. The auditor general made several comments on that topic.
Most taxpayers pay their taxes when they file their income tax
return or when they get a notice of assessment. But sometimes,
measures have to be taken to recover, for example, unpaid
balances or tax deductions at source. Also, an employer can
forget to remit on time to the government the tax deductions at
source. Or some taxpayers can deliberately neglect to pay their
taxes.
Let me describe briefly the situation we have. Right now,
there is about $6.6 billion in delinquent taxes, that is unpaid
taxes that should have been paid. These $6.6 billion are owed by
some 1.6 million taxpayers. These are the numbers we had as of
December 31, 1993. Of these $6.6 billion, $3.6 billion were
owed by individuals, self-employed workers, corporations, and
include source deductions by employers.
Of that amount, $900 million had been owed for less than 90
days. This was the case in 1993 for 21 per cent of taxpayers in
arrears. And $250 million had been owed for more than 90 days
on small amounts. But $5.35 million had been owed for more
than 90 days on larger amounts. This was the case for 25 per cent
of delinquent taxpayers.
Thus, of the 1.6 million delinquent taxpayers or corporations,
25 per cent, or some 400,000, representing the smallest group,
owe more than $5 billion in taxes. That is to say that each of
these 400,000 taxpayers owes a lot of tax money to the
government. These are not humble and poor people. They are
not people who are always in need.
On the Public Accounts Committee, we were told that we
sometimes go easy on the people who have some difficulty in
paying, because we do not want them to go bankrupt. We say:
``We have to be understanding. Sometimes, you know, floods or
fires occur. So companies are given more time to pay their
taxes''.
But for individuals whose income tax is deducted from their
pay cheques, not even a flood will stop their employer from
taking off their share of income tax and sending it directly to the
government. Even if a fire destroys their home, these
individuals will not be able to use the money that their employer
has already deducted from their pay cheques for tax purposes.
For salaried employees, the income tax is collected
immediately. And for those who have different means of paying
their income tax, the state is always willing to show some
understanding, which gives these people an opportunity not only
to take advantage of the system, but in many cases to abuse the
system.
(1705)
I think that the government must take action to give the
Department of Revenue more control over individuals and
corporations that owe taxes to the government. There has to be
greater control if the just society that we have heard so much
about in this country is to be reflected in the way Canadians pay
their taxes. If we want a just society, everybody must pay their
fair share of taxes. We must not have half of the population
paying taxes for the other half.
I know that my time has expired. I still have a lot to say and I
hope that the questions and comments period will give me an
opportunity to complete my remarks.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to congratulate my colleague on his remarks about
this motion presented for the official opposition by the hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. This opposition day
motion clearly demonstrates how appropriate it is to warn the
government of the consequences it will face if it continues to
overburden low income taxpayers, the have-nots, the needy, and
the unemployed, if it keeps doing what previous governments
have been doing for years, and if it does not get its money where
it should get it by following our ten point plan. Could the hon.
member for Joliette who just spoke further explain the solutions
advocated by our party, the Bloc Quebecois, in order to help the
government better understand public finances?
Mr. Laurin: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for
this opportunity he is giving me to add a few comments. Since
the tabling of the last government budget, the Bloc Quebecois
has gone out of its way to propose numerous solutions to help
reduce the deficit. One of the first measures we recommended
9677
was the creation of a joint committee on the financial situation.
The Bloc Quebecois would have participated and we could have
studied possible solutions together, out in the open. The
government refused.
Given that situation, we took a different approach. We
proposed solutions to the Standing Committee on Finance. We
asked that government pass legislation to prohibit family trusts
as we know them today, because they are tax havens for a
privileged few in our society. These are real solutions. There are
billions of dollars in those trusts.
Here in this House, and also in committee, we suggested that
the government should focus more on finance and tax control. I
have just spent the last ten minutes talking about taxes. Just
think that there are now $6.6 billion in unpaid taxes which
delinquent taxpayers will not pay; $6 billion is a lot of money
and the interest on such an amount adds up to more millions. We
asked the government to provide for stricter controls on those
overdue accounts.
We asked the government to look into the issue of businesses,
tens of thousands of businesses, which have not paid taxes over
the last ten years, in spite of profits earned in Canada. Why do
we allow those companies to profit from such a tax exemption
system, albeit a legal one? That is not normal; all taxpayers,
corporations as well as individuals, should pay their fair share of
taxes in Canada. That is another solution that we proposed to the
government.
We also proposed to slim down the government machinery.
We talked about that many times. We also asked the government
to avoid duplication in the various administration sectors,
duplication of provincial and federal spending in the same areas.
(1710)
These are suggestions that we made to the federal government
and, each time, we were met with an outright refusal. Why?
Because in each of these solutions, the government saw an
opportunity to decentralize its powers to the provinces, which it
does not want to do, because its leitmotiv is to further centralize
powers and to leave the provinces with their problems.
It is clear today that this government does not intend to make
concessions to the provinces. On the contrary, it intends to give
them more responsibilities, without the tax points which would
go with those responsibilities.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to say a few words on the opposition's motion, which
reads as follows:
That this House call upon the government in its next budget to avoid any tax
increases targeting low and middle-income taxpayers and to consider instead
trimming the fat from the government, eliminating tax expenditures which
primarily benefit large corporations and wealthy Canadians and collecting on
unpaid tax debts owed to the federal government.
It seems a bit strange that the opposition should feel the need,
on the eve of the government's second budget, to ask it to think
about getting off the backs of the disadvantaged and the
unemployed and start spreading the wealth more equitably.
However, the government has never stopped talking, in its
electoral promises and in the red book it waved about
throughout the entire electoral campaign, about equity and tax
reform. It always defined itself as the protector of the ordinary
citizen. It spoke of balance. It spoke of redistributing the
country's wealth. Yet, since it has been in office, it has done just
the opposite.
Is this surprising behaviour from a Liberal government? Is it
surprising that a government led by old crocks like the Prime
Minister and the Minister of External Affairs, old political
hacks, who have always backed down on their electoral
commitments, who have always reneged on their promises?
Let us go back a bit in the history of this moribund party. A
party without a soul, that fails to keep its promises, interested
only in staying in power to fatten up the friends of the regime,
and let them take a turn at the trough. This has always been the
Liberal party style.
Do you remember, in the 1970s, when Robert Standfield
promised in an election campaign, as the head of the
Conservative party, that he would freeze wages and prices, and
Pierre Trudeau, the head of the Liberal Party, said wages and
prices should never be frozen? He was elected on this promise.
What did he do six months after? Just the opposite of what he
said he was going to do: he froze wages and prices. That is the
Liberal party, for you: two different messages, one for the
elections, another for once they are elected.
Once they are elected, the promises are forgotten. Everything
is forgotten. The red book becomes a red, blue or green paper
depending on the occasion, and electoral commitments become
simply good intentions that, unfortunately, the current
economic situation obliges them to put off-like the
postponement of the Axworthy reform or the promises to help
the disadvantaged.
Do you also remember, in the 1980s, when the Conservatives
brought down a budget providing for an 18 cent increase in the
price of gasoline, what the Liberals did?
(1715)
There was an historic vote, which in fact defeated that
government on the pretext that an 18 cent increase in the price of
gasoline was unacceptable. The Liberals said: ``If we are voted
back into office, there will be no increase in gas prices. We will
exert better control over government spending. We will decrease
the number of unemployed. All in all, we will reduce the deficit
which has reached $13 billion''. Once again, we believed them.
Very naive, in the opinion of many Quebecers and Canadians,
9678
we believed them. And what did they do once they got back into
office? In less than a year, the price of gasoline increased by 65
cents, not 18, contrary to what they had promised.
During their term in office, from 1980 to 1985, the deficit rose
from $13 billion to $38 billion. Sixteen months went by and no
budget. In spite of this, Mr. Trudeau was travelling around the
world. They were spending money left and right. Apparently
they felt the need to interfere in all provincial jurisdictions to
counter the rise of the sovereignist movement. Public
expenditures were about $76 billion, but gradually rose to just
over $100 billion.
So much for the Liberal government. Is it surprising that we
feel compelled, as the official opposition, to enjoin the
government to remember the less fortunate, to think of its
election promises and the promises made in the red book? We
have to make the government realize and state publicly that we
remember.
I see members of the governing party lower their heads, and
well they might. They are embarrassed in their ridings. They go
to their ridings every weekend and are ashamed of all of these
cuts.
Take the first budget, for example. They had so much hope
after being elected. But no, the first budget made an incredible,
unacceptable attack on the unemployed. And yet these same
Liberals while in opposition had cried murder over the Valcourt
reform. And the cuts made by the Minister of Finance in the last
budget are 5, 10, 15 times worse than those made by Minister
Valcourt in the former government. Such criticisms have been
completely forgotten.
The Hon. Minister of Human Resources Development cried
murder when there was talk of touching social programs. Now,
he will deal the fatal blow to these programs. He proudly
defends this, completely forgetting the commitments he made
while in opposition and during the election campaign.
We could also talk about the Liberal Party of the 1980s, which
has not changed, is still run by the same people, who broke all
their commitments, even betrayed their people, for example the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in order to
rise to the leadership of, or to an important position in, the party.
So in 1980 they said: ``Do not back sovereignty. This could
jeopardize our seats. The dollar will fall to 80 cents if you do''.
At the time, the dollar was worth $1.03. Suddenly after the
Liberals came to power, the dollar sank to 69 cents.
That is the Liberal Party, and the same people are still running
it. Can we believe them when they say they will table a fair
budget? Never. So, we openly say to them: ``The eyes of the
public in Canada and Quebec are on you. They are watching you.
Your commitments are still printed in the red book and you will
have to fulfil them. We beseech you to find concrete solutions''.
As the hon. member for Joliette said earlier, we recommended
10 ways to clean up the government's finances, to trim the fat, to
make people who have the means pay and to unearth those who
bury their money in tax havens. We have repeated this many
times. We will see whether you will take into consideration our
suggestions or if you will continue to break your promises.
Now, let us recall the last speech on free trade that the Prime
Minister made in Montreal. He warned Quebecers that they will
be shut out of free trade. However, when the vote on free trade
was on, the Prime Minister travelled Canada-wide to preach
against it, to spew out lies about it. Now, he warns Quebecers
that if they declare sovereignty they may not be covered under
the free trade agreement, which he now considers as an element
that is essential to Canada's survival, even though he denied this
throughout the 1988 campaign which was based on free trade.
Two different messages, one for the election campaign, one for
when he came to power. The Liberals as they have always been.
(1720)
I will end on the following note: As a Bloc Quebecois member
and as a representative of Quebec, I remind my fellow citizens,
Quebecers, that trusting this government, trusting these
politicians, has always led to disappointment. The time is long
overdue for us to take over full power to tax and to pick and
choose the services we want to share with this federal state.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate my colleague from Richelieu on his heartfelt
speech in which he shared his past experience with the House.
Of course, he raised points denouncing the behaviour of our
Liberal friends opposite who, when they were in opposition,
criticized the Tories on the issue of cuts to social programs and
often on the tax system. He told us clearly that the Liberal Party
was not the same after the election.
I wish to ask my colleague from Richelieu if, on the basis of
his experience in federal politics, he could explain to us how a
party like the federal Liberal Party, which initiated major social
programs, which used to pay lip service to the need to defend the
most disadvantaged in society, is now cutting UI benefits and
transfer payments to the provinces for social assistance and
education, while at the same time closing its eyes to the fact that
some members of society do not pay the taxes they owe the
government. The question I want to ask my colleague is this:
Based on his experience, how did the federal Liberal Party reach
this point?
9679
Mr. Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I welcome this question.
Nothing the Liberals do should ever come as a surprise. They
will stop at nothing. But when you say that certain social
programs were instigated by the Liberal Party, make no mistake
about this party. It happens that it often formed the minority
back in those days. There was a left-center trend in Canada,
Quebec, America and even Europe then, and this leftist
sentiment often found a voice in the third party, that is to say
the New Democratic Party, who traded its support to the
government for rather important social measures. Therefore,
the credit does not go the Liberal Party for instigating the
measures, because it simply acted to ensure its survival and
remain in power.
Now, there is a shift toward the right, as can be seen with the
emergence of the Reform Party. So, what do the Liberals do?
They go with the flow, shifting toward the right, casually casting
aside any commitment or promise made and anything it has been
forced to do by the NDP in the 1970s. They are now forced by the
Reform Party to renege on all that. They are making this shift to
the right for the sake of staying in power.
The Liberal Party can also be expected to go to any length to
succeed. It has never had an ounce of social conscience. Not
only does it renege on its commitments, but this is the kind of
party that will happily squander public funds and do whatever it
takes to stay in power. You do not have to go far to find evidence
of this. Take today for example, with these Canadian flag
celebrations. This is hilarious. Have you ever heard of an
organization celebrating its 30th anniversary? Of course not.
You celebrate a 25th or 50th anniversary. And not a penny had
been spent on the 25th anniversary of the flag.
(1725)
It has now been decided to spend $1 million on propaganda
against Quebec sovereignty. They will do anything, have
800,000 posters printed, 400,000 in Quebec alone. The
propaganda effort is under way, taking up million upon million
of dollars, but that is no problem. That is the Liberal way. You
set up three floors of office space in an office building in
Ottawa, pay salaries of $90,000 to $100,000 to everyone if
necessary, and you have the money to set the propaganda
machine in motion. The Liberals will do anything, anything
short of having open and honest discussions, honouring their
commitments and going back to their red book to check what
promises were made and concentrate on fulfilling them. And
these are basically the things the Bloc Quebecois is asking for in
its motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry but the hon.
member's time is up.
[English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with intent to members of the Bloc and members of the
Reform Party. I must say I heard a lot of rhetoric from the
member for Richelieu but not many solutions to the problem he
has put forward.
I am wondering where members of the Bloc have been. A lot
of the points they have brought forward have been discussed. In
the motion they have put forward today they refer to no taxes on
lower and middle income taxpayers. As a Liberal member the
last thing I want is taxes. I think Canadians are overtaxed. As a
government and as a member of Parliament we are working
toward reducing taxes if anything. That is what the Canadian
public wants.
The member for Richelieu spoke extensively about
commitments. The recent byelections show where the Canadian
public stands and that the government has fulfilled its
commitment. That is why we won three out of three seats in the
byelections. It is a pretty good signal for the government. We are
following the agenda we put forward in the red book. We are
fulfilling those promises and we will continue to do so.
I heard both Bloc and Reform members talk about tax
increases. I have never heard the minister say that there would
be tax increases in the budget. He has said that we will have a
fair taxation system. No taxes does not mean that we do not want
fairness and equity. We want fairness in the tax system and we
want equity in the tax system. That is what the minister did in the
last budget and that is what I am confident he will do in this
budget as well.
Bloc members have talked about the other part of the motion
which deals with trimming the fat from government. This is why
I say I do not know where they have been. That is what we talked
about; we talked about getting rid of duplication in government.
Mr. Thompson: Talk, talk, talk. No action.
Mr. Dhaliwal: We took action. I do not know where the
Reform members were; maybe they were sleeping. Look at the
boards we got rid of. That bill was recently discussed. Look at
the number of patronage appointments we have dropped:
one-third. I have to hand it to the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs who has reduced the number of political appointments
from 3,000 to 2,000.
We are not a party that wants to add. We want to reduce. We
want to look at what federal agencies make sense and what ones
do not, what are duplications and where changes need to be
made. Those members should wake up. They should learn to
understand and hear, not just listen.
The bill that was before the House recently talked about a
comprehensive program review on which the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs has done an excellent job. It will look
from the bottom up in a comprehensive review.
9680
Too often government keeps adding programs. We have
learned that now is the time to do a very comprehensive review
and ask: ``Do we need this program? Does it make sense? Is
it relevant today? Is the structure correct?'' We have taken
action and we will continue to take action on those programs.
If we look at the reductions of numbers on boards, some
boards have been totally eliminated and other boards have had
their numbers reduced. We can cut but there is a limit. We can
only cut so much. I know Reform members want to slash and
burn everything totally but that is not the solution. Those
members do not understand we have to build the infrastructure,
whether it is the cultural infrastructure or the scientific
infrastructure.
(1730 )
If Reform members would listen they would learn something
but too often they are not listening.
People always want to build silicone valleys and tremendous
infrastructures. Those cannot be done overnight. But it can be
destroyed overnight by slashing the budgets. Members of the
Reform Party were the people who were against the
infrastructure program. They do not have a very good
understanding of how important infrastructure is, whether it is
the road system or the communication system. All those systems
are very important.
As a business person I know how important that is. If a
business person wants to transport goods some 100 miles away,
without a good road system it could take four hours instead of
two hours, which would be more expensive. Therefore, good
infrastructure is very important.
The members of the Reform Party keep talking about this
huge tax increase coming up. They know it is not true. Why are
they doing it? It is because their membership is dropping and
they want to increase their membership. They have sent out a
brochure with all sorts of figures. In the middle of that brochure,
lo and behold, is a membership form. What does it say? It says:
``Join the Reform Party''. It is political opportunism. Shame on
you. Let us give the reality to the Canadian public. Let us give
the truth.
We have to deal with the deficit and we have a clear program.
As I said earlier, if the Reform members would listen they would
learn but too often they have this one narrow view. Any other
view to them is totally out.
We have to deal with the deficit. We have to do it with a
rational, realistic and reasonable approach. We have set
ourselves very clear targets. We set them during the election and
we are going to follow through. We said we were going to bring
the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP in the first three years.
The members of the Reform Party had this crazy plan zero in
three. They have abandoned that and are now calling it zero in
five. They want to do it over five years now. They have realized
that it cannot be done in three years.
Part of dealing with a deficit is not only dealing with the
expenditure side but dealing with the revenue side as well. We
have to make sure there is economic growth and confidence in
the economy. Under the Reform program you would take $40
billion out of the economy over three years. Is that going to build
confidence in the economy? Is that going to create economic
growth? Absolutely not. That is why a rational and reasonable
approach is very important.
Reform members always talk about the pension-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): May I ask hon. members
to address their comments through the Chair.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, to deal with
the deficit we have to have a rational and reasonable approach
both on the expenditure side and the revenue side. We have set a
clear agenda and clear goals. We are going to fulfil the goal that
we set during the election. We continue to say that we will bring
it down to 3 per cent of GDP.
On the other side is the revenue part of it. We want to make
sure there is confidence in the economy. If you look at what has
happened, we have done that. We have had 4.7 per cent growth in
the economy. We have created 400,000 jobs. That creates
confidence in the economy where people want to invest and
make sure that we are able to create growth.
Another thing we have done is assist small businesses because
we know they create employment and jobs. We want to make
sure we reduce the paper burden on small business. We have
taken steps to do that.
(1735 )
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Dhaliwal: The member is applauding because we know
we have taken concrete steps to reduce the paper burden on
small business.
Also, in the creating of wealth, we have set a very good
agenda on the trade side. Members have seen what a successful
program the Prime Minister has put forward to ensure that in this
global economy we will be able to compete, that Canadian
business will be able to go all over the world to promote their
products, ensuring we are not left out of the global economy.
Not only do we have an expenditure program, we also have a
revenue program to make sure we deal with the current
economy.
We are going to deal with the deficit. Canadians want us to
deal with it and I am sure members from both sides will support
9681
the budget, which will deal with our difficult situation in a
rational, reasonable and comprehensive way.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.36 p.m., it is
my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order
81(19), proceedings on the motion have expired.
It being 5.36 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on
today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9681
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.) moved:
That this House, recognizing the fundamental Canadian right of religious
freedom and the courageous contributions of our veterans of all faiths, urge the
Royal Canadian Legion and its constituent branches to reconsider their recent
decision so that all of their members will have access to their facilities without
having to remove religious head coverings, including the Sikh turban and the
Jewish kipa.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the
hon. Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of
Women.
Although I proudly represent the riding of Windsor-St.
Clair, I was not raised there. I grew up in a small town, a village
actually, Thamesville, Ontario, in the riding of Chatham-Kent.
I grew up in a warm, wonderful home with caring parents, four
caring sisters, in a caring village of only 1,000 people. I grew up
thinking that our way of life, my family's way of life, the way we
related to one another, the expressions we used, our
relationships to our extended family, the food we ate and all the
things we did were just plain Canadian.
However, as I grew older and my personal world expanded,
my perception of what was Canadian changed radically. My
parents adopted three sons, my brothers, who are proud to be
aboriginal Canadians. I went to a university. I made friends with
men and women of colour, of varying religions and heritages. I
married a Jew and I raised with him our daughter in a new
multicultural world.
Eventually it came full circle as I came to know friends who
were recent immigrants to Canada from Ireland. I visited their
home. I watched their way of life, the way they related to one
another, the expressions they used, their relationships to their
extended family, the food they ate. I realized with something of
a jolt that I was seeing my own roots. There remained things in
my life that still hearken back to the Shaughnessys and the
Brennans who came to Canada in the 1840s and to the Murrays
and Bradys who came here at the beginning of this century.
I realized then that I, a fifth generation Canadian on my
mother's side, am different. I realized that I am a product of my
heritage, and I am entitled to be proud of that heritage. Pride in
my heritage is pride in my present. My heritage is very much a
part of the Canadian fabric.
Over the centuries there have been vast waves of immigration
to Canada. Aboriginal people migrated here; Europeans came.
People came from the Middle East, Africa, India, Japan,
Vietnam, Korea, China and points east. With them came their
heritage, their culture and their religious beliefs. My maternal
ancestors, like many of them, came here not voluntarily but
because of persecution in Ireland.
(1740 )
They were fleeing an artificial famine. They lost their
property and were hoping to find a place where they could live in
economic freedom and could practice their religion.
That is one very good reason why new Canadians come here
today. I say that it is the duty of all Canadians to welcome them,
their heritage, their religions and to honour their traditions and
let them practice them, just as my great-great-grandparents
were allowed to go to mass, to dance their jigs, to drink their
beer and to live in peace.
This motion is not just about the Canadian Legion. This
motion is about Canada, our multiculturalism and our tolerance
of our fellow citizens. On Remembrance Day 1993, the Newton
Royal Canadian Legion hall in Surrey, B.C. refused to permit
four Sikh veterans into the hall because of their religious
headgear.
The four individuals were a retired Indian air force technician
and three Sikh World War II veterans. Thirteen other veterans
trooped from the hall to show their support for the Sikh
members.
On entering the Legion hall, removing hats out of respect for
fallen comrades is a dearly and deeply held tradition. On May
31, 1994 delegates to the Royal Canadian Legion's national
convention voted against a bylaw that was revised by the
dominion executive council that would have required all of its
1,700 branches to admit those wearing religious headgear into
public areas of Legion halls.
Today only about 5 to 10 per cent of the Legion's constituent
branches are opposed to the wearing of religious head-dress as
they feel it displays disrespect to Canada's war dead. They claim
that it is their right to make this decision because they have a
private club. They say that because they took a democratic vote,
the majority must rule.
Both the Canadian Jewish Congress and the World Sikh
Organization realize that this decision does not represent all
veterans and is not binding on all Legion branches. I would like
9682
to point out that in zone 10 of the Royal Canadian Legion, which
is the town of Tecumseh that I represent, the city of Windsor part
that I represent and the town of LaSalle, the newest town of
Ontario which is part of the riding of Essex-Windsor, no
Legion discriminates against people based on their headgear.
I call on the Legions and I call on other organizations to
recognize that headgear and other religious symbols are simply
that. They are the symbol to that person of a deeply held belief.
The Quebec Human Rights Commission yesterday ruled that
the wearing of a veil by Muslim women is not something that
can be interfered with by the state, nor is it something that
should be forbidden in schools or in public places. The Royal
Canadian Mounted Police have accepted religious headgear as
part of their uniforms.
My father, who is a veteran and my constituents who are
veterans, are proud to march next to the many great Sikh
veterans, the many great Jewish veterans who wear kipas or
yarmulkas. They are proud to march with them and we all should
be. Instead of forbidding them from entering our institutions,
instead of giving them a hard time, we should be thanking them
for the freedoms they have preserved, so that Shaughnessy
Cohen can go to mass, so that she can serve in the House of
Commons, the freedom that others have in this society that we
would not have if it were not for them.
I call on this House to support this motion. I call on all
members to urge the Royal Canadian Legion and it constituent
branches to reconsider their recent decision.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to second the motion brought before us
and I thank the member for Windsor-St. Clair for raising this
issue today, particularly as it comes so close to the beginning of
a new year, one in which veterans will be much in our thoughts.
(1745 )
This year we observe the 50th anniversary of the end of the
second world war. We recall the Canadians who fought in that
conflict, above all those who lost their lives on the field of battle
and also those who returned after the war to continue working
peacefully for the same principles for which they had once
fought. Those principles were democracy, human rights,
freedom of the individual, and respect for people of different
appearances, cultures and religions. These principles have
become woven into the very fabric of Canadian society.
I am sure all hon. members of the House honour Canada's
veterans as well as the organization that has represented them
with such dignity for nearly 70 years. I am referring of course to
the Royal Canadian Legion. We admire its members for
upholding Canada's traditions. The most important of those
traditions are the principles for which legion members fought
and bled on our behalf half a century ago.
Back in 1986 a commemorative volume was published to
mark the legion's 60th anniversary. It is a handsome book, full
of warm anecdotes and evocative images. At one point it notes
how the legion has evolved along with the country. It states:
The people of today's Legion reflect the complex cultural mosaic of Canada.
Though they hail from diverse ethnic backgrounds from Inuit and Indian to
Greek, Jewish, Ukrainian, Polish and French Canadian, all Legion members are
united by common ideals. They are joined by a spirit of volunteerism and a
dedication to peace and democracy, patriotism and commemoration, mutual help
and wide community service.
That spirit of service has made the Royal Canadian Legion a
highly valued national institution. Through it our veterans have
gone on contributing to our country in years of peace as they
once did in wartime. It is a matter of deep regret now to find this
organization embroiled in a controversy that threatens to lower
the esteem of Canadians for this grand institution, the legion.
[Translation]
It is certainly not up to this House today to define the rules on
how members of the Royal Canadian Legion should pay tribute
to our country's victims of war. Nor should we decide how Sikhs
and Jews should practice their religion in Canada. Rather, we
must ensure that all Canadians are treated in compliance with
the law and the fundamental principles which govern our
society.
While very unfortunate, that incident forced us to reconsider
these principles and ask ourselves if we comply with them.
Indeed, this review could help us define the kind of country we
want and how we can build it. And that should be the most
significant aspect of what happened on November 11, 1993.
[English]
Imagine, Madam Speaker, that you should meet a gentleman
of the old school whose distinguished bearing is a sure sign of
his military background. He tells you that, following in his
father's footsteps, he enlisted at the age of 18 and served for
nearly 40 years in the armed forces. During the second world
war he fought in North Africa at El Alamein, Tobruk and many
other famous battles.
Since Remembrance Day is approaching, you invite this
gentleman and some of his colleagues to join with you and your
fellow veterans to mark the occasion. But when they turn up
wearing their well-earned medals, you subject them to a public
humiliation that shocks them and many of the participants in the
observant ceremonies.
It is hard to believe that such an incident could happen here in
Canada. But it did happen in 1993 when Lieutenant-Colonel
Pritam Singh Jauhal and four other Sikh veterans from Surrey,
9683
British Columbia were refused admittance to the nearby Newton
legion branch even though they were invited guests. The door
was barred to them unless they agreed to remove their turbans,
something observant Sikhs could never do.
One would have expected them to have been made welcome in
every way out of feelings of gratitude, respect for their years, or
simple hospitality. Instead, less rational feelings held sway that
day.
Though within weeks the president of the branch offered an
unconditional apology, last May the legion's dominion
convention revived the controversy by voting down a proposal
to allow religious head-dress in legion halls. The convention
thereby barred from legion premises orthodox Sikhs who wear
the turban, as well as orthodox Jews who wear a skullcap or kipa.
(1750 )
Legion members argued that their tradition requires all who
enter legion halls to remove their head-dress as a mark of
respect to those who fell in battle as well as to the sovereign. No
one can question the desirability of showing respect, but surely
there are different ways of doing this.
[Translation]
What are these issues, and why do they generate such
concern? One of them may have to do with freedom of religion,
while another is undoubtedly related to the right of all
Canadians to equal treatment, without discrimination based on
race or on national or ethnic origin. However, these rights are
part of Canada's global social and political structure. What is at
stake here is the very nature of that structure, the type of society
in which we live, as well as the kind of country which we want
for ourselves and for future generations of Canadians.
[English]
In a letter to the Prime Minister, Lieutenant-Colonel Jauhal
and his colleagues recently wrote about their wartime service:
During the second world war alongside the Commonwealth armed forces, we
too put our lives on the line to protect the Commonwealth and preserve the
democracy in which different people could live together and enjoy freedom in
peace. Irrespective of different nationalities, faiths and cultures, we all in the
Commonwealth armed forces developed comradeship, esprit de corps and
tenacity and formed ourselves into a well-knit united family. Not only did we
respect each other, we would have died for each other.
During the second world war-no Canadian comrade asked us to remove our
turban at that time. At Buckingham Palace Sikhs were allowed to appear in
turbans before the King and Queen to receive awards. In Victoria last August the
Queen met and chatted with each one of us. She did not ask us to remove our
turbans.
If there is a note of bewilderment here, I think it is
understandable. The Queen is a living symbol of Canada's
traditions as well as those of the legion. If she is able to
countenance the turban, to look beyond the headgear to the man,
cannot the Royal Canadian Legion do likewise?
The Sikh veterans who were refused admittance have filed a
formal complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights
Commission. I have little doubt that through such formal
channels they can gain a ruling in their favour. But would it not
be preferable to do the right thing willingly rather than under
court order?
There is more at stake here than simply showing civility. The
five who were turned away are Canadians as much as I am and
everyone else is in this Chamber. Whatever their appearance or
religion, they have the right to participate fully in our national
life.
Still more, all of us are impoverished if any group is
marginalized and denied full participation. Even in the case of
those who refuse to accept religious head-dress, we gain
nothing by putting the worst interpretation on their actions. In
fact, I think we misrepresent them by doing that.
The comments of legion members who voted against allowing
headgear suggest that they were acting to uphold traditions. In
the decades since they fought for our country they have seen
Canada change at a dizzying pace. Successive waves of
immigrants have transformed the face of Canadian society. This
change is thought by some to be jeopardizing our fundamental
values and traditions.
Let us recall what our traditions truly are, what being a
Canadian and possessing a generosity of spirit is all about.
Ultimately, I think we can all agree it is not a matter of
appearance. This country derives its identity and its greatness
from the principles for which our veterans fought: democracy;
basic human freedom; fairness; justice; and equality of rights
for all. Just plain decency.
By acting on these principles we uphold Canada's traditions.
By working to realize these ideals in our ever evolving
multicultural society, we show that we have not forgotten the
sacrifices of our veterans. We will always remember them.
(1755 )
I am confident that the members of the Royal Canadian
Legion will demonstrate in peacetime the same courage they
showed in battle. For all of us, they can continue to set an
example of generosity, of inclusion, and fairness.
I thank the member for allowing us to have this discussion
today.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker,
as the veterans affairs critic for the official opposition, I
welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. However,
we cannot expect the debate on the motion moved by the hon.
member for Windsor-St. Clair to provide us with the answer to a
9684
problem involving the rights of the individual and the rights of
the community. We can explain our respective positions and
comment on them, but it would be hazardous for anyone to
claim that he or she has the answer.
After establishing the principle of human rights a number of
years ago, we started to establish the boundary between
individual rights and the rights of agencies, corporations or
companies. We know that these two kinds of rights-individual
and collective rights-may or may not clash, depending on how
tolerant or intolerant people are.
Individual rights have been recognized for many years by
various charters of rights and freedoms. One that stands out is
the charter adopted unanimously by the Quebec National
Assembly in 1975. These charters recognize the right to
fundamental freedoms such as freedom of conscience and
freedom of religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of
association.
Some of these individual or collective rights may impinge on
one another. We all know this fundamental principle: one
person's freedom extends to where the other person's freedom
starts. However, although Parliament can indicate how we
should see the nature of this boundary between my rights and the
rights of my neighbour, it is up to the courts to make a decision
in disputes that may arise between conflicting rights. We can
suggest where the boundary should lie, without actually
changing anything. In this case, we think that, in time, a
consensus will develop in favour of greater tolerance.
Tolerance, and by that I mean accepting the differences of the
other person, is not always easy to accept when we are directly
involved. Tolerance can quickly turn into resistance when we
are directly confronted with a total departure from what we see
as normal.
In this particular case, the Legion tells us that the wearing of
the Sikh turban and the Jewish kipa is not allowed in the
facilities of the legion, any more than any other head coverings.
To the legion, the religious aspect of certain head covering is
irrelevant. The Royal Canadian Legion argues that an
organization has the right to impose certain rules and practices
within the framework of its activities.
This position is not consistent, however. A spokesperson for
the Canadian Jewish Congress pointed out last June that the
Legion had no trouble with cowboy hats or baseball caps. Why
the inconsistency?
At a Christmas party in 1987, a branch of the legion in Alberta
barred a Sikh wearing a turban from entering its premises,
although the hall had been rented for the occasion and the Sikh
was not a member of the legion. He then filed a complaint with
the Alberta Human Rights Commission. A tribunal finally asked
the branch to apologize and amend its discriminatory
regulations since the legion does not have the right to deny
access to public activities. The branch made minor changes
without allowing full access.
The 1990 turban scandal provoked strong negative reactions
in many branches of the Royal Canadian Legion against
legitimate differences that are not prejudicial to legion members
in any way. On November 30, 1993, Sikh veterans participating
in Remembrance Day ceremonies in Surrey, British Columbia,
were denied access to royal legion facilities because they
refused to remove their turbans.
(1800)
In February 1994, the president of a local branch in Cornwall,
Ontario was reinstated after being suspended by the provincial
branch after he spoke against the wearing of turbans. Either to
clarify the situation or to try to hold back the movement against
the religious practices of fellow soldiers, the Royal Canadian
Legion took the opportunity, at its annual convention in late
May 1994, to urge participants to pass a resolution allowing
Sikh members to wear religious head-dress on branch premises.
Those present rejected this proposal, forcing their national
president to resign on the spot. Without a national policy,
individual branches are still free to regulate access to their
facilities as they see fit. This event has stirred up many
reactions, here in the House of Commons as well as in the media.
Local chapters of the legion that have formulated or maintained
the restrictions concerning the wearing of head-dress have
pointed out that they are exercising a right accorded to private
organizations such as theirs.
In fact, the Royal Canadian Legion has its roots in a private
organization formed on July 10, 1926, which through federal
statute assented to on June 30, 1948 was incorporated as the
Royal Canadian Legion. The best conclusion that I can offer this
Chamber is undoubtedly the one that preceded us by 24 hours, in
Montreal. Yesterday, the Quebec human rights commission
published a legal opinion concerning the banning of the Islamic
head scarf. It ruled clearly that such bans were a violation of
freedom of religion.
In the same breath, however, it recalled that section 20 of the
Quebec charter of rights and freedoms allows non-profit
organizations to impose rules consistent with their objectives of
a charitable, philanthropic, religious, political or educational
nature. For the commission, this provision would not, however,
allow interference with the freedom of conscience or religion of
an individual.
The Quebec human rights commission is in a way proposing a
set of rules under which the current debate on religious
pluralism could take place. They set out clearly the legal
principles that the courts should rely on in dealing with these
issues. Although it emphasizes that the Quebec charter would
prohibit any discrimination on the basis of religion, the
commission does not recommend that the courts be asked to
settle disputes.
9685
Instead, it invites the opposing parties and the general public to
arrive at a consensus on the broader issue of conflicting rights.
This is our choice. We hope that attitudes will evolve and that
each of us will become aware of the worth of others, with respect
for the self. We invite the Royal Canadian Legion to examine the
opinions just published by the Quebec human rights
commission.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Motion
No. 310.
My fellow colleague's attack against the Royal Canadian
Legion, an independent association of veterans who risked their
lives to fight racism and oppression, is in my opinion
unfounded.
The Royal Canadian Legion is not an organization permeated
with bigots and racists-far from it. The legion is an
organization of war veterans with their own valued customs and
traditions to show respect for their fallen comrades.
Their methods of showing respect are their own and should
not be subject to parliamentary inquiry. I feel strongly that my
colleague has misinterpreted the whole issue.
During the 35th dominion convention of the Royal Canadian
Legion which was held in Calgary from May 29 to June 2, 1994
the legion passed a resolution:
Branch bylaws or house rules shall include a provision for the wearing of
head-dress in the premises and when doing so must provide that religious
head-dress is not considered to constitute head-dress in the traditional sense.
Therefore, once a person who is required to wear head-dress by his faith has
been accepted as a Legion member, or invited as a guest to a Legion branch, he is
authorized admission to all areas of that branch that are normally open to the
general membership or invited guests.
(1805 )
This bylaw clearly states that once a branch allows an
individual in as a member or as a guest that individual will have
access to all areas of the branch regardless of religious
head-dress. This is a sensible policy.
However, individual branches can comply with this bylaw as
they see fit due to their grassroots independence from the
dominion command. Individual legion branches have the right
to accept or refuse all new members, period, regardless of
head-dress. Therefore, the legion has taken effective action to
ensure that all Canadians have access to their facilities.
President of the Royal Canadian Legion, Mr. Hugh Greene,
stated after the convention: ``It is wrong to say that the
convention banned turbans. The delegates did not vote to ban
religious head-dress from branches. The vote was to rescind a
national general bylaw that imposed a dress regulation on
branches. This decision took the responsibility for branch
head-dress rules back into the hands of the branches''.
I find it hard to comprehend why my colleague wants this
decision reversed. As she states in her motion:
-urge the Royal Canadian Legion and its constituent branches to reconsider
their recent decision.
Is the return to a national general bylaw imposing a dress
regulation in the best interest of all Canadians? I do not think so.
I think it is important for Parliament to respect the right of
organizations such as the legion to make and maintain their own
bylaws. Nobody in Parliament would question the bylaws of the
Kiwanis Club or the Optimist Club. Besides, the Royal Canadian
Legion has been very generous in its interpretation of its
customs. The vast majority of legion branches are following the
resolutions passed by the conventions.
If the members across the way would listen for a minute, the
statement made was that the vast majority of legion branches are
following the resolution passed by the convention.
John Spellman, professor of Asian studies at the University of
Windsor, documented that in the past 67 years and out of a
membership of nearly 700,000 there have been fewer than six
cases in all in Canada involving turbaned Sikhs not being
admitted to Legion halls. No person of Jewish descent has ever
been turned away. The Human Rights Commission has only ever
decided against a legion branch once. Many veterans who
require head-dress for religious reasons have been legion
members for years.
My colleague's motion has called into question the integrity
of the Royal Canadian Legion and I feel strongly that I must set
the record straight. I would like to take this opportunity to tell
the House what kind of organization the Royal Canadian Legion
is.
We all know the legion was formed after the great war to help
veterans secure adequate pensions and other well earned
benefits for them and their families. Today's Royal Canadian
Legion has many other stated purposes and objectives which
include bringing about the unity of all who have served their
country, furthering the spirit of camaraderie, striving for peace,
goodwill and friendship among all nations, co-operating with
the commonwealth and allied associations with similar aims and
encouraging, promoting and engaging in or supporting all forms
of national, provincial, municipal and community service or any
other charitable purpose.
Today's Royal Canadian Legion benefits everyone in this
room and all Canadians.
9686
(1810)
Its programs have had a very positive impact throughout the
communities that are blessed with a legion branch. In 1993 the
Royal Canadian Legion's 1,720 branches contributed $63
million and over 2 million volunteer person hours to their
communities.
The Royal Canadian Legion, through its service bureau which
acts as an advocate for thousands of veterans and their families,
provided assistance to those veterans.
In 1993 the Royal Canadian Legion provided $6.8 million in
direct support and over half a million hours of volunteer time
assisting 67,000 veterans.
The legion is also active in supporting commonwealth
veterans internationally. As a member of the British
Commonwealth ex-service league, the Royal Canadian Legion
has welcomed the responsibility for assisting Caribbean
veterans through 15 Caribbean ex-service organizations in
countries such as Jamaica, Trinidad and Guyana.
The legion has also assisted peacekeepers who have been
injured during peacekeeping activities. We are all familiar with
the Royal Canadian Legion's remembrance and poppy
campaign. It raised nearly $5.2 million in 1993 which is used to
assist needy veterans and their families. It was also used to
purchase medical supplies and funds, medical research and
training.
In 1992 the legion's senior program provided seniors with
$3.9 million in direct support and contributed 400,000 hours of
volunteer time assisting 57,000 seniors. It also provided
hundreds of thousands of dollars to help train practitioners in
gerontology and geriatric medicine.
In addition, the legion sponsors Meals on Wheels and
provides transportation for seniors and disabled Canadians. It
helps them reach day hospitals, recreational activities and
medical appointments.
The Royal Canadian Legion is one of the country's leading
community organizations. It contributes tens of millions of
dollars to private charities annually.
In 1992, $10 million was earmarked for direct support of
youth activities such as the finest youth organization in the
world, the Royal Canadian Air, Sea and Army Cadets across the
country. Also, much needed money went to Scouts Canada. It
provides the children and grandchildren of veterans with
educational bursaries and scholarships.
I would like to take a moment to offer all my colleagues in the
House an opportunity to pay tribute to the good deeds of the
Royal Canadian Legion. I can only pray that the Royal Canadian
Legion remains an independent, grassroots, democratic
organization, for without the input of the grassroots, the legion
would not be the progressive community organization it is
today.
It has assisted more Canadians than any other
non-government organization I know of.
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Motion No. 310
which urges branches of the Royal Canadian Legion which do
not permit Jews and Sikhs to wear religious head dress in their
branches to reconsider this discriminatory practice.
As my hon. colleague for Windsor-St. Clair suggests in her
motion, all members of the legion must have access to legion
facilities without having to choose between their legion
affiliation and their religious belief.
As most of us know, the Royal Canadian Legion does
excellent work among other worthy things in perpetuating the
memory and deeds of the fallen. Founded in 1925 by Field
Marshall Haig, the Canadian Legion of the British Empire
Service League was organized to bring veterans' concerns to the
attention of government.
In 1960 the organization was renamed the Royal Canadian
Legion and continues to this day to act as an intermediary
between veterans and government.
[Translation]
Today, the Royal Canadian Legion is made up of 1,720
branches and has over 570,000 members. The mere mention of
the Legion conjures up the poppy campaign, the November 11
parades as well as the design and literary contest for high school
students. Indeed, the Legion has taken on the task of bringing
together, within a democratic and non partisan association, the
men and women who fought in the various branches of the
Armed Forces.
(1815 )
However, the non partisan nature of the Legion has been put in
question by the unfortunate incident where Sikh veterans were
denied access to Legion facilities for refusing to take off their
turbans. In trying to deal with subsequent allegations of racism,
the Dominion Command of the Canadian Legion put forth a
resolution to amend the rule concerning the wearing of the
Jewish kipa and the Sikh turban inside Legion facilities. It read
in part as follows:
[English]
Once a person who is required to wear a head-dress for (the Jewish and Sikh)
faiths has been accepted as a Legion member, they are to be authorized
admission to all areas of that branch that are opened to the general membership
or invited guests.
Unfortunately at the general assembly in May last year more
than 75 per cent of the legion's delegates voted down this
resolution. In so doing they placed in jeopardy the non-sectarian
nature of the legion. Those who voted to maintain a ban on
head-dress within legion premises refused to depart from a
principle to the effect that wearing a hat shows disrespect to the
fallen. The national president was so outraged he immediately
resigned.
9687
Fortunately not all members of the legion have similar
narrow views. A letter published in the February 1994 issue of
The Legion reminds legion members of the spirit of friendship
and camaraderie that is supposed to be found in legion halls.
It states:
It seems to me some of my comrades have forgotten that one of the things they
fought for was democracy and within that democracy is the right to practise
religion. If, in so doing, it means that uncovering one's head would be an offence
to one's god, then why should we be affronted? These people are not slighting the
memory of those who paid the greatest sacrifice for freedom. Instead, we should
be open minded enough to remember that some Sikh veterans fought in the same
campaigns with great distinction, and wish the fellowship of their comrades in a
Legion branch without being harassed by close minded discrimination.
[Translation]
In an effort to appease the strong public outcry against the
proposed motion being rejected, the Dominion Command urged
Legion branches to reconsider their decision. I am pleased to
report to this House that almost 90 per cent of the branches have
now passed motions recognizing the important contribution of
Jewish and Sikh servicemen in the world wars and,
consequently, repealed their discriminatory policy on religious
head-dress. Unfortunately, another 10 per cent did not.
[English]
It is important to state once again that Canadians of various
religious backgrounds, including Jews and Sikhs, have in the
past served and continue to serve with great distinction in
Canadian and other Commonwealth forces. Their faith did not
prevent them from serving and dying for their country.
In the second world war alone, 10,235 Canadian Jews served
in the army, another 5,889 in the Royal Canadian Air Force and
yet another 596 in the navy. I am sad to remind the House that
429 Canadian Jews were killed in action from 1939 to 1945, over
200 were wounded and 84 were made prisoners of war. In
recognition of their valuable contribution to the war effort
almost 200 Jewish soldiers were decorated.
Should not all veterans regardless of their gender, ethnic
origins and religious affiliation receive fair and equal treatment
by the Royal Canadian Legion?
By refusing to adopt a resolution permitting Jews and Sikhs to
wear their religious head-dress on legion premises, some
members of the legion have shown themselves to be insensitive
to the Canadian reality and to the members they are supposed to
represent.
Canada is not a monolithic society. Unfortunately some are
still unwilling to acknowledge our cultural and religious reality.
Some branches of the legion have adopted regulations that may
contravene Canadian and provincial human rights legislation.
These branches need to be reminded that Canada has a long and
well respected tradition of tolerance. The legion should reflect
upon its decision and its actions in this light.
It is sad that in 1995 some still do not accept and respect our
rich and diverse cultural and religious traditions. We must
continue to work toward better understanding among all
Canadians, not the opposite. This debate is extremely important
for it causes us to reflect on the work that remains to be done; too
much work unfortunately.
Members of the branches that have banned religious
head-dress must be made aware that the kipa is not a hat to a
conservative Jew. He does not wear it for vanity but in order to
observe a religious injunction to cover one's head before God.
With respect to the turban it is more than a simple regalia to an
orthodox Sikh. It is a powerful symbol of the mystery which
binds the man to his faith.
(1820 )
Incredibly during the Calgary Stampede some branches allow
their members to drink beer and socialize with their 10-gallon
cowboy hats fitted nicely on their heads. The rationale behind
this exemption is: What would the stampede be without our
cowboy hats? Why do some legion branches believe that a
legion member who wears a 10-gallon hat in the legion hall
during stampede is only following tradition, while a Jew who
wears a kipa or a Sikh who wears a turban is showing disrespect
for the fallen.
I am concerned that Jews and Sikhs are being denied entry by
some branches because some legion members are
uncomfortable with fellow members who look a little different
or whose headgear may demonstrate that they are a little
different. These members think that maybe they do not belong.
They belong as much as any other Canadian. Our differences do
not divide us; they enrich us.
We each have a duty to denounce all forms of discrimination.
Ironically it is in our own self-interest to do so. The Protestant
theologian Neimoller said after World War II:
When the Nazis came to get the gypsies I did not say anything because I was
not a gypsy. When they came to get the communists I did not say anything
because I was not a communist. When they came to get the Jews I did not say
anything because I was not a Jew. When they came to get me there was no one
left to stand up for me.
We have a moral obligation to strive to understand one
another as a people. Whether a Jew wears a kipa, a Sikh a turban,
a Calgarian a cowboy hat or a Torontonian a Blue Jays cap, we
are all Canadian citizens and have a right to express our beliefs
without fear of discrimination.
I urge branches of the Royal Canadian Legion which prevent
members from wearing a religious head-dress to reconsider
9688
their position so that they foster a climate of tolerance and
understanding. I believe the legion should be an agent for
tolerance and understanding within Canadian society. I am only
surprised that this is not universally the case.
The legion should never forget the principles its members
fought and died for. The legion, as should all Canadians, should
remember the eloquent words spoken by our Prime Minister on
the beaches of Normandy for the 50th anniversary of D-Day:
In death they are not anglophones or francophones, not from the west or from
the east, not Christians or Jews, nor aboriginal people or immigrants. They were
Canadians.
They died as Canadians and I think some branches of the
legion insult the memory of these Canadians by excluding other
veterans from legion posts.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Private
Members' Motion No. 310.
I would like to start by reminiscing a bit back to the sixties
when I first immigrated to Canada. I remember a couple of
incidents that happened during my early arrival to Canada that I
will never forget. One was a fairly simple matter.
When we were first invited into the homes of some of our
neighbours, my wife and I went tramping in like one always does
in Colorado where we came from. When other guests arrived and
I noticed no one had any shoes on their feet it kind of surprised
me. I asked: ``What is this? Don't you guys believe in wearing
shoes any more?'' They informed: ``That is what is done in
Canada. When we visit we take our shoes off''. I said: ``I can buy
that. I will be prepared for it, though, in case I ever have to take
my shoes off''.
The next time we went out to visit somebody we removed our
shoes because that was the way it was done. Of course when I
went back to Colorado after getting accustomed to it, I took my
shoes off when I went to visit and they laughed at me because
that did not happen there. That is fairly minor.
I remember another time my wife and I attended a community
dance. When they announced it was the last dance I grabbed my
best friend, my wife, and I said: ``Come on, let's have this last
dance together''. They finished and then they played another
song. I thought we were going to have one more. It took about
three twirls before it dawned on me that everybody else was
standing still because they were playing: ``God save the
Queen''. That was a little embarrassing. I twirled around the
floor just about three steps too many not to be embarrassed. I felt
a little strange. I can say the next time there was a community
dance I not only stood with the rest of them but I sang the words;
I learned them.
(1825 )
I tell those stories because there were a number of things we
had to get used to when we moved to Canada. Although we were
not that far apart, a number of things were different.
Another thing I remember that caught me off guard was going
into a club. It was not the legion; it was an Elks club, I believe. I
did not realize the difference in Canada. In my state they had an
Elks club. I was not a member but I always went there. In this
club in Canada I did not have a membership so I was not allowed
in. I accepted that as being the way it was. It took me and my
family a number of months to get accustomed to different things
that were happening.
What worries me about a bill of this nature is that it is a bill
that says to a certain segment of society that it does not do things
right, that we are going to legislate and do it the way it should be
done. I realize it is just a motion to encourage the legions to
reconsider. However my biggest fear is that if that is not the case
and these wishes are not followed, would it some day become
the wish of the House to legislate a rule that would affect an
organization of this type?
When we start making legislation that controls the rights of
individuals or controls the collective rights of organizations, we
are stepping out of our bounds as legislators. I do not think we
are here to start controlling things. I hope we do not get to that
point in our lives.
I hope everybody here who has feelings today will express
those feelings to the legions in the manner they should. I would
not want it to be a collective thing coming down in any way,
shape or form from the House saying: ``We know what is best for
you people out in Canada. Let's get away from that idea. We are
going to do it for you. If not then we are going to have to do some
other things''.
I recall attending a golf tournament one time. A fellow drove
about 300 miles to join us in that tournament. He came from
Peace River and the golf tournament was in Red Deer. He
walked in with his 12-year old son. Immediately the golf
managers told him that the son had to leave because he had Levis
on. Levis were not allowed. He said: ``We came a long way. He is
just going to caddy''. It did not matter. Levis were not allowed
on the course.
Are we to start going to golf courses and saying: ``You have to
change your dress code because you are offending some
people?'' Do we have to go to restaurants that say we have to
wear a coat and tie to come in? They set the rules so we do not go
in.
We should get away from the idea that we have to be involved
in controlling the situation and not leave it in the hands of good
common sense thinking Canadians. If we give them time to
9689
organize their thoughts, rules and regulations, it will come into
play where we can all be happy with it.
However when we start acting as government officials who
know best and suggesting as legislators the way it has to be, it is
wrong. It worries me that we would even consider to move in
that direction. I encourage us not to do so by means of
legislation, a member's motion of this nature or anything else.
If members wish to express their desires as they have done so
well today, they should do so to the legion clubs in their ridings
as individuals and not as a collective unit of government saying:
``It is our way''.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
first let me congratulate the member for Windsor-St. Clair for
giving the House the opportunity to debate the issue. Also let me
congratulate my colleagues who were so articulate in this
situation.
I would like to inform the Reform member that we do have a
law. It is called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms it says that we do not
discriminate. There is a item called freedom of religion. I
encourage him to take some time to look at that.
(1830 )
I do not think I can articulate better than members have
already the concern in terms of the legion and how in certain
branches-there are a few, not many-there is discrimination
against Sikhs who wear headgear.
My grandfather came here in 1906 and was one of those who
wore a turban. He would not be allowed in certain legions right
now because of his turban. That is terrible. A member of this
House of Commons would also not be allowed into certain
legions and I find that unacceptable.
I would like to leave my colleagues with an example that
happened in my riding. I think it articulates best what our young
people are thinking. I believe we have to learn from our youth.
In a Churchill high school, which I attended as a student, the
members voted to not participate in the Canadian legion poppy
fund. They gave very good reasons when they said: ``We want to
support the veterans of this country, but we cannot do it through
the Canadian legion''. The students voted in a democratic
election. The overwhelming majority refused to get involved in
the poppy fund. It was not because they did not believe in the
veterans but because of what the legion did, the discrimination
of some legion branches. That is why they refused to participate.
That is leadership. That is looking ahead. But the students
also said: ``We are going to have our own poppy fund. We are not
going to let those veterans down. We want to support those
veterans so we are going to make our own poppies''. I applaud
those students for showing leadership and for showing us which
way to go.
I am a Sikh, as many of my colleagues know. I am not a turban
Sikh because I am not an orthodox Sikh, but I can tell you that
this is very important to me. Frankly, I was disappointed in some
of the comments made by members of the Reform Party. I know
that many members from the Okanagan would also be
disappointed.
That example shows that our young people are taking
leadership. They are saying: ``We do not accept discrimination.
We do not accept bigotry. We want to tolerate people. We want to
include people. We do not want to marginalize anybody. We do
not want to exclude people. We want to bring Canadians
together''. That is what this is all about. We want to bring
Canadians together. We want to understand each other.
My own children who are seven, twelve and thirteen share
Indian food with other children. My daughter came home
singing a Hebrew song. That is what sharing is all about, what
understanding is all about, what tolerance is all about. That is
what all of this is about. Racial harmony is linked to economic
prosperity. It is also linked to a better understanding. As
Canadians we have to move forward.
There have been times in Canadian history when there has
been discrimination. We look back on it and ask: Did this really
happen? In 20 years from now we will look back and ask: Did
this really happen in Canadian history? And we will not believe
that it did.
I want to thank all the members who have articulated this
issue so well. I am sorry I do not have more time to speak. I am
sharing it with another member.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to rise in the
House today to speak to Motion No. 310 presented by my
colleague, the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.
As the House is aware, I am the first turbaned Sikh to sit in the
House of Commons. The turban is recognized by this House as
religious headgear and no restrictions whatsoever are placed
upon me. Likewise, Her Majesty the Queen has clearly indicated
that the wearing of the turban in her presence is totally
acceptable. The Queen's aide, Robin Janvrin, in a letter dated
September 13, 1991 wrote: ``I confirm that many Sikhs have
been invited to Buckingham Palace over the years. They were
not asked to remove their turbans''.
Today's motion urges the Canadian legion to recognize that
the turban is not simply a hat, but rather it is an integral part of
the Sikh faith.
(1835 )
The Sikhs have proudly served during the time of war all the
while wearing their turbans. The fact that the turban has been
recognized by the RCMP and the Canadian military as suitable
9690
dress for parade or duty should be extended to the wearing of
religious headgear in the legions.
What was World War II all about anyway? Was it just fearless
exploits and dramatic battles? Or was it about fighting for
freedom, including religious freedom at a time of virulent
anti-Semitism?
The brave soldiers of all faiths fought and died so that the
living would be respected. They died so that a religious Jew
would never be forced to remove his yarmulke and a devout Sikh
would not be humiliated by being asked to remove his turban.
On the battlefield, no one asked Jewish and Sikh soldiers to
fight and die without their religious headgear. Yet now, the
yarmulke and turban are deemed disrespectful, on par with a
cowboy hat, baseball cap or fedora.
In voting down the pleas of their own leadership to allow
religious headgear into legion halls, the convention delegates
violated the spirit of Canada's human rights laws and trampled
on traditional Canadian values.
Today's motion would ensure that this situation would not be
allowed to continue. I urge all of my fellow members in the
House to support this motion and once and for all put this
humiliating situation to rest.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from
the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9690
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, I rise
to pursue a question that I asked the Minister of Transport last
week in the House about a proposed route for the Trans-Canada
Highway through New Brunswick.
In answering my question the Minister of Transport said that
he could not address the matter because it was a provincial
jurisdiction. What the minister failed to note was that the federal
government cost shares on all trans-Canada projects. That
makes it a federal concern.
Although the ultimate route has not yet been determined, the
New Brunswick government is leaning toward the idea of an
expanded Trans-Canada Highway from Fredericton to
Moncton, New Brunswick through Jemseg Marsh and CFB
Camp Gagetown. This plan will cost an estimated $1 billion and
will cause environmental problems.
Under this plan, Saint John would not be on the Trans-Canada
Highway route. As the province's largest city, its industrial
centre and the city closest to the U.S. border, Saint John should
be directly on the TCH. In fact, this new route would also cut off
Sussex, New Brunswick and many other towns and villages
along the way.
There is an environmental assessment being done of Premier
McKenna's choice of the route. The possibility of the route
going through a designated flood plain and going through Camp
Gagetown, including one of the province's largest inland
marshes is worrisome.
Citizens groups from my province say Premier McKenna's
preference seems to fly in the face of a federal government
policy calling for no net loss of water habitat for wildlife. Even
if this is not of concern to the transport minister, it should of
interest to federal ministers of the environment and defence.
The preferable route would twin Saint John, Fredericton,
Moncton and St. Stephen and can be built for $220 million. It
could be done by upgrading the existing highways linking these
four centres. This option will make the three largest cities in the
province of New Brunswick equal and will pose no threat to the
environment whatsoever.
(1840 )
I ask the minister once again to reassure the House that the
government will not contribute one federal dollar to a
trans-Canada highway project that is not only exorbitant in cost
but may also be harmful to the environment. How could any
member of this government agree to spend $1 billion when in
fact it can achieve its objective by spending $220 million?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
her question this evening.
Highways in Canada, except for those on federal property, are
the responsibility of the provincial government. The member
knows that. It is a simple fact but true.
I do not think there is anyone in Canada who is more
knowledgeable or concerned about highways than Premier
McKenna of New Brunswick and his transportation minister, the
Hon. Seldon Lee. Therefore, quite simply, the appropriate place
to raise questions about the routing of a highway within the
province of New Brunswick is in the New Brunswick
legislature, not the federal House of Commons.
Premier McKenna is doing the best job he can and we of
course will do everything we can within our jurisdiction to assist
him in his most laudable goals.
9691
As for the choosing of the route, as I understand it, the
province hired a consultant to review the options to improve
the trans-Canada highway in New Brunswick. I should point
out the study did not involve the federal government
whatsoever. The province is working toward a four lane
highway from the New Brunswick-U.S.A. border at St. Stephen
through Saint John to the Nova Scotia border. That is its right,
its duty and its jurisdiction.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker,
yesterday, February 14, I put a question to the Prime Minister. I
reminded him that the tenors of the federal government keep on
repeating, hoping to convince Quebecers, that we do not need to
reform the constitution, since federalism is flexible and in
constant flux.
Then, I said to the Prime Minister something like: ``If you
want to be taken seriously, why do you refuse to recognize
Quebec 's jurisdiction, requested time and time again, in the
area of manpower training''. There is a consensus among all
Quebec parties in this regard. A consensus to which even the
president of the Conseil du patronat, a well known federalist,
subscribes.
Not only Quebecers share that opinion. The president of the
Canadian manufacturers' association said recently: ``Why is it
that the federal government does not let the provinces exercise
this responsibility?'' There are powerful economic arguments in
favour of it. Manpower training has to be geared to the job
market.
The Prime Minister, instead of answering my question,
said-and I can repeat it, since it is on the public record-``I
know very well that she would remain a separatist even if we
resolved the workforce issue.'' Of course.
However, what I find disturbing-and I cannot help but say it
here-is that the Prime Minister is basically saying that he could
not care less about what happens to young people, women and
all those who need this efficient manpower training, because it
is managed by the manpower agency we, in Quebec, have set up
and which is not a government body. It is made up of
representatives from the private sector, labour unions,
municipalities, and of course, a few representatives from the
Quebec government. It is an institution which should be
recognized, if only the federal government cared about all those
Quebecers who need manpower training.
The fact is that even if the federal government agreed to it, I
would still be a sovereignist. But I will tell you one thing, it is
because there have been so many situations like this one that
many people like me know now that there is only one option for
Quebecers, and that is sovereignty.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will address myself directly
to the question and not debate whether the member is or is not
going to remain a federalist.
Let me reassure the hon. member that the situation of young
people in Canada is an issue that concerns us all. Contrary to the
member's claims in her previous questions, there is no
conclusive data demonstrating that unemployment insurance
changes contained in the 1994 budget have had an impact on
provincial social assistance caseloads.
What the hon. member ignores is that new unemployment
insurance claims and the number of UI claims exhausted have
both been decreasing since the government came into power.
What is more, strong employment growth and job creation in
1994 have been the most significant factors contributing to these
decreases, bringing new UI claims down by 10 per cent.
The latest labour market data also offer hope. In January 1995
the unemployment rate for 15 to 24-year old Canadian workers
decreased by 3.4 percentage points over the January 1994 rate.
Employment is up by over 114,000 in Quebec alone since the
government came into power, including 16,000 new jobs in
January 1995.
In response to my hon. colleague's concerns about the UI
fund, she should remember that UI pays for itself through the
premiums of employers and workers and that there is still a debt
of $3.7 billion in the account accumulated over the past
recession.
As employment continues to grow in the coming year, that
debt may well be repaid, providing more room to reduce
premiums while still giving unemployed people the assistance
they need to get back to work.
I hope this answer is one the member can agree with.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)