CONTENTS
Monday, December 11, 1995
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 17471
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17475
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17478
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 17487
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 17493
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 17493
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 17494
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 17495
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 17495
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 17495
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17498
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17498
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 17498
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 17498
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17499
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17499
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17499
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17499
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17500
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17500
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 17500
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17500
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 17501
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17501
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17502
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17502
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17503
Bill C-114. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 17504
Bill C-115. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 17504
Bill C-111. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 17506
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17508
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 17512
Division on motion deferred 17515
Bill C-110. Report stage (without amendment) 17515
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 17515
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 17516
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn.) 17523
Bill C-110. Consideration resumed of report stageand Motions Nos.
1 and 2 17523
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 17526
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 17535
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 41;Nays, 197 17535
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 148; Nays, 91 17536
Consideration resumed on motion 17537
Motion negatived on division: Yeas: 42; Nays: 194 17537
Motion for concurrence 17538
(Motion concurred in.) 17538
Bill C-116. Motion for first reading deemed adopted 17538
Bill C-116. Motion for second reading 17538
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and theHouse went in
committee thereon, Mrs. Maheu inthe chair.) 17538
Bill C-116. Consideration in committee of the whole 17538
(Clauses 2 and 3 inclusive agreed to.) 17538
(Clause 5 agreed to.) 17539
(Clause 6 agreed to.) 17539
(Schedule agreed to.) 17539
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 17539
(Preamble agreed to.) 17539
Motion for concurrence 17539
(Motion agreed to.) 17539
Motion for third reading. 17539
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 145; Nays, 86 17540
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 17540
Bill C-111. Consideration resumed of motion 17540
(Motion agreed to.) 17541
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 17541
17467
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, December 11, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in accordance with
international law, recognize Quebec's inalienable right to choose its political
destiny and consequently its right to self-determination.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sorely tempted to dedicate my speech
to the member for Kingston and the Islands. You will understand
how proud I am to make this speech, because constitutional
dialogue requires a discussion, not of a distinct society but rather of
what is as plain as the nose on our face, what is an accepted fact and
a sociological reality: Quebec is a nation.
As you know, when international law recognizes the right to
self-determination, the holders of that right are individuals who
together are characterized as a people and form a nation.
First and foremost, let me state that on this side we are totally
convinced that Quebec is indeed a nation, which is to say it has its
own vernacular, controls its territory, has its own legal system, and
possesses a proud history which is the focus for its collective
feeling of belonging. Obviously, there is a fifth element in
Quebec's right to self-determination, a collective desire for it.
I feel that it would be important, to say the least, and one of the
most positive indications for our future, if this House were to
acknowledge this morning that Quebec is a nation and therefore
entitled to self-determination. An examination of international law
shows that the right to self-determination means specifically the
right to freely choose a collective destiny. Most often, but not
always, this takes the form of a referendum process.
I trust that all of the hon. members speaking in this debate will
acknowledge that Quebec is blessed with highly democratic and up
to date legislation on public consultation. No parliamentarian
could object to the fact that Quebec held a referendum last October.
Nothing could prevent Quebec from holding a referendum in 12
months, 26 months, 3 years or even six weeks if it so desires, to
determine freely its collective future.
There is a paradox here, because to foreign observers, even those
well up on the Canadian political scene, constitutional reform has
been central to the political debate in this country for the past 30
years. When we started talking about constitutional reform 30
years ago, there were two tendencies. One said patriate the
Constitution first and include a Canadian charter of human rights.
Mr. Trudeau chose to take the same position during the eighties,
but the fact remains this was already being discussed in the early
sixties.
There was a second tendency, mainly in Quebec, to say that the
important thing was not necessarily patriating the Constitution
which at the time, I may recall, had no official French version
while half of its sections were already obsolete, so Quebec's
political leaders said, and I am sure the hon. member for Kingston
and the Islands will remember this, that the important thing was not
necessarily-that was how Quebec's leaders felt at the time, in any
case-to patriate the Constitution but to revise thoroughly the
balance of Canadian federalism, which meant reviewing sections
91 and 92.
This would be the position held by all Quebec's leaders,
whatever their political stripe, from Jean Lesage onward. Among
those who succeeded Lesage, there would be this insistence that for
Quebecers, the crucial point was not the Constitution as that last
trace of colonialism but the fact that Quebec should have a certain
number of powers which were sadly lacking. It was on this basis
that constitutional reform was to begin.
Of course the process, which would go on for 30 years, gave rise
to a number of political doctrines. Some people became experts on
the subject, including Richard Arès, who spent much of his life
examining the national question. Of course there were many others,
and we can say that during the past 30 years, constitutional reform
has given rise to three major political anchors for Quebec.
In the 1960s, the idea that Quebec should have a special status
was picked up by Gérard Fillion, who, at the time, was editor in
chief of Le Devoir. This marked the first attempt to amend the
Constitution and to change the colour of the constitutional debate.
17468
With Le Devoir, Gérard Fillion and a number of other intellectuals,
it was felt that all of Canada's institutions required reworking.
There was even talk of the Senate. There was increasing discussion
obviously of an official languages act as well. There was a feeling
of special status. In other words, the fact that Quebec, in addition to
being a province, was a nation and had a special responsibility
towards all French speakers in this part of North America had to be
recognized.
(1110)
With this idea of special status, it became clear that Quebec had
to be seen to be a French society in a binational context expressed
in all of Canada's major institutions.
This idea was set aside to some extent and gave rise, a bit later,
about five years later, to the idea of associated states. Those who
remember the political and constitutional debate in Quebec will
remember this idea. The idea of associated states or two nations, on
an equal basis, involved the idea of full equality, an idea that
reached a much fuller and much more concrete conclusion with the
idea, proposed by the Parti Quebecois and its president and founder
René Lévesque, of sovereignty association.
The common denominator, however, in these three ideologies,
these three constitutional doctrines, is that Quebec is a nation. Each
time a Quebec premier went along to the constitutional table, it was
in this context. There is a reason for our always making this claim
as one of Quebec's constitutional demands, including in Victoria.
I found that a little funny. As some veteran members of this
House will recall, the Victoria formula was not only about regional
vetoes but also about giving Quebec more power over language and
social policies. According to then Premier Robert Bourassa,
however, that did not go far enough.
Will the House of Commons, which is supposed to be a fairly
accurate reflection of Canada, have the courage to recognize that
there are two nations in Canada and that one of them will therefore
probably move toward full and true sovereignty? This, of course,
will be achieved through a referendum to be held in coming
months.
Yet, it is difficult to understand how, 30 years after initiating the
debate on constitutional renewal, we are now considering Bill
C-110, which all but ignores the major constitutional demands
traditionally made by Quebec. Even without going as far as
recognizing Quebec's right to sovereignty in a bill, how can a
Prime Minister such as the one now in office, who has been a key
witness to the events of the past 30 years in Quebec, believe that he
will satisfy a single Quebecer with a bill offering nothing but a
hypothetical veto that is not even enshrined in the Constitution.
What prevented the Prime Minister and his government from
considering Quebec's major constitutional demands and ensuring
that federal spending powers are defined in Bill C-110, for
example? For the past 30 years, this has been part of a set of
demands that have been renewed by every successive
administration and government.
If the Prime Minister had been serious, he would have included a
minimum of demands in Bill C-110, namely to limit federal
spending powers, resolve the issue of residual powers, give Quebec
more power over language matters, and recognize that Quebec is
the only authority on language.
Even the Pepin-Robarts report, that Pierre Elliott Trudeau liked
quoting from ad nauseam, recommended, besides a Confederation
Chamber, the notion of recognizing Quebec as distinct, because,
through its National Assembly, the Quebec government is the only
real government ever to have been run by francophones in this part
of the country. What would have kept the Prime Minister from
recognizing that Quebec does have, regarding language, certain
prerogatives?
The key issue of manpower is also at the heart of Quebec's
demands. But this issue does not basically mean that, within the
context of national standards, the Government of Quebec will be
allowed to manage a program. That certainly was not what all the
people who, in the past 30 years, recognized the need for Quebec to
manage what could be call globally labour market policies had in
mind.
(1115)
Now the situation emerges where Quebec is told: ``You will have
the right to take back manpower programs, provided however that
your program is compatible with our national standards''. That is
the crux of the problem.
How can they think that national standards could be established
regarding something as changing and fluctuating as the labour
market, when we know full well that, even within an economic
space as small as the Quebec economy, labour market policies vary
from region to region. The reality in the Gaspesian Peninsula is not
the same as in Montreal. We find ourselves in a relatively
disturbing situation, to the extent that those who launched the
constitutional debate, those who worked to ensure that Quebec is
treated more fairly and more in accordance with its status as a
nation within Confederation, now find themselves with a
constitutional proposal that is disappointing to say the least.
We could have gone a lot farther. That is part of the list of
demands. What keeps us from recognizing Quebec as a distinct
society? The term ``distinct society'' is absolutely meaningless.
Just ask Library of Parliament researchers to go through the
literature on international law. They will not find a legal basis to
the effect that we are a distinct society. That concept is absolutely
17469
meaningless in terms of what Quebec truly is and in terms of its
nationhood.
The government, and in particular the Minister of Justice, who
seems somewhat reluctant, will have to take notice of that. We
understand that the Minister of Justice may not the best informed
person regarding claims made by Quebec in recent years, but there
are well informed people in cabinet, including the Minister of
Labour, who has some experience on the Quebec political arena,
and who may miss it at times. In any case, there are people in this
government who know very well that Quebec is a nation, that it has
a right to self-determination, like any other group forming a people
and a nation, and that nothing will keep Quebec from holding
another referendum when it chooses to do so. Quebec will hold a
referendum when it has democratically decided to ask its citizens
to make the inevitable choice.
In a debate like this, we cannot help but think of someone like
André Laurendeau. In some respects, André Laurendeau is like a
spiritual father to the Bloc Quebecois because he too, in his days,
believed it was important to have a sovereignist front right here in
this Parliament, to protect Quebec's interests.
For several years, André Laurendeau was the member for
Montréal-Sainte-Marie. He accepted Lester B. Pearson's
invitation to co-chair the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission. When
he and his team tabled the preliminary report, the white paper, I
think he understood something which is at the heart of the present
political and constitutional wranglings in Canada. You will recall
that he wrote ``Out of disappointment will come the irreparable''.
The irreparable, of course, is sovereignty.
André Laurendeau had clearly understood that the federal
regime's inability to acknowledge that there are two nations which
must be treated as equals, that there are two nations in fact and in
law which must engage in dialogue and treat each other as perfect
equals, and that from this inability of the federal regime and those
who personify it to recognize those two nations the irreparable will
ensue. The irreparable will be-already is-that feeling. There is
great satisfaction in seeing that in less than a decade the soverignist
option has made a ten per cent gain.
(1120)
There are not many examples of an idea which was initially
perceived as being really marginal ending up with democratic
backing that has become more and more solid; it is now headed
toward a majority.
We are not wrong in this. I would like to state in closing that we
in Quebec are committed, as is the rest of Canada, to engaging in a
dialogue on the basis of what we are, through and through, which is
a nation. Discussions between nations are on a totally equal
footing. That equality will be made official in a democratic
referendum, which will be Quebec's next rendez-vous with destiny.
It is my belief that today's debate ought to afford an opportunity,
particularly on the government side, for recognition that Quebec is
a nation, that it is entitled to self-determination, and that this right
to self-determination justifies its demands for full and complete
sovereignty.
[English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have read the hon. member's motion and listened to him
very carefully. Despite his sincerity I have to tell him and the
House in the strongest possible terms that there is no provision in
international law which would recognize Quebec's effort to
become a separate, independent state.
In the months leading up to the Quebec referendum on October
30, many statements were made regarding international law and the
right to self-determination. Unfortunately those statements have
led to confusion and especially a false impression that international
law gives Quebec the right to secede from Canada.
Quebec has no right to secede from Canada unilaterally either
under the Canadian Constitution or under international law. There
is no principle of international law according to which Quebec has
the right to secede from Canada. This is the conclusion that was
reached by five international law experts who produced a study on
the question at the request of the National Assembly's 1991
commission on Quebec sovereignty.
As one author put it in that recent study on self-determination,
the inhabitants of Quebec ``do not have a legal right under
international law to secede from Canada''.
What then is meant by the right of self-determination? A
statement of the right is found in various international documents.
For example, the charter of the United Nations states that one of the
purposes of the United Nations is to develop friendly relations
among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and
the self-determination of peoples.
The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of
self-determination. Affirmation of a people's right of
self-determination is also found in the United Nations 1970
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly
Relations.
We must note immediately that these documents speak of
people's right to self-determination, not the right of a province, not
the right of a county, not the right of a city. In Quebec there are
several peoples: the descendants of New France, the aboriginal
nations, the Inuit, the descendants of the British settlers and many
17470
immigrants who simply call themselves Canadians. We have to be
very clear on that point.
Within the Canadian federation there is one province of Quebec
but there are many peoples in that province, a point to which I will
return in a moment. The first question to be answered is what does
the right of self-determination mean? This is a difficult question
which may be best answered by first looking to what is not
included within a right of self-determination in international law.
Most important, a people's right of self-determination is not the
same thing as a people's right to secede from an existing state. In
most situations the right of self-determination must be exercised
without causing any detriment to the territorial integrity or political
unity of existing states.
The United Nations 1970 declaration on friendly relations states
that the exercise of the right of self-determination must not
dismember or impair, totally or partially, the territorial integrity or
political unity of sovereign and independent states. This means that
a right of self-determination must, except in unusual circumstances
where a people is subject to a non-representative government, be
exercised within the context of existing states. A people's right of
self-determination then means the ability to participate fully and
freely in the democratic process of governing the existing state.
Certainly the population of Quebec participates fully and freely in
the democratic process of governing Canada. This was the
conclusion of the five international law experts who prepared a
study for the national assembly's 1991 commission.
(1125)
Canada is a federal state in which the province of Quebec has its
own national assembly that exercises exclusive powers under the
Canadian Constitution over such important subjects as property
and civil rights, natural resources, education, health and social
services and the administration of justice, among other things.
At the federal level, representatives from the province of Quebec
hold roughly one-quarter of the seats in the House of Commons.
Many of Canada's prime ministers, including the current Prime
Minister, have come from Quebec. Quebec is and has long been
well represented in the federal cabinet. The Leader of the
Opposition is also from Quebec. Quebecers, therefore, play a large
role in governing the nation both through their own national
assembly and through their representation in the federal Parliament
and government.
Quebec has its own legal system, based on French civil law.
Quebec is always represented by three of the nine appointments to
the Supreme Court of Canada. The current chief justice is also from
Quebec.
Quebecers also benefit from a strong set of cultural and
linguistic guarantees under the Canadian Constitution, under
federal legislation, such as the Official Languages Act, and through
various programs and activities. Cultural initiatives are strongly
supported by Radio-Canada, the Canada Council, the National Film
Board, Telefilm Canada and other Canadian institutions. Therefore,
the population of Quebec enjoys everything that a right to internal
self-determination implies.
Since self-determination is a right of people, there has never
been a consensus exactly on what the term people means. To some,
people is synonymous with the population of a state, such as the
Canadian people, especially where the entire population of the state
participates fully and freely in the governing of the state. Others
take a broad view that the term people means any group that meets
certain basic criteria, such as common language and history, along
with a sense of collective identity.
Given these different views of what the term people means, it is
not self-evident that the political entity known as the province of
Quebec, which embraces a diverse range of people and a diverse
range of cultures and linguistic groups, would qualify for the
spectrum of people able to assert the right to self-determination.
Quebecers have had a direct say on their future within Canada
through two referenda held in Quebec in the last 15 years. In both
1980 and 1995 a majority of Quebecers reaffirmed their
commitment to Canada and rejected attempts to break up the
country. Even had the result of the referendum been yes to the
question formulated by the Parti Quebecois government,
international law would not have recognized the yes vote as a legal
basis for the creation of a new state.
International law demands that a political entity meet several
specific criteria before it can be considered a state. Along with
satisfying these criteria, a political entity trying to achieve
statehood must also receive international recognition. Recognition
by other states is both an acknowledgement that the new state
meets the criteria of statehood and an expression of willingness to
enter into relations with the new state.
Therefore, any movement toward the independence of Quebec
would not only be without legal foundation in international law, it
would have to meet the legal criteria for statehood and the practical
necessity of international recognition, which in both cases would
be extremely difficult.
In conclusion, and in response to the motion before the House,
there is no right in international law for Quebec to secede from
Canada. To imply otherwise, as this motion does, is to depart from
international law in contravention of Canada's right to continued
existence.
17471
(1130)
Those who support such a proposal as is before the House today
are living in an unreal world of illusion and misrepresentation. I
suggest the House reject this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on behalf of the Reform Party to speak against this motion on
Quebec's right to self-determination. I want to thank the hon.
member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for presenting this motion
and thus recognizing the right of this federal Parliament to debate
and judge this question.
[English]
In speaking against this, it is the position of the Reform Party
that Quebec has no inherent right under international law to
self-determination because it is neither a colony nor an occupied
country, and that the Quebecois are probably not a people within
the meaning of international law. For this I cite almost exclusively
the work of the Bélanger-Campeau commission on the sovereignty
of Quebec. The strongest argument in support of the view that
Quebec is neither a colony nor an occupied country is found at
pages 382 to 383 of its report:
[Translation]
``According to those who support Quebec's accession to
sovereignty, the right to self-determination constitutes the basis of
the alleged right of the Quebec people to form a distinct state, but
pursuing the same reasoning, many of their opponents and the
spokespersons for most aboriginal peoples take the position that:
[English]
If Quebec can opt out of Canada then obviously sections of
Quebec that preferred to remain part of Canada could opt out of
Quebec.
[Translation]
This analysis is based on a postulate we believe to be erroneous,
according to which the right to self-determination implies the right
to independence''.
[English]
The report then suggests on pages 419 to 422 that the principle of
self-determination implies the right of people to participate in
shaping their political, economic, social and cultural future, and
that due to the principles of respecting the territorial integrity of
states, self-determination could result in independence only in the
rarest circumstances.
The report suggests the principle really only applies to
non-autonomous or colonized people who have been recognized as
such by the United Nations. This is clearly not the case in Quebec.
[Translation]
And this quote again from page 422: ``On the evidence, that is
not the situation of Quebecers nor that of the various minorities
within Quebec's territory''.
[English]
For non-colonial peoples, self-determination has ``at least for
now stopped being a principle of exclusion and became one of
inclusion; the right to participate. The right now entitles peoples in
all states to free, fair and and open participation in the democratic
process of governance freely chosen by each state''. The report
goes on at page 425 to endorse this position.
[Translation]
Another quote: ``One cannot reasonably maintain that Quebecers
are colonial people nor that they are deprived of the right to their
own existence within the Canadian federation or exercise their
democratic rights. Consequently, the Quebec people have no legal
basis for invoking the right to self-determination to justify a future
accession to independence''.
[English]
The conclusion of the report is clearly stated:
[Translation]
``From the legal point of view, a possible accession to sovereignty
by Quebec cannot be based on the principle of the equal rights of
peoples and their right to self-determination, which implies the
right to independence only in the case of colonial peoples or of
those whose territory is occupied by a foreign power''.
[English]
The second point is that the Quebecois are not a people within
the meaning of international law. Even the Bélanger-Campeau
commission is not sure whether the Quebecois constitute a people.
At page 418 the commission recognizes that the Quebecois can
either be French speaking or English speaking. At page 425 the
commission states:
(1135)
[Translation]
``Some authors have tried, with some success, to establish the
existence of a Quebec or, alternatively, French Canadian people''.
[English]
Although the commission is not explicit, undoubtedly its
members were aware that for the purposes of international law, a
nation is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as follows:
A people, or aggregation of men, existing the form of an organized jural society,
usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language,
using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from
17472
other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not
necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.
Obviously given the ethnic and sociocultural make-up of modern
Quebec society, only the pûre laine Quebecois could arguably be
considered a people. While they constitute a majority of the
Quebec population, they do not constitute a majority in each region
of Quebec. This produces a curious result, that if the Quebecois
pûre laine are a people and if they have a right to secede, they could
not claim the right to territorial integrity. Therefore Quebec
separatists cannot have this both ways.
If the strict definition of the word people is applied, only the
aboriginal people in the north would likely qualify. This is clearly
not in the interest of sovereignists and quite probably the reason
why the Bélanger-Campeau commission did not explore the point
further.
While Quebec does not have the right to self-determination, this
does not mean that whatever Quebecers decide in a referendum is
unimportant from a democratic standpoint. We in the Reform Party
have said it is very important. However, the Government of Quebec
would also have to admit to the importance of a large number of
Quebecers opting for federalism. So far it continues to be a
majority. Even if a minority opted for Canada this would also
constitute an important democratic fact which the Government of
Quebec would have to take into account.
From the standpoint of the Reform Party and I believe from the
standpoint of the majority of Parliament, the motion is not based on
international law or fact. Quebec does not have the right of
self-determination other than by negotiating its future in Canada
and with the rest of Canada.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga for a sparkling
address which had the added advantage of reminding me that I have
been there before. My colleague, the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, also brought me back to time past.
I advise the hon. member opposite to beware of experts and
especially people who claim the title of expert. I was also invited
and gave evidence as an expert before l'Assemblée nationale de
Quebec on these and related issues. I admire and respect the five
experts who have been cited very often by the Quebec government
and others for their different interpretations. They are experts but I
would have thought in other domains than those in which they gave
their opinions which might suggest that perhaps l'Assemblée
nationale did not do its homework.
I have little difficulty in returning to the point made by my
colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, in
international law. There is no explicit joining of the right of
self-determination which is a comparatively recent principle of
international law with the fission or break-up of existing states or
with the outright entry into independence.
If we trace the history of this principle, it is related, as so many
things in contemporary constitutionalism are, to Emperor
Napoleon and the liberating ideas of the French Revolution which
sometimes are put forward without necessarily the intentions of the
founders.
The spirit of liberalism, the spirit of nationalism and the spirit of
independence are somewhat antinomic and conflicting principles
of the heritage of the 19th century, the 19th century of the French
Revolution, and carried through into the 20th century in Woodrow
Wilson's 14 points. I suppose the apogee of the concept of
self-determination as a historical imperative, not a legal one,
meaning the break-up of large multinational states, was reached in
the Treaty of Versailles.
(1140)
The tragedy is that it was a principle carried historically to its
logical and perhaps foolish conclusion. Most historians today
would trace as one of the causal factors of the conflict in World
War II the creation of a vacuum in central Europe by the creation of
a plethora of mini states, incapable of forming common economic
policies and incapable of co-operating militarily to resist the larger
threats from the east and west, from Nazi Germany and from the
Soviet Union.
This is one of the reasons why in San Francisco in 1945 the
principle of self-determination represented a learning from the
lessons of history and less enthusiasm for the categorical
imperative that some had asserted: that every time one is identify
as a nation or a people-the terms in the UN have been used
interchangeably and somewhat confusedly-one did not have to
break up a state to assert one's right of self-determination.
The classic demonstration of this is the principle that the hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce referred to, friendly relation
and co-operation among states. It was a symbolic ending of the
cold war. It is the last great act of east-west relations. It
supplements the United Nations charter. It is a code of conduct
between communist Russia and the west when the cold war is still
on.
It contains this very important historical exception. It was agreed
by all parties that there was nothing in the principle of
self-determination put in the declaration of friendly relations
requiring the break-up of existing multinational states, specifically
federal states like Canada and the claimed federal state, the Soviet
Union, which specifically were adverted to in the friendly relations
conference agenda.
One can find it over the whole 10 years of the history of this. It
was pleasant to be reminded of it. I wrote several books that I
thought were persuasive on this some years ago and it is nice to
have them brought back.
17473
Let me come back to present reality. If members look at the
situation in Bosnia, at Yugoslavia, I suppose some might even
argue that what has happened there is worse than what existed
before, a centralized authority imposing unity on a multinational
society.
If self-determination led to the break away, members can see the
rule of reason emerging in the current settlements. One saw
immediately with the Vance-Owen plan for Bosnia 11 cantons on
the Swiss model, and one said it will not work. There is no legal
imperative requiring it. It historically does not make sense.
As one follows, as Secretary General Boutros-Ghali has, the
trend away from Vance-Owen to Owen-Stoltenberg to what we
could call the Clinton or the Dayton plan, there is the 11, now down
to 3. The implicit element in it is that two of the three may rejoin
their neighbouring states, their so-called mother states.
What we are really saying is we live in a period of historical
transition where the main historical currents are contradictory. The
trend to supra-nationalism, the imperative of larger and larger
regional supra-national associations, economic, political, replacing
the old military one, is accompanied by a fragmentation which
most historians would regard as a pathological condition today.
The future of the world community is not a series of little
Basutolands, enclaves within larger states; nor is it breaking up
viable economic political units into a plethora of smaller units. It is
basically in recognizing that the lesson of today is constitutional
pluralism. People can work together. A state that can successfully
combine several different peoples or nations, if one wants to use
those terms interchangeably, is a stronger state.
The unity comes from the diversity in the original sense of the
term used by the great Austro-Hungarian and late Israeli
philosopher who coined the term community of communities. It is
that larger concept.
To a certain extent when self-determination is preached there is
the false statement that international law requires it. It does not.
International law is neutral. In a certain sense it is running counter
to the preferred view of how history is unfolding: an
interdependent world community and larger and larger associations
transcending national frontiers, rendering nationalism in its
pathological sense out of date, and making Bosnia-Hercegovina
and the conflicts there an absurd survival at the end of the 20th
century of an anarchic past that is better left behind. The nation
state has been the master institution of western European thinking
for the last 300 years, but it is out of date.
(1145)
This is the biggest lesson. There is no international law
imperative here. There are lessons of history but there are good
historical trends, trends that rest upon sound scientific evaluation
of the past, and there are the bad lessons. It is for us to choose on
this basis.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for
presenting this motion, which I have here before me, and all other
members who gave very well documented presentations on the
subject.
It would be interesting to see the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce patriated to the National Assembly, if he
tries to run for election once Quebec has opted by way of
self-determination to obtain its sovereignty.
Historically, the Canada of today, of 1995, which is also the
Canada of 1867, was created with the consent of the partners who
joined the Canadian federation.
You will permit me to quote the first ``whereas'' from the British
North America Act of 1867. It reads as follows: ``Whereas the
Provinces of Canada [Upper and Lower Canada], Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united
into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle
to that of the United Kingdom''.
There are, however, three other ``whereas'' clauses. The first
``whereas'' is crucial. The text continues: ``The Queen's most
Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, in this present
Parliament assembled''-that is the Parliament of the United
Kingdom of 1867. The imperial Parliament of 1867 would never
have enacted the British North America Act without the consent of
the colonies, of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the Provinces of
Canada to form the Dominion of Canada, as we know it now.
So the consent of the colonies already established at the time of
Confederation was vital to the existence of the Canadian federation
as we know it today. Its existence is contingent on the continued
consent, at least of the well-defined colonies that made up the
preconfederational British North America and that were joined by
the colonies of the Pacific coast, essentially today's British
Columbia and, in 1949, the Dominion of Newfoundland, which
decided to join the Canadian family.
We can see from the documents approved by the imperial
Parliament following the Charlottetown and Quebec City
resolutions that the consent of the colonies at the time was
fundamental to the creation of the present federation. If
constituents withdraw that consent at some point-and the real
constituents are those who were asked in London: ``Do you give
final approval to the Quebec resolutions we agreed on?''-and this
is what the British Parliament did in 1867. This was within their
right; for all practical
17474
purposes, they ratified the Quebec resolutions by giving them
force of law. For all practical purposes, the imperial Parliament
gave up its legislative authority over British North America in
1982.
(1150)
As my colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve pointed out
earlier, Quebec has, of course, a people, a language, a territory, a
history, rules and regulations, legal institutions, and a common will
to live together, which are the basic requirements in exercising the
right to self-determination.
I want to focus on the issue of territory. As we recently heard,
our Reform colleagues, in particular their leader-I think the hon.
member for Calgary West put less emphasis on the issue, since he
felt uncomfortable with his leader's position-, would like to turn
Quebec into a Switzerland-type country, that is to say, full of holes
with enclaves and removable parts. This essentially amounts to
asymetrical federalism at its best.
I see that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands belongs
to a totally different school of thought; he is already fully
committed to Quebec's right to self-determination.
Although the hon. member for Calgary West was uncomfortable
about explaining his party's position, he still referred to this
Swiss-cheese Quebec, this Quebec full of holes.
One of the basic elements of the right to self-determination is
territorial control. The Quebec National Assembly, our provincial
legislature, has control over the territory it was given under the acts
that led to establishment of the 1912 boundaries, according to the
interpretation given by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
in 1927. These are the present boundaries of Quebec, stretching
from the Outaouais to the Magdalen Islands, and from the
Gaspesian Peninsula to the Abitibi. This territory is clearly defined,
here, with the Ottawa river, as well as with the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, the U.S. border and the polar circle.
These are clear boundaries, over which the Parliament of Quebec
has absolute power, and no one is challenging that. When we hear
Quebec being described as Swiss cheese, full of holes, with
enclaves, corridors and ports that would remain under federal
jurisdiction, that does not reflect the reality.
No one is disputing the authority of the Parliament of Quebec
over the entire territory of Quebec. Every rule of international law
recognizes that a people, a nation has authority over the territory
under its control at the time it achieves sovereignty.
If the people of Quebec had voted yes to the question put to them
on October 30, there is no doubt that Quebec would have control
over the entire territory of Quebec. No one is denying that every
RCM, municipality and local government in Quebec is subject to
the legislative and constitutional authority of the Parliament of
Quebec under section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
That being said, in order for the territorial integrity of Quebec to
be affected, the suggestion-I would say the seditious
suggestion-would have to made that some portions of Quebec
rebel against the legislative authority of the Parliament of Quebec,
which neither Reform members nor our other colleagues in this
House are suggesting.
I think that the greatest lesson we were taught by the October 30
referendum and will be again in the future is the fundamental
respect not only for our institutions and our territories but also,
fundamentally, for the people. Because sovereignty is not
something that happens first and foremost at the institutional level
but fundamentally at the grassroots level.
Because we have been living for decades, and even centuries,
under a regime that largely reflects British values and precedents,
we have a tendency to rely more on institutions than on the peoples
for whom these institutions exist. However, when a people wants to
achieve self-determination, there is a basic obligation to respect
that fundamental choice.
(1155)
On October 30, Quebecers said no to the question put to them.
And it is with the utmost respect for democracy that everyone
accepted that decision, even though it was, for all intents and
purposes, taken by the smallest of majority.
In a democratic system, the rule is 50 per cent plus one. In this
case, it played in favour of the no side. Had the results been
reversed, the Prime Minister himself said that he might not have
recognized them. But the rules cannot be set once the game is over.
These rules must be agreed on before the beginning of the game.
For example, it would be preposterous if, during a final between
the Toronto Maple Leafs and the New York Rangers, the governors
of the league decided, at the end of the best of seven series, that the
series would now be a best of nine, because Toronto won. Again,
the rules are established before the game begins. And the rule here
is that the people is sovereign.
I am pleased that the hon. member for Saint-Henri-Westmount,
who is here and who supported Bill 150 in Quebec's National
Assembly, which affirmed Quebec's right to self-determination,
now sits in this House, because she will hopefully convince her
colleagues from the Liberal caucus of the validity of these claims.
This said, I will have an opportunity later today to speak at the
report stage on Bill C-110 and to talk more about the bogus veto the
government wants to give every man and his brother.
17475
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before giving right of reply
to the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, under whose
name the motion we are presently debating stands, I want it to be
very clearly understood by all members of the House that his will
be the last words spoken on the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I consider our debate particularly rewarding. I believe the
word ``gall'' will pass in parliamentary language, but I will use the
word ``nerve'' instead. It takes a certain amount of nerve on the
part of our colleague and continued friend for Calgary West for him
to rise in this House and say we are not a people, because, as the
people of Quebec watching will have understood, the member, in
his sometimes unparliamentary spontaneity, clearly said that he did
not consider Quebec was entitled to self-determination, because
Quebecers were not a people. I find something extremely
disquieting in the desire to engage in dialogue on this basis.
I realize that there has been a federalist movement in this House
and throughout our history. It is entitled to be heard and to speak. I
do not think, however, that you will find many in Quebec, whatever
the family, who will not acknowledge that we are a people.
Quebec's parliament, the National Assembly, has in three
official documents acknowledged that Quebecers are a people and,
in doing so, has accorded the province the right to
self-determination. These documents, which have been fairly
unanimously approved are: the act to establish the commission to
determine the political and constitutional future of Quebec, the act
respecting the process for determining the political and
constitutional future of Quebec and the motion of the National
Assembly of 1991.
When I was a student, I read with pleasure, whether the reading
was assigned or optional I read with equal pleasure, the writings of
the member for Vancouver Quadra, who joined with Senator
Beaudoin in writing a book. I thought he belonged to a school that
recognized Quebecers as a people. It is true that our being a people
does not automatically entitle us, under international law, to the
right to secede. What prompted the five legal experts to conclude
that we did have the right to secede was the rejection of the 1982
Constitution. There is a convention in international law which says
that a people cannot decide by itself it has a right to
self-determination unless that right has been recognized. As part of
their grounds for determining the right to self-determination under
international law they used the fact that Quebec did not ratify the
1982 Constitition through the most legal of channels possible.
(1200)
At any rate, as the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve I
understand, as do my colleagues, that in a democracy one cannot be
more sovereignist that democratic. One is equally sovereignist and
democratic, but by virtue of being as sovereignist as we are
democratic, we are well placed to understand our right to hold a
referendum in future. No smoke and mirrors on the part of the
federal government can deny Quebec the right under a law passed
by the National Assembly, a law on public consultation, to go to the
people and offer them the opportunity to choose and to mandate
their government to accede to sovereignty.
When that day comes and there is a majority behind that
mandate I am sure our colleagues, both in the government party
and in the Reform party, will understand that they have no choice
but to sit down at the negotiating table and engage in a dialogue on
the basis of total equality, nation to nation, as should have always
been the case.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96, this item is dropped from the Order
Paper.
[English]
Later today the House will go through the procedures to consider
and dispose of the supply bill. In view of recent practices, do hon.
members agree that the bill be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
17475
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
On the Order: Government Orders:
December 1, 1995-Minister of Human Resources Development-Second
reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development of Bill C-111, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-111, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, be
referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to refer the
new employment insurance bill to the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development. By referring the bill directly to
the committee, we signal our commitment to invite and engage the
largest amount of direct public participation.
17476
This bill was derived from the very extensive public
consultation which has taken place over the past year. The work
of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development has
pulled together much of that information and has provided
extraordinarily valuable input toward the development of the
original legislation. It is our hope that by giving the committee
the earliest opportunity to listen to Canadians and hear their
various points of view, we can improve the legislation even further
and ensure that we get an active and involved commitment and
engagement.
We all recognize that this is important legislation. It affects the
lives of millions of Canadians. It is a major restructuring and
modernization of a bill which will provide for new opportunities
for people to get work and to have a hope of once again being
employed.
We have come up with an approach which has been carefully
constructed and is balanced and fair. It may not satisfy one special
interest or the other but it does provide a proper equitable balancing
of interests across Canada. We believe the bill is consistent with
what Canadians want. We listened very carefully to them and we
listened very carefully to what the committee said.
What we have heard is directly reflected in many of the
recommendations and parts of the legislation. It upholds our
responsibility to ensure the program is based on solid insurance
principles while at the same time provides a strong combination of
incentives which enable people to get back into the job market. It is
about jobs; it is about people. It is about jobs finding people and
people finding jobs. It has shown that we as a government and as a
Parliament can construct a new system. We can restore for many
Canadians an opportunity to once again become full participants in
Canada's labour market.
(1205 )
If it is shown, as I believe it can be, that legitimate
improvements and constructive proposals are needed, we will look
to the committee to bring those ideas forward and apply its
judgment and wisdom in that application.
For example, in the last week or so we have heard that some
areas are concerned about work patterns in parts of Canada. We
hope that the committee will take a careful look at that.
Minority groups have expressed concern that they will not have
full access to training because of the new development of
transferring training to the provinces. Some are concerned that
their rights be protected. We certainly hope the committee will take
those matters into account.
We are also very interested in how the transitional jobs fund will
work to create good, solid, long term jobs for people who are in
high unemployment areas. Again, we expect and hope that the
committee can provide major guidance in this area.
These are just some of the issues I believe the committee may
want to look into.
We should not lose sight of the hard evidence that has been
provided throughout the debate which has been encouraged over
the last week. The House and the committee will be looking at how
the new program will extend eligibility for coverage under the
program to over 500,000 Canadians, something they have not had
before. We demonstrated that the change of going from a weekly to
an hourly based formula will be equitable, particularly for tens of
thousands of seasonal workers who work long hours for short
periods of time and who could not qualify under the old system, or
who were not given full credit for all their hours of work.
We have also spoken about the innovative family income
supplement which has been widely approved across the country. It
will provide 80 per cent of benefits for families of low income,
those earning under $25,000, mainly single parents, by introducing
a form of guaranteed annual income which has been talked about in
this country for a long time. As a result, over 350,000 low income
families will receive on average 7 per cent to 15 per cent higher
benefits in the new program than under the old program. This is a
true, progressive, liberal-minded initiative.
[Translation]
I mentioned new partnerships with all levels of government and
of the opportunity for federal, provincial and municipal
governments to concentrate their efforts where it counts, at the
local level, in our communities, while respecting the
responsibilities of all concerned.
[English]
In the brief time I have today I want to go back to the importance
of developing this partnership for jobs, bringing the levels of
government together to work in common, harmonize and work in
partnership so that we can help create employment for Canadians
in every part of Canada.
A key impact of this reform has to do with income. Not benefits
but income. Providing ways for people to earn more money, to
sustain themselves, their families and their communities is a key
component of the objectives of the program. Many unemployed
Canadians need more than just income support as a bridge between
jobs. The new employment insurance system will build a better,
stronger, wider bridge to help them make a more solid, long lasting
connection to the work world.
The employment benefits we are proposing are made up of five
new back to work measures and provide real, positive help to get
people back into jobs. We have tested these measures and we know
they work. We know that wage subsidies can help level the playing
field for people facing a disadvantage in the workplace, especially
women and young people.
17477
I want to underline that we are seeing a 70 per cent to 80 per
cent improvement in job retention, allowing 14 to 15 more weeks
of work and up to $5,000 more a year in income earnings. This
is far more than would be received under a benefit program.
[Translation]
Self-employment assistance will help people start a business.
During the past two years, this program has helped 30,000
individuals start their own business and thus has created 60,000
jobs for Canadians.
[English]
Also in these employment measures are the job partnership
projects. For example, one in New Brunswick is now enabling
1,000 older workers who lost their jobs in the forestry industry to
go back to work, particularly in reforestation, rebuilding a
resource, replanting for the next generation. They are now involved
in passing on their skills and doing so in a rewarding and satisfying
way.
(1210)
There is also the individualized skills, loans and grants which, if
the provinces agree, will enable people to use the opportunity to
upgrade themselves so that they can get the new jobs available in
the new economy.
Another tool, the income supplements, will increase the incomes
of people by encouraging them to take jobs sooner. For example,
this will help unemployed single parents to get back on their feet
and gain new skills and experience. The early analysis of a
self-sufficiency project we have been running in British Columbia
and New Brunswick shows that the average hourly starting wage
during the first year was $7.63 and that one-third of the participants
were making at least $2 more than the minimum wage. Thirty-five
per cent of single parents offered supplements leave welfare to
work within a year compared to an average of 2 per cent or 3 per
cent under normal circumstances. Again it shows that the tools
work and work effectively.
We will be investing $800 million on these five extra tools of
savings. This will be added to the existing $1.9 billion of our
programs. There will be a total of $2.7 billion in helping people get
jobs. Those who dismiss this reform as mere cuts should reflect on
this number and what it represents in terms of new opportunities
for Canadians. It means that 400,000 unemployed workers will get
additional help to find a job. Therefore, those who are opposed to
such reforms are basically saying to over 400,000 Canadians that
they do not want to help them.
This legislation is designed to provide the opposite, to provide a
new bridge and a new tool. I can only say we are very much looking
forward to the active and engaged work of the committee. We hope
it will provide us with an opportunity to hear the best judgments
and accumulated ideas of Canadians and in particular, to let the
committee help formulate the legislation in a way that can most
effectively service its basic opportunity, which is to get people
back to work.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I simply want to advise the
House that for the purposes of this debate, hon. members are
entitled to 10-minute speeches, without questions or comments.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
official opposition deeply regrets that the government should resort
to this exceptional procedure and thus deprive the public of
information, of a debate, televised for the benefit of individuals
across Canada, on this extremely important bill.
At this stage, according to the usual procedure in Parliament for
dealing with bills, we would normally be on second reading, and
the official opposition would be entitled to one 40-minute speech,
followed by 20-minute speeches by as many members as wish to
speak. We could then propose amendments and keep the public
informed.
The official opposition and the third party play a crucial role in
ensuring that citizens are aware of the subject and substance of a
bill as important as these unemployment insurance reforms which,
over the years, will affect hundreds of thousands of Quebecers and
Canadians.
However, within the very short time frame we have been
allowed, we will hardly have time to say that this bill, despite all
the denials of the minister and his attempts to claim the opposite,
and despite the improvements he will make in the bill, and we will
certainly participate in that process, that basically this bill is aimed
at making more savage cuts in benefits for the unemployed.
(1215)
This $2 billion in drastic cuts is in addition-I can never repeat it
often enough-to this year's cuts of $735 million in Quebec and
$620 million in the maritimes. Quebec will lose another $640
million by the year 2001.
Contrary to what the government implies, $800 million of this
additional $2 billion will not be set aside for other active measures,
as the information papers we have been given clearly specify. It is
right there in black and white.
The truth is that this $800 million from the UI fund will replace
the $600 million that used to come from the consolidated revenue
fund, which means that, in reality, all of Canada will get only $200
million more over five years. What is true is that $600 million will
come from the UI fund rather than the consolidated revenue fund,
as indicated in the papers and information given to us by senior
officials during the briefing.
17478
The reality of this bill is that qualifying for UI will become
much more difficult for women, young people, seasonal workers,
new immigrants, and all those not already eligible. It will become
much more difficult in a labour market of precarious, short term
jobs that often arouse feelings of anxiety, frustration and
despondency in those trying to make a living in such a market.
This reform targets certain classes of persons. It is directed at
specific job markets, starting with the Atlantic Provinces and
Quebec.
Looking at the charts prepared by senior officials of Manpower
and Immigration Canada, we are astounded to find that certain
classes of persons, namely repeat claimants, seasonal workers and
newcomers, are indeed larger in eastern Canada and Quebec.
I think it is safe to say, at any rate, this is not a matter of human
nature because this would mean that human nature has special
characteristics in the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec that it does not
have in western Canada. It is not human nature that is different, but
the job market.
The official opposition will be participating very actively in this
committee. Not only will we listen to every person or group of
persons who want to come and tell us what is wrong with the UI
plan and who expect this plan to really be an employment insurance
plan but we will also denounce, every chance we get, this unhelpful
attitude of hiding a deficit cutting measure behind fancy rhetoric.
(1220)
The official opposition will make every effort to ensure that
workers, in fact any person who may have to rely on UI, can have
access to it in the way that is the most beneficial to them. Yes, some
active measures are required, and we in Quebec have implemented
such measures and asked for such measures to be implemented, so
that people can have access to benefits derived directly from
premiums paid by workers and businesses.
Having listened to the people of Canada and Quebec, we know
that these active measures designed to help people find a job must
not in any way take the place of jobs. We were told right across
Canada, because we did tour the country, that the real issue is
employment. It is not the will of people to work: it is employment.
Sure, we must do everything possible to help people qualify
when there are jobs available. However, we must also stop making
the jobless feel guilty by saying that it is their fault, particularly in
light of the dramatic increase in the number of people actively
looking for work, who can no longer tolerate not being able to live
decently, have some hope, and have some stability in order, for
example, to have children.
This bill seeks to introduce twisted family policy measures, and
we do not hesitate to say so. What is needed is a true family policy.
As for the UI program, it should help by bridging the gap between
jobs. Active measures should be left to the decision makers who are
best able to decide. Quebec, as we know, wants to have total control
over manpower policies.
It is unfortunate that the government withheld the information
that would have put Canadians on track, in terms of the reforms
needed, instead of merely making speeches that do not reflect
reality.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
history of unemployment insurance in Canada dates back to 1919
when the concept was first discussed. It finally became a legislated
labour market institution under the government of Mackenzie
King.
Let me read some of the quotes from that great debate in 1940
which focused on the original intent of unemployment insurance:
We recommend to your government the question of making some provision
by a system of state social insurance for those who, through no fault of their
own, are unable to work, whether the inability arises from lack of opportunity,
sickness, invalidity or old age. Such insurance would remove the spectre of fear
which now haunts the wage earner and makes him a more contented and better
citizen.
I have a second quote:
How much unemployment there will be and over what period it will last is
impossible to forecast. But, whatever it be, there must be a great deal of
unemployment which can only be dealt with in one of two ways: either by a
considered scheme of insurance or by state doles, hurriedly and
indiscriminately issued when the moment of crisis arrives. There can be no
question which is the better way. State doles lead straight to pauperization. A
well devised scheme of insurance preserves the self-respect of the worker and
assists and encourages him to supplement it by provision made industrially
through an association.
(1225 )
I am well aware that we are debating a motion to refer this bill to
committee prior to second reading and that the government will tell
us that doing so is supposed to provide the committee with greater
opportunity to make amendments to the bill. However, as we all
know, the fact is that this mechanism which the government
introduced into the standing orders shortly after taking power, has
been consistently used to limit debate in the House and as a
mechanism to speedily move controversial legislation through the
parliamentary process in a manner which minimizes opposition.
I vehemently oppose sending the bill to committee prior to
second reading. I believe that every member of Parliament should
have an adequate opportunity to speak to the bill in the House of
Commons, where they may both pose and respond to questions
from their colleagues and opposition members. By drastically
limiting debate, the government is demonstrating its complete
disdain for such a parliamentary process.
17479
Nevertheless, this is a House of free speech and I have written
something which reflects my view of Bill C-111. Goodness knows,
it is always a challenge to pique interest in House debates. In any
event, I give the House my version of the 12 days of Christmas.
On the first day of Christmas the Minister of Human Resources
Development, known as HRD, having no understanding of the
meaning of insurance, gave us one more long awaited non-reform.
Carried along on the mantra of job creation, we received our year
end Christmas gift: employment insurance.
On the second day of Christmas the minister of HRD, having no
understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us two
hard-working Canadians who, despite their considerable financial
contributions to UI over all of their working lives, died without
ever having received a penny of benefits: taxed to the grave.
On the third day of Christmas the minister of HRD, having no
understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us three French
Canadian leaders who, to no one's surprise, babbled on incessantly
about Quebec and how unemployment in Quebec was distinct from
all other unemployment in the rest of Canada and who felt, as
always, that no one understood them.
On the fourth day of Christmas, the minister of HRD, having no
understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us four calling
premiers from the Atlantic region; calling for this, calling for that
and finally, completely worn out from all of the calling, the
minister of HRD called it quits to reform and went back to
tinkering.
Five suffering regions, formally known as ten equal provinces,
are all demanding more from less. Regional development
boondoggles remain an active ingredient in the magic of creating
jobs, jobs, jobs.
On the sixth day of Christmas the minister of HRD, having no
understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us six government
strategists laying future plots for further tax grabs. After all, the
implementation of the employment insurance scheme does not
begin until July 1996, with a phase-in period to full implementation
extending to the year 2000.
On the seventh day of Christmas the minister of HRD, having no
understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us seven assistant
deputy ministers swimming in UI cash surpluses. These new found
friends of the finance minister will help him meet his deficit target
of 3 per cent of GDP in hidden taxes, EI premiums and not reduced
spending.
On the eighth day of Christmas the minister of HRD, having no
understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us eight milking
tax collectors who targeted the part time worker, the working mom
and the small business owner. So much for tax relief; just
continued taxes on the tax oppressed.
On the ninth day of Christmas the minister of HRD, having no
understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us nine drumming
seasonal workers who expressed outrage at being encouraged to
accept available jobs in the shoulder season. But the government
forgot to mention that under the new rules, claimants can still
receive UI benefits equal to as much as 110 per cent of their
earnings from employment.
On the tenth day of Christmas the minister of HRD, having no
understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us ten piping
journalists who heralded the miracle of changing UI to EI and gave
us the new meaning of ``un''.
(1230)
On the eleventh day of Christmas, the minister of HRD, having
no understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us 11 dancing
parliamentary committee members who, as the good Liberals they
are, followed Government Orders to limit debate and refer Bill
C-111 to committee before second reading, another promise broken
by a government whose promise was for openness.
On the twelfth day of Christmas, the minister of HRD, having no
understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us 12 leaping
bureaucrats to promote jobs and growth. They called this new
program the job fund. This $300 million initiative is sure to sustain
at least the 12 jobs enjoyed by these bureaucrats.
Merry Christmas.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion before us today, since
it will allow us to consider Bill C-111, on employment insurance
immediately.
With this motion, the government shows the importance of this
legislative measure and the need to immediately undertake detailed
consideration of its content.
The proposed reform is a very complex one. It has been
discussed for months and months now, openly and publicly across
Canada, and if there is one consensus that has emerged from these
consultations, it is to give a new orientation to the entire
unemployment insurance program.
It was quite a challenge: how to give a new direction to
unemployment insurance? During these consultations, a number of
ideas were proposed. What we have before us today represents a
real change of direction, a major reform of what used to be
unemployment insurance. It needs to be really well understood,
which is why we shall need to take all of the time available in
17480
committee to study this change of direction and to ensure that the
bill before us will really meet the objectives we have set.
Those objectives are, of course, part of our overall job strategy. I
believe that each and every person in this country understands just
what a priority it is for all Canadians have jobs, to keep their jobs,
or to create jobs. Unemployment insurance reform was considered
in that overall context. It is but one element in this government's
strategy for maintaining jobs and creating new ones, not a strategy
in itself.
Over the years, we have seen that the unemployment insurance
program as it existed led to a number of problems. First of all, we
have seen how very quickly the costs have risen. Just think, in 1982
the program cost $8 billion, while by 1995 it was up to $16 billion.
With the passing years we have seen the program being overused.
When I say overuse, it is certainly not my intention to blame
workers who receive unemployment insurance benefits, as the
official opposition seems to imply, but it is a fact that over the
years, the unemployment insurance plan had become more like an
income support plan. We also found that the system was overused
by employers to the extent that it influenced their hiring approach.
That is why we had to get back to basics.
(1235)
We also found that over the years inequities had developed in the
system. It was designed at a time when employment was widely
available, when people worked from 9 to 5, 35 hours a week. That
is no longer the case in 1995. So a number of inequities had
developed in the system, and I am thinking more particularly of
part time workers. Working part time has become a way of life, so
how can we make the system available to part-time workers as
well?
We also found that the system tended to favour those on higher
salaries, when we looked at how benefits were distributed. Could
we restore a measure of equity to the unemployment insurance
system? That is why what we have here is a thorough reform. This
is a new system that wants to give workers and employers an
incentive to maintain jobs and create jobs.
So there are three important elements in this reform. Number
one: unemployment insurance benefits; number two: employment
benefits, and number three: a transitional job creation fund to help
the most disadvantaged regions in our country. I think this reform
is comprehensive in its approach to these dimensions.
I would like to say a few words about employment benefits,
because since this reform was announced by my colleague, the
Minister of Human Resources Development, we have heard a
number of views on these employment benefits, how they will be
implemented, how we will work together with the provinces to give
our workers an incentive to be on the labour market and our
employers an incentive to maintain jobs.
I think it was very clear that in this reform the government was
intent on developing pro-active employment measures. That is why
it has specifically identified five employment benefit measures.
The government intends to develop, implement and evaluate them
with the provinces. So, imagine my surprise at discovering last
week that the Bloc Quebecois in its opposition day motion was
criticizing the unemployment insurance reform, saying it increased
overlap and duplication.
I must say that I could see our friends opposite had not yet read
the bill, because the reverse is clearly true. We are in fact trying to
avoid overlap and duplication. I also heard it said that the federal
government wanted to supervise the provinces, because the bill
defined requirements for employment measures. So, here again,
you can imagine my surprise.
The bill talks of guidelines. There is nothing about national
standards. It talks about guidelines. There are six different
guidelines. Let us have a look at them and see how a provincial
government could object to them. The first really aims at avoiding
overlap and duplication. Clause 57 of the bill provides that we are
to aim for:
(a) harmonization with provincial employment initiatives to ensure that there
is no unnecessary overlap or duplication;
That seems clear. Every effort must be made to ensure that there
is no overlap but rather complementarity when a province already
has employment measures.
(1240)
In this regard, as far as Quebec is concerned, I must tell you that
it is quite a challenge, because there are now something like three
service delivery networks in Quebec. There is the Société
québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which has
offices in all regions of Quebec; the Travail Québec centres, which
are scattered throughout the province; and the Employment Canada
centres.
Even within the province of Quebec, there is an obvious need for
harmonization between the Société québécoise de développement
de la main-d'oeuvre, the Travail Québec centres and the
Employment Canada centres.
This is one of the guidelines; there are five others that show our
desire to be as flexible as possible. I cannot see how a province
could object. But again, this bill will be referred to a committee for
consideration and we will see how it can be enhanced.
Looking at the overall impact of this bill on all Canadian
provinces and at Quebec's situation, I can tell you that Quebec
comes out ahead. At the present time, for every dollar contributed,
Quebec receives $1.33. After the reform, for every dollar
contributed, it will receive $1.31. Quebec will still come out ahead.
17481
In addition, like any other province, Quebec will have control
over employment benefits, as it has always demanded over the
years.
Both sides must show some goodwill. In this regard, I want to
commend the open-mindedness of Quebec's Minister of
Employment who, unlike the Bloc Quebecois, agreed to sit down
with us to determine how we can provide better services to Quebec
workers.
In conclusion, I hope that the committee will help improve and
enhance the bill before us.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is not how I
had originally planned to start my speech and, even though we are
given only ten minutes, I would like to share my first reactions with
the Minister of Labour.
She claims to have been very surprised by our response. She did
not look that surprised when I saw her on television over the
weekend, as she addressed a group of Quebecers, including
members of the Liberal Party of Quebec, who reminded her and the
public at large of the consensus in Quebec in favour of seeing all
the money earmarked for employability development and
occupational training measures as well as all employment-related
services be handed over to the Quebec government, which must be
in charge.
In our view, being in charge does not mean being responsible for
implementing national standards or reaching national goals
imposed by the federal government. This is a clarification I wanted
to make at this stage. In a certain way, the Minister of Labour tried
to divert the debate onto that subject. I would like to come back to
the substance of this bill, such as the objectives that the Minister of
Human Resources Development outlined this morning.
He started by saying: ``You know, we are taking a special
measure in the House to ensure that this bill goes to committee as
soon as possible''. He made this out to be positive.
It should be pointed out, and you know that it is, Mr. Speaker,
that this is an exceptional measure, a type of measure that this
government has used three or four times already over the past two
years, supposedly to speed up the process. We must look at the
context.
If consideration by the committee was so urgent, and I am
putting the question to the government, why did it wait for so long
after tabling the green paper and after last year's tour, to bring this
bill back to the House? The government waited for something
called the Quebec referendum on sovereignty.
(1245)
It waited for the referendum, because it knew that introducing a
bill that provides for cuts totalling some $2 billion, including $600
million in Quebec, might influence the outcome of the referendum.
So, the government waited until after the referendum. Still, it
could have tabled its bill a few days, or even a few weeks after the
referendum. Instead, the government brings this legislation back to
the House on the Monday of the last week before the Christmas
recess.
Why? To get a better idea of what Canadians think of the bill.
Oh, sure. The minister knows full well that December is like the
summer months. The media are less interested in such debates, and
the public does not read the papers or follow the media as much,
because it is busy doing other things.
The government has the nerve to say that it is to make things
easier. Come, now. The human resources committee will probably
sit this week. What does that mean? Interested groups will be asked
to submit briefs in January; in short, those wishing to present such
a brief will have to take time during the holiday season to prepare a
brief, have it approved by their officials, and make sure it gets here
before the deadline. This is not democracy, it is just the opposite.
It is an old trick used by many bodies. I have seen it used by
municipal governments, namely to present controversial projects
during the Christmas or summer holidays. It is an old trick often
used. It is not very clever, it has been done before, and anyone with
any degree of critical sense can see right through it.
We are being presented with this and, of course, we will attend
committee proceedings. But for the sake of this, we are sacrificing
the debate which should have taken place in the House, starting
with 40 minute speeches followed by 20 minute speeches by as
many members as were interested in expressing their views, from
both sides of the House, the official opposition, the government,
and the third party.
But instead, the government wants to consult. The parliamentary
secretary might remember the consultations we held last year in
December. The weather was not very cold yet. We started in
mid-November and kept at it until the Christmas holidays. We went
all over the place, in every major city, and no one, no organization
supported the government 's position, on the contrary. Between 75
and 80 per cent of the people we heard were against the
government's proposals.
And this is supposed to be a government that listens? No, Mr.
Speaker, it does not. It does remember, though. Last year, in every
city it toured, it was met with protests. It remembers and is
thinking: ``If we act faster, we might hold the hearings in Ottawa,
and people will appear in committee there''.
I challenge the government to go and present its UI project in
major cities. I bet it will not do it, hoping to proceed unnoticed, in
the deep of winter. The committee will get briefs from national
organizations, but not from citizens. I remember the last hearing,
last year in Bathurst, when Acadians came to tell us how difficult
and dangerous it would be for this part of New Brunswick. They
17482
feared the worst, because of the cuts the government said it would
make somewhere. This time, we are not going to do the same.
As opposition critic for training and youth, I would like to take
the last few minutes I have left to tell you how much damage this
bill will do to young people in particular. The minister was saying:
``This bill is very progressive''. I say this bill is regressive. The
minister was talking about fairness for everybody, I say that, on the
contrary, it is unfair for young people. Why? Because from now on,
to be eligible to unemployment insurance, you will need 910 hours
of work, instead of the present 300 hours.
This bill is not only bad for young people, it is also bad for
women who re-enter the workforce. After raising their children,
many women would like to get a job, but they will be in the same
situation as young people. This legislation is also regressive for
new immigrants looking for jobs after landing in this country.
(1250)
The 910 hours mean 26 weeks at 35 hours per week. This is a
considerable number of hours.
Before that 20 fifteen-hour weeks, that is to say 300 hours of
work, were enough for first time claimants to qualify for benefits.
After the reform you will need 26 thirty-five-hour weeks, that is to
say 910 hours of work, to be eligible for benefits.
Before the reform 12 fifteen-hour weeks, or 180 hours, were
enough to qualify for benefits in areas of high unemployment.
After the reform 28 fifteen-hour weeks, or 420 hours of work,
will be necessary to be eligible for benefits in areas of high
unemployment.
Before the reform, people who were already entitled to
unemployment insurance and who had worked 20 fifteen hour
weeks, or 300 hours, were able to collect benefits in low
unemployment areas. After the reform, they will be able to collect
benefits if they have worked 20 thirty-five weeks, or 700 hours.
Here is another case of inequality. For frequent users, that is
people who have been on UI three times in five years, there is an
absolute guarantee that their benefits will be reduced by at least 1
per cent each year, which is at least 5 per cent in five years. This
category of unemployed workers will definitely lose out. And the
government says yes to equity? What the minister is saying about
equity is that a number of people who were working less that 15
hours a week did not have to pay UI premiums. Now, everyone
must pay from the first hour of work. However, there is no
guarantee that they will be able to benefit from it, quite the
contrary.
According to the Canadian Labour Congress, in 1970, 77 per
cent of unemployed workers were covered by UI. This percentage
would be less than 50 per cent today. The Canadian Labour
Congress estimates that, with the reform, two unemployed workers
out of three will not be eligible for benefits. Is that equitable? Is
that progressive? I say no.
Since you are inviting me to do so, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude
by pointing out that if this reform had been known in detail in the
form of a bill and if a real consultation was still going on in an
appropriate context and an appropriate period, and if this period
had been established before the Quebec referendum, I tell you
sincerely that we would now be talking about other things in this
House, because this reform would not have been adopted.
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak against the Bloc motion being debated
today. The reforms of Canada's unemployment insurance are not
only overdue. In many ways they do not go far enough and are too
complex. While the reforms will impose hardship on some
Canadians, they will at the same time bring much larger economic
and social benefits to society as a whole.
I make this judgment after much study. In my career as a
professional economist I was deeply concerned with the economic
and social effects of unemployment insurance. In the mid-1970s I
published a number of studies and organized an international
conference that examined the effect of the level of benefits and
ease of access to UI on recorded unemployment rates in Canada.
A few years ago I published a study that argued the large gap
between Canadian and U.S. unemployment rates, which first
appeared in the early 1970s, was caused by the increased
generosity of our system initiated by Canadian reforms at that time.
Incidentally the co-author of this study was Dr. Josef Bonnici, a
former student of mine who is presently the minister of finance for
the Government of Malta.
In February 1996 I will participate in a major conference of
social scientists which will re-examine the issue of Canada-U.S.
differences in unemployment rates to be held in Ottawa. My work
on the effects of unemployment insurance on unemployment was
fundamental economic theory which in turn guided reproducible
econometric measurement co-authored by several colleagues and
experts in this field.
(1255 )
Our results were verified by the economic council. It is fair to
say that today even the left leaning part of the chattering class of
academics, journalists and other intellectuals has accepted the
validity of the basic premise.
Assar Lindbeck, a famous Swedish economist who is a strong
supporter of social democratic policies, recently published a paper
in which he noted that social support programs like unemployment
17483
insurance induce the creation of institutions and ethical norms
which increase the demand for the support programs.
The chattering classes in the past tended to infer from my
analysis that I recommended the abandonment of unemployment
insurance. I never did. The policy issue has always been the correct
level of UI benefits and ease of access which maximize overall
social welfare. There is no doubt the more generous the system is,
the higher is the welfare of those receiving the benefits. However,
on the other hand, the higher the benefits, the higher the
unemployment, the higher the premiums payable by workers, the
higher the risk of dependency of habitual users, and a host of other
economic and social costs.
For a long time the political culture in Canada has resulted in the
denial that these costs exist or, if they exist, that they are largely
relative to the benefits received by unemployed.
About 15 years ago I was asked to be a guest on ``Cross Country
Check-Up''. The views expressed during that period on the subject
were most extreme. However, most important, as Claude Forget
told me after he found that his report on the issue was ignored by
the political system, the case for a less generous system has no
political constituency quite simply because the economic and
social benefits are diffused and poorly understood.
Those suffering from the reduction of benefits are clearly
identified and well organized. No political party in Canada could
afford to make the system less generous. This was true until
recently when the Canadian debt and deficit began to threaten the
very existence of all social programs.
The shift in the perceived political payoff from doing nothing
and making UI less generous has not come easy to people like the
Minister of Human Resources Development who used to deny
vehemently even the existence of insurance induced
unemployment and other costs. The timid and convoluted reforms
to which his ministry gave birth reflect the struggle he had in
admitting that these undesirable effects not only exist but are very
costly to society.
Let me return to the Bloc resolution being debated today. It is
true, as it states, that UI reforms will make some Canadians worse
off, especially those in seasonal industries. However, my long and
intense study of the UI system has convinced me that these reforms
at the same time bring substantial benefits to many other Canadians
so that overall welfare has increased. This certainly has been the
finding of a number of royal commissions which looked at the
question.
A basic theorem in economics is that under conditions like these,
where some gain and some lose from a given policy, the
government should offer assistance to those who have been asked
to carry the burden of adjustment. After all it was a government
created system, not their own fault, which caused them to enter
these seasonal industries in excessive numbers and at
non-economic wages. At the same time the rest of society which
benefits from the changes may be expected to pay for easing the
costs of transition for those asked to bear them.
For this reason I take the opportunity to urge the government to
stick to its reforms and possibly strengthen them while at the same
time make more generous provisions to ease the pain of transition
felt by those affected adversely and directly by the reforms.
(1300)
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in support of the motion made by the Minister
of Human Resources Development to refer Bill C-111 to the
standing committee.
We have every reason to move forward with a thorough
examination of this bill by a committee of the House. We have
every reason to allow an early public review of its provisions. We
have no reason to hold back and nothing to gain by preventing the
broad consultations necessary with such an important piece of
legislation.
All members of this House recognize that this is a very important
bill. It has been the subject of vigorous debate and intense
questioning from all sides, yet throughout the debate we have seen
something very rare: the unanimous agreement on the central point
of this legislation. We all agree that we need to reform the old UI
program. Throughout all the debate and questioning, no one has
suggested that the status quo is acceptable. No one has suggested
that we can afford to leave things as they are. Everyone has spoken
of the need to find a better way to help unemployed Canadians.
This rare unanimity reflects a broad consensus throughout the
country. More than 100,000 people who took part in the
consultations said we need a better jobs system for Canadians.
Almost nine out of ten Canadians told us we need a fundamental
overhaul of the old UI program to make it work. Provincial leaders,
business groups, professionals and community organizations have
spoken clearly over the past weeks about the need for change. Bill
C-111 presents a clear and progressive agenda for change.
Now we have an opportunity to hear from Canadians about this
agenda. Members of the House have an opportunity to subject the
bill to the rigorous examination of standing committee hearings.
We have an opportunity to use our time well over the coming weeks
to make the debate on Bill C-111 more inclusive, to open up the
process, to consult and to listen before we proceed with the
legislative process when the House resumes.
It would be inexcusable to delay these consultations. Every day
we delay we put jobs and hope for thousands of Canadians on hold.
Every day we delay we are perpetuating a UI program that is not
only out of date but is actually hurting the people it is supposed to
help. We are perpetuating a system that leaves too many Canadians
17484
stuck in the past when what they need is a springboard to help them
change, adjust and adapt to the future.
The new jobs system, employment insurance, will make it easier
for people at risk to work longer and encourage employers to keep
people in their jobs longer. Think about what that means. Think
about what it means to the 400,000 Canadians right now who find
themselves stuck in a constant rut of getting from one benefit
program to another.
If the new system can get those people just one additional work
week, we will save the entire system $50 million, money we can
plough back into the system to turn that one extra week of work
into two, two weeks into four, four weeks into eight. Instead of a
cycle of joblessness we can create a new cycle of employment and
hope for almost half a million Canadians who want to work and
deserve an even break.
That is what this new jobs system is all about. Think what it
means for the thousands of people who can move into new jobs
created by small businesses across the country. Right now the old
UI program is killing those jobs every day. A survey of small
businesses in Atlantic Canada tells us that employers just cannot
compete with the UI system for workers.
With our new jobs system we will cut insurance premiums, the
tax on jobs, to assist them. We will create a system that supports
employment and job creation instead of one that perpetuates
unemployment. Think of what it means to the hundreds of
thousands of job seekers who will get direct help through new
employment benefits, help that is more effective, that is more
flexible, that will get results faster than anything they can get now.
(1305 )
With wage subsidies, each year we will be able to help some
65,000 people get off benefits and into jobs. Studies show that
these subsidies can help each one of these people increase their
income and gain an average of 17 additional weeks of employment
each year.
With earnings supplements we can help make work pay for some
75,000 workers each year, people who deserve more than the old UI
treadmill. We know from joint pilot projects with New Brunswick
and British Columbia that these supplements get results and help
people secure their place in the workforce.
We will help thousands of Canadians each year create their own
jobs through self-employment, a key driving force for job creation
and growth in the new economy. Studies show that by providing the
right kind of support at the right time, people who were without
work can create businesses that last and create new jobs by hiring
employees.
We can create new job creation partnerships, mobilizing the
resources of the provinces, community groups and organizations
across the country to help people adapt to the demands of the new
workplace, increase their earnings and gain the independence that
only a job can provide.
We can work with the provinces to help individuals through
skills loans and grants, giving more opportunities for people to
make a real investment in their own future, to get the kind of skills
required to enter the job market of the 21st century from a position
of strength.
We can make this kind of assistance, all of these employment
benefits more accessible to more people: to some 500,000 part time
workers who are not even covered by the UI program; to people
who have simply been abandoned by the old system, marginalized
by a system that does not reflect the realities of the 1990s.
Employment insurance is not just another version of the old UI
program. It is truly Canada's jobs system for the 21st century. It is
part of this government's agenda for jobs and growth. This agenda
for jobs and growth is on track and it is working. We are getting the
deficit under control in reality, not just in rhetoric. By 1997-98 the
government's new borrowing requirements in relation to the size of
the economy will be at the lowest level since 1969.
We are matching deficit reduction with an all out drive for job
creation. Over the past year we generated almost half a million full
time jobs, more than in any year since 1987. That is what this
government was elected to do. We were given a mandate to get
Canada and Canadians back to work. Bill C-111, employment
insurance, is part of our agenda to fulfil that mandate.
Canadians need the opportunity now to review Bill C-111
through the kind of forum that only a standing committee of the
House of Commons can provide. We can give them this forum now.
We have no reason to put this very important review of an
extremely important piece of legislation on hold. We owe it to
Canadians to move forward. I urge all members of the House to
support this motion so that we can look to the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is
my duty to take the floor today to support the motion put forward
by my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier.
We are now seeing the aftermath of the Martin budget presented
last February. As we feared, and it is even worse in the opinion of
many, the unemployment insurance reform hits the most
vulnerable among us.
The people in my riding, Lotbinière, already have an axe to grind
against the Minister, Mr. Axworthy, who, with his reform, has
17485
deprived them of the services of the Victoriaville employment
centre. In the middle of July, thousands of my constituents were by
my side in an effort to save personalized services near their homes.
We got the assurance that that minimum would be maintained.
However, since then, the minister has been avoiding me and any
opportunity to meet with me in order to settle the issue. I can tell
you this was a prelude to the harmful effects of the Liberal
government's reform.
(1310)
People were afraid, and rightly so, that their employment centre
would become a mere booth, which would have forced them to
drive over 100 kilometres to get person to person services; you can
imagine their reaction now that the reform is truly coming to light.
Before dealing with manpower development, I would like to
warn people against the series of measures that, for the most part,
are to come into force on Canada Day, the 1st of July. It is already a
sad day, the government chose the date well. The Axworthy reform
will hit those most in need hardest-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I can
understand that it is a slight oversight, but we must always refer to
our colleagues either by their riding's name or the name of their
department, not by their family name. I would simply ask the hon.
member for Lotbinière to abide by that rule.
Mr. Landry: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. An impact study by the
federal government demonstrates that people whose income is
under $25,000 will be those hardest hit. This shift in policy by a
supposedly Liberal government follows the lead of the Ontario and
Alberta governments. It is hard to come to grips with the fact that
the people opposite are not Conservatives.
The government resorts to policies that smack of the Reaganism
of the 1980s, and are still being advocated by the American right
wing. Apparently, some Canadians have been contaminated.
It is an understatement to say that the most disadvantaged among
us will be affected. Women, young people, and part time workers
will be subjected to a treatment that is far from benign. Considering
that 1.5 million part time workers are women, that women make up
70 per cent of the part time working force, that one third of them
would prefer to work full time, that 40 per cent of part time workers
are under 24, you can tell which groups the Liberals are targeting.
Eligibility criteria will drive them onto welfare.
The qualifying period will be increased from 12 to 28 fifteen
hour weeks, or from 180 to 420 hours. Part time workers working
from 15 to 35 hours a week will be hardest hit. This new eligibility
criterion will impact most on women, young people and new UI
claimants, that is those asking for assistance for the first time.
These people will have to work 26 thirty-five hour weeks, or 910
hours. In fact, eligibility requirements will triple for those who are
filing their first application. As I said, this will greatly impact on
women and young people, whether at the end of their schooling or
when they return to the job market after a long absence.
Moreover, while the government is trying to make us believe it is
ready to withdraw from any direct commitment in manpower
training, it is in fact ignoring the consensus reached in Quebec
about the transfer of federal resources and powers.
The minister and his leader claim they are withdrawing from
manpower training, but in fact they are once again suggesting what
the then Quebec premier, Daniel Johnson, a Liberal, had described
as a bargain agreement back in 1994. Under the bill introduced last
Friday, if there is no agreement with a province, the money
invested in training could be given directly to individuals.
How can Quebec adopt an efficient manpower policy- which is
what everybody wants, even the National Assembly, unions and
employers-when Ottawa could go over its head and get away with
it?In the previous legislation, the minister did not have the power to
make agreements with one province or a group of provinces. From
now on, it will deal with anybody it chooses. Provinces will be
considered in the same way as municipalities or local
organizations. Previously, under the national legislation on
training, the minister had to consult with provinces before
launching a program in this area of jurisdiction. Now, no limit is
placed on federal actions. The sky is the limit.
If we look at the way the federal government does things, it
seems highly improbable that it will eliminate overlap and
duplication in the area of manpower training. The 1994 offer
provided for the withdrawal of the federal government with
financial compensation.
(1315)
Under the Training Loans and Grants Program, Ottawa will
bypass the Government of Quebec by giving directly to the
unemployed funds that used to be transferred to the provinces.
André Bourbeau, the Quebec employment minister in 1991, has
condemned this tactic, declaring that what was unacceptable was
that this approach was a total improvisation despite the fact that
more than ever before government actions regarding manpower
training must be planned and based on priorities.
Two years earlier, the Forum for employment had been a
decisive step in the claims of Quebec regarding the transfer of
responsibilities in manpower training.
17486
As I said earlier, it was at that time that partners in the Quebec
labour market, namely unions, employers and the government,
agreed to ask that Ottawa hand over all of the responsibilities
regarding manpower training.
No later that last week, the National Assembly of Quebec
unanimously passed a resolution asking for the withdrawal of the
federal government and repatriation of funds invested by Ottawa in
manpower training.
Yet, both governments agree that changes are needed to
manpower training programs. Minister Axworthy did declare, on
page 30 of his discussion paper on the social program reform, the
following, and I quote: ``However, the system now is too
hit-or-miss. That's why the results have been inadequate-There
are too many mismatched programs, with inconsistent rules and too
much red tape-Programs offered by different levels of
government are often not coordinated. In short, the system must
change.''
In fact, the control that the federal wants to keep is only a
pretext. Ottawa wants to use the $5 billion UI fund surplus to meet
its deficit reduction targets. This clearly means misappropriating
premiums paid by employees and employers, nothing more and
nothing less.
Last Friday, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, whose members
are definitely not sovereignists, asked Ottawa to leave manpower
training to Quebec. So, if one considers what has been happening in
the past few years, one realizes that men and women from all
parties, of all political stripes, are demanding control over
manpower training. I say it once again, I believe that Quebec or the
Yukon, or any Canadian province, is in a better position to really
know what is needed.
So, I wish that one day the federal government, as well as the
hon. members opposite, will understand that not only manpower
training, but also all related areas should come under Quebec
jurisdiction. Money should not be given directly to the
unemployed, but, for the sake of a consistent policy, we should be
given all necessary tools and levers. When I say tool chest, of
course I mean all the tools we have inside it as well. Not just the
box, but the contents, are needed for the thing to really work. Like
the tools in their chest, people too need to find a fit within a
province, whatever the province.
Whether that province is Quebec or one of the maritime or
western provinces, I think we are all grown up enough to do our
homework on our own. Only this past week the Conseil du patronat
du Québec submitted a document, the stated purpose of which was
to prove that federalism can work very well with decentralized
manpower training. I am not worried in the least; over time the
federal government will learn, and our friends across the way will
realize that there is a place for everyone. Let us give to each his
due. Then those with jobs, those without jobs, everybody will be
happy.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I stand today to oppose Bill C-111 because I see this as the
government playing political football with the UI system.
I had the opportunity recently of doing a householder
questionnaire in my riding with regard to UI. Out of 1,110 replies,
608 said the government should get out of UI and turn the entire
program over to joint management, as it is already being funded by
employers and employees.
(1320)
I have to go along with that when I look at the cost of
administering the unemployment act today: $1.2 billion taken right
off the backs of the working people. It is too unmanageable.
If there are concerns in terms of the unemployment insurance
program, it should be left up to the people who are contributing
directly to it, the workers and the employers, not the government.
This government, along with the other governments, has done
absolutely nothing with regard to correcting unemployment.
Out of that survey, 436 or 39 per cent said to tighten up and
streamline the existing programs; 675 said to give employers and
employees greater say in how it is run; 633 said to have the same
qualifying period across Canada and forget all these differences;
628 said to shorten the period people can collect; 608 said to
establish a separate fund for fishermen outside of the UI program;
569 said there should be a longer qualifying period but only 369 or
33 per cent out of 1,110 said to lower the amounts people can
collect.
From this survey there seems to be a widespread awareness with
regard to seasonal workers. In my constituency there are a number
of seasonal workers in agriculture, tourism and forestry. These are
the three biggest areas in my constituency. These are the three
biggest contributors to the UI program. They see nothing here that
would do anything to help that situation in order to collect.
Families are hard pressed in Canada today. We look at what is
going on. We wonder what has really happened here. We have
forced both parents out into the work world in order to pay rising
taxes. We have lost the total concept of family unity because of
government policies.
I regard this tax grab by the government as just another policy,
another penalty to put on the working people, another way to keep
the government satisfied with the way it lives and not the way the
working people of Canada have to live.
Why are so many people unemployed? What has the government
been doing for two years? This is the question out there. We can
17487
talk to educated people coming out of our universities. They are the
people looking for work. What has the government done? Its fancy
spin doctors put in all kinds of things they have done, this and that,
but the bottom line is the unemployment level is still there and the
people on welfare are still there.
There is a mine waiting to come into production in northern B.C.
It is called Kemess. There has been a large amount of money spent
on the exploration work of this mine. There are a lot of people
waiting, a lot of jobs waiting. They went through the whole
scenario, through the provincial jurisdictions. They went to every
office they had to go to.
The province passed the environmental part of it. It passed
everything. It signed off. It told these people to go ahead. Now
comes the federal government. Here comes this caring, sharing,
worrying federal government. It says: ``We checked this lake out
and there are nine pair of bull trout and so this mine cannot go
ahead''. Five hundred jobs this caring, sharing government has put
on hold; $350 million. It means nothing to the people in the House
sitting over there. Do we really have much faith in any program
regarding unemployment which the government can bring in? I
think not.
(1325)
Where has industry gone? What has happened to our jobs? We
spend too much. The government spends too much so it has to raise
taxes. When we raise taxes we drive industry out. When we drive
industry out we have high unemployment.
We listened to the government. It made promises in its beautiful
fancy red book. It was presented on a platter for the people to look
at so they could judge the government. This was before the
election. It mentioned the GST. The GST has hit employers
something fierce. They spend a lot of their time after hours trying
to collect taxes for the government while not getting paid for it.
They have no more holidays like they used to have. Again it
takes away one or both from the family so the government can feed
off the taxpayer. The government promised it was to get rid of the
GST. Liberals stood on the platforms all across the country. They
swore to the people out there because they wanted their votes. They
said the GST will be gone within two years. If I remember correctly
the Deputy Prime Minister offered to resign; another unkept
promise and the GST is still there.
The big fear now is maybe the Liberals will try to introduce
something else twice as expensive. They say they will change the
name: UI to EI, unemployment insurance to employment
insurance. I ask the hon. members on the other side, what is the cost
to the taxpayer of the government's changing a lousy name in order
to introduce this?
Why could you not still call it unemployment insurance and
make your changes, because one of you wanted to get a little star on
a book beside your name? That will cost us another million dollars
or so. You think people out there are stupid. They are not stupid.
They know exactly what you are doing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I hesitate to interrupt any
member at any time but I ask members for their co-operation to
direct all their interventions through the Chair and not directly
across the floor at one another.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I ask members on the other side if
they really think the people out there, the taxpayers, the working
people, the people who have to give up their home lives in order to
support the government, do not know what is going on. I think they
know full well what is going on. The government will have to
answer to them in a few years, unfortunately. In Canada that is what
it takes, years and years of trial and error.
Here is another example of government regulations. The cost of
logging on the British Columbia coast has gone from $67 per cubic
metre in 1992 to over $100 per cubic metre today. Does
government, federal and provincial-we might as well throw it in
because it is one and the same-forget these people have to be
competitive in the world market in order to sell their product? I
think it does. When jobs shut down, when companies shut down we
have unemployment.
It is nice to sit here and talk about how concerned we are for the
Canadian people as we chase their jobs out through regulations,
through overtaxation. We can sit here and pat ourselves on the back
and say what a wonderful country we have. It really makes one
wonder what a wonderful country we have.
We have a government that does not know how to live within its
means. It can only raise taxes in order to survive. It says ``this is a
big deal, we are cutting here. The employee will not have to pay as
much''. It forgets it jacked the prices up for two years running. It
jacks them up 7 cents and cuts back 5 cents. It is a five-year
increase no matter how one looks at it. However, the government
thinks we will overlook it because of the 5-cent reduction. People
have a long memory and the government will have to answer to
them at the next election.
(1330)
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, I am
pleased to rise to speak to the motion to refer Bill C-111 to the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
While the proposals to reform the UI system contained in this
bill will impact on all parts of Canada, it is widely recognized that
the new system will have a significant impact in the Atlantic
provinces.
17488
By referring the bill to the standing committee, members of the
House and many other concerned Canadians will have a full
opportunity to review and discuss the legislation. For my part, I
believe it is important that the special needs of Atlantic Canada
be considered and understood and that the capacity of the
measures presented in the bill to meet these special needs be
understood. The standing committee will offer the appropriate
forum to do that.
I am convinced that as Canadians better understand the new
approaches being presented and the special employment generating
measures contained in the bill, they will recognize that there are
substantial advantages to be gained from this legislation, both
individually and collectively, for our region. At the same time, the
committee offers an opportunity to bring all our unique perspective
to this debate to make sure that these changes look after the
interests of Atlantic Canada and Atlantic Canadian workers.
In moving the new employment insurance act from the House to
the standing committee, and in considering how we can best serve
the needs of Canadians, there are a number of points that should be
kept in mind by our colleagues in the House, by the members of the
committee and by all concerned Canadians affected by this
legislation.
To begin with, we should recognize the important role the
Minister of Human Resources Development has had in developing
this comprehensive new program. In particular, he should be
congratulated for having already given Atlantic Canadians his full
attention in these matters. He has taken the time to meet with us in
the Atlantic Canada caucus. He has met with the provincial
premiers. He has met with business and labour leaders from
Atlantic Canada. He has met with many others who have asked to
have their special needs considered.
There has been no shortage of consultation between Atlantic
Canadians and the minister and his officials as they grappled with
this very complex situation. I can only say that the minister's office
has replaced my wife's phone number on my speed dial as the first
call that I make for the last three weeks.
The minister has consistently shown a personal willingness to
consider various and often directly conflicting points of view with
an open mind and has demonstrated a capacity to understand and
integrate them. It is my personal impression that he has shown a
great deal of integrity in dealing with these issues and that he
realizes there is a special concern for unemployed people in
Atlantic Canada.
I would like to identify some of the very specific benefits of the
new EI bill. First, the new bill will give broader coverage.
According to the department as many as 500,000 more people will
have access to employment insurance than had access to
unemployment insurance. That is a huge improvement that comes
as a result of the shift from weeks of work to hours of work as the
measure to establish eligibility for benefits.
Atlantic Canadians have a short season where people can find
large numbers of hours of work. Therefore, it is very important that
all of those hours receive credit when establishing eligibility for
benefits. By using hours rather than weeks, all of those hours will
count in establishing the minimum requirement for benefits and
also in establishing the duration of benefits. That is a big
improvement.
We also have low income protection so that those people who,
through no fault of their own, cannot find enough work in the
course of a year to establish an income that would sustain a family
can get relief. This new legislation on the threshold of the child tax
credit offers the opportunity for up to 80 per cent in replacement
income which is another significant improvement over the
unemployment insurance program of the past.
(1335)
Also, there is going to be a clawback on the high income side. I
am very supportive of this. Employment insurance is designed to
meet two needs, to serve two purposes. First, if one loses a job,
employment insurance is designed to give income while one seeks
employment. A second function is performed by employment
insurance. It sustains a workforce in many communities-and
many of them are in Atlantic Canada-where there is not sufficient
income through employment to keep a family year round. Through
the employment insurance program incomes have been
supplemented to keep that labour force in place and keep those
communities alive.
The argument for income supplements cannot be applied to high
incomes. It does not serve that function. Therefore I am very
supportive of a graduated clawback and I am pleased to see it in the
new bill.
The employment benefits that are unrelated to the income
benefits of which there will be five replacing 39 will be locally
administered. The department in Ottawa will not be deciding on a
whole series of programs, budgeting for those programs and then
sending the package, in my case, to the local office in Fredericton.
Rather it will be determined what are the criteria for those five
programs and the local office can decide which of those five
programs makes the most sense in my community and in my
region. That is a big improvement. It will mean a lot more
flexibility for the local office.
Another important point is that by distinguishing between
eligibility for income benefits and eligibility for employment
related benefits, many people who were ineligible for benefits in
the past will be eligible if they have been on employment insurance
over the last three years or the last five years in the case of
maternity benefits. This is a big improvement.
17489
In the past people would exhaust their benefits while they were
in a training program, or in some other kind of a program and
they would no longer be eligible. Now they will be eligible for
the duration of that program.
In many cases the workers exhaust their benefits before their
seasonal jobs start again. If someone is working in a park, in the
woods or in a fish plant and draws a certain duration of benefits
those benefits are exhausted but the fish plant does not open again
for three weeks, four weeks and in some case ten weeks. Those
people will now be eligible for the employment benefits in the
package. They will have the opportunity to receive other kinds of
programs that will allow them to supplement their incomes and
therefore not have to go on income assistance.
Probably most important is that all members will have the
opportunity to speak to additional improvements to this legislation.
That is why I believe it is going to committee before second
reading, so we can express to the committee the needs of Atlantic
Canadians. I would like to speak specifically to the question of
consecutive weeks as the method by which the rate of benefit is
calculated.
I would make the suggestion to the committee when the bill gets
there that all the weeks where work is involved should be
considered when establishing the rate or the income level against
which the benefit should apply. It is very important to recognize
that in Atlantic Canada very often work comes in pieces. There are
spaces in between those pieces of work. People could work in the
spring, have the summer off and then work again in the fall. All of
that work should be considered. Otherwise many people will be
paying premiums on employment that will not be factored in when
calculating income to establish benefits. That is very important. I
hope the committee will be sensitive to this issue. I understand the
minister made reference to it when introducing the bill. I see that as
a good sign. I hope the committee will take it under consideration
and make that improvement in the bill.
(1340)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to take part today in the debate on the second reading of Bill C-111,
an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada. I should
point out immediately that I and the rest of the Bloc will be voting
against this bill, which is underhanded, unfair, regressive,
anti-social, anti-worker and above all anti-unemployed.
This new program will be called employment insurance instead
of unemployment insurance. It could just as well be called poverty
insurance, or destitution insurance. The government has finally
tabled its unemployment insurance reform, which it kept hidden
until after the Quebec referendum on October 30.
Basically, as a result of this bill, eligibility criteria will be much
stricter and frequent users will be severely penalized. The first
victims of these cutbacks will be young people, women, seasonal
workers and immigrants. Program cuts will total two billion dollars
annually, including $640 million in Quebec.
The bill, which is to come into force on July 1, 1996, is worse
than was implied in the leaks that appeared in the media. It is
particularly hard on part time workers, in other words, individuals
who work fewer than 35 hours per week. These wage earners will
now have to work from 420 to 700 hours to be entitled to benefits
or 910 hours for first-time recipients. I was a referee with the
Unemployment Insurance Commission for eight years, from 1984
to 1992, and people kept telling me-benefit recipients, the unions
and counsel-that the Unemployment Insurance should be
improved, not dismantled as the Liberal government is doing
today.
As a result of this bill, the number of people eligible for benefits
will be considerably reduced. Consequently, the number of people
on welfare will continue to rise over the years to come. In fact,
stricter eligibility criteria result in a transfer from unemployment
insurance to welfare. In Quebec, more than 40 per cent of new
welfare recipients have a connection with unemployment
insurance. They are on welfare because they are not eligible for
unemployment insurance or because they have already exhausted
their benefits.
The maximum duration of benefits will be reduced from 50 to 45
weeks. This measure will further accelerate the shift from
unemployment insurance to welfare. I repeat, the federal
government is offloading its responsibilities on the provinces. And
I may add that since this Liberal government was elected on
October 25, 1993, the number of welfare recipients in Quebec has
increased by nearly 50,000, which means more than 800,000
altogether.
In my own riding, Bourassa in Montreal North, one third of the
population is either on welfare or on unemployment insurance.
Nearly 70 per cent of part time workers, in other words, 1.5
million, are women. I may point out that one woman out of three
who works part time would rather work full time. Almost 40 per
cent of part time workers are under 24.
As we might expect, the reaction of the union movement was
quick, critical and utterly opposed to this bill.
(1345)
The CSN and the FTQ, the two largest union federations in
Quebec, launched a strong appeal to union members and the public
to mobilize against the social upheaval currently taking place in
Canada.
They criticized the bill in the following terms: ``It is no reform,
it is the blatant destruction of the thin net of this social protection
plan. The situation is now very clear. Workers in Quebec can
expect nothing more from the federal government, which has axed
one of the main tools for distributing wealth in Canada. Ottawa is
now making those in the most precarious situation, women and
young people, bear the burden of deficit reduction. The worst and
17490
most unacceptable part of this whole destruction operation is that it
will not resolve Canada's financial problems. Enough is enough''.
The two federations are demanding Ottawa return to Quebec its
share of the unemployment insurance fund and they are asking
Quebec to take every possible measure to recover all of its
jurisdiction in the area of unemployment insurance. They point out
that, since the federal government's withdrawal in 1990, the
unemployment insurance fund has been financed solely by the
contributions of workers and employers.
The FTQ and the CSN have decided to organize resistance and a
strong and solid fight against this reform together with community
and popular groups and in co-ordination with the union movement
in Canada.
I take this opportunity to salute the thousands of workers in
London, Ontario who are striking today to protest against the cuts
proposed by the Harris government.
[English]
According to the CLC, unemployment insurance changes
promote a low wage economy. Executive vice-president Nancy
Riche said: ``The federal Liberals are bent on dismantling and
destroying our unemployment insurance program and they do not
care what happens to thousands and thousands of unemployed
Canadians''.
[Translation]
This last series of cuts will reduce UI benefits by $2 billion, in
addition to the $5 billion already chopped by the federal
government.
The vice-president of the CLC went on to say:
[English]
``This legislation will take money from unemployed workers and
put it directly into the pockets of business. It is an obvious response
to business demands for lower unemployment insurance
premiums''.
[Translation]
The percentage of unemployed Canadians receiving UI benefits
has fallen dramatically over the past five years. In 1990, 87 per cent
of unemployed workers were eligible to benefit. In 1993, after the
changes made by Mr. Mulroney's Tory government, this
percentage was 64 per cent. When the Liberal Party came to office,
this percentage dropped again to 50 per cent. With this reform, the
CLC estimates that two thirds of the unemployed could be deprived
of their right to collect UI benefits.
It must be noted that the UI program is fully self-financed. The
federal government does not fund this program in any way.
Furthermore, the UI fund runs very large annual surpluses. The
accumulated surplus will reach $7 billion to $8 billion by the end of
the next fiscal year.
[English]
Nancy Riche stated: ``This legislation is just a way of robbing
Canadians of their unemployment benefits. The finance minister
wants to meet his deficit target and he wants to do it on the backs of
the unemployed. It is all quite dishonest and very, very heartless''.
[Translation]
For all these reasons, I am opposed to this bill and will vote in
favour of the motion tabled by the Bloc Quebecois.
(1350)
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has tabled two bills amending the Unemployment
Insurance Act. It is trying to make it better, trying to improve it to
make it something that holds hope for all Canadians. The
government is trying to show Canadians that it is being
responsible.
In my role as an opposition member and as an individual who
has employed a lot of people and has seen how the unemployment
insurance system works, I am sorry to report that upon evaluation
of all the items, clauses and elements in the bill, basically the
minister of human resources has taken a 12 or 15-year old idea,
brought it to the surface and finally has his way. Instead of making
it simple, he has proceeded to make it even more complicated,
more confusing and more convoluted than the Income Tax Act. He
has done nothing to make it sound and appear in language that
people can understand. He had a choice between using the KISS
method in accounting, keep it simple stupid, as opposed to what he
has done.
I have a number of concerns about this. The minister had the
opportunity to make unemployment insurance truly a program for
which it was designed: an insurance program against the time when
someone is unemployed. The payments should be equal between
employer and employee. I do not know why the minister has
allowed the practice to continue where an employer has to pay
almost 1.4 times that of an employee. This is what kills jobs. This
is why payroll taxes are called job killers. The minister has not
listened to this.
If this were a true insurance program, there would be no need for
the minister to use moneys from UI for five development tools;
$800 million for targeted wage subsidies; targeted earnings
supplements; self-employment; job creation partnerships; skills
loans and
17491
grants. This is nothing more and nothing less than a vote getting
method of spending money. It is old style politics. It reeks of
self-service, reeks of missing the point.
The money should go to reduce UI payments for both employer
and employee instead of being used for these programs. Then if we
want job training programs or to subsidize businesses to hire
people, it should be a separate envelope and spending should be
made visible instead of invisible.
We are giving the human resources development minister$19 billion to play with when all we are spending on UI benefits is
$11 billion. All the other programs amount to approximately$3.1 billion and there is still a slush fund of about $5 billion left
over. Why?
We could lower taxes, offer tax relief to the Canadian public
through relief of payroll taxes. Employers and employees would be
happy with that. But no, the minister wants to be king. The minister
wants to hold out a carrot on a stick to say that he is going to help
all the unemployed people.
I do not understand why there are different rates of payment
across the country for people who collect benefits. Why did he not
address that problem? In an area of high unemployment, 16 per
cent or higher, why do people get more for staying there than if
they moved to an area where there is low unemployment of 6 per
cent or less, and get less money for staying there? People are not
being asked to look for a job. They are being paid to stay put and
are paid more money to stay put than to go and look for a new job.
That does not solve the problem. It adds to it, just like the Minister
of Finance keeps adding to our debt by setting targets which add to
the problem instead of solving it.
The name change is serious. Changing the name from the
unemployment insurance program to employment insurance
program is really serious. What does that mean to the Canadian
taxpayer? People are going to say that they paid into it and when
they are unemployed they expect to get their money from
unemployment insurance. Fine, they get it. Some people have
abused the system and we are trying to weed them out.
(1355 )
If the name is changed to employment insurance people are
going to think: ``I am paying money into a program which will
guarantee me a job if I lose my job''. That is what employment
means. The minister is toying with people's minds. He is toying
with a name change which will have a serious impact. The people
will be disappointed if they do not get what they want. It is
ridiculous. Once again it is all about politics.
Why not address the problem and solve it? Let us use the
unemployment insurance program as such. We should not use it for
other things which will increase the costs and allow the minister to
waste taxpayers' money. It should be used for the purposes for
which it was intended: strictly for payment when people are
unemployed.
Supposedly somewhere along the line the minister tested a trial
balloon on a voucher system. If the provincial governments do not
offer training the way an unemployed individual would like it, if
they want to be retrained, if they want to receive an income
supplement, if they want to become self-employed, if they want a
loan or if they want to create a partnership, they can go to the
federal government with the voucher and it will give the individual
what they want. Does that not add to the problem? Is that not
overlap and duplication of services? Is that not what we are trying
to avoid with decentralization?
The Prime Minister promised the province of Quebec that he
would transfer manpower training to it. With this bill he has not let
go of the strings. He has not let Quebec take care of manpower
training. With this bill he is still involved in job training. He is still
looking after the training of the people of Quebec. That does not
solve the problem. Once again it is adding to the problem. I do not
see the difference between job training and manpower training.
C'est la même chose, n'est-ce pas?
Where would we go? What would the hon. member for Calgary
Centre do if he happened to be lucky enough to have the job of the
Minister of Human Resources Development a couple of years from
now? With all due respect to our current critic, the hon. member for
Calgary Southeast who is looking forward to that job, I do not want
it. However, if I had the job the first thing I would do would be to
make it a true insurance program. I would establish matching funds
for employers and employees, not accelerate the payments made by
employers. That might create tax relief which might enable
companies to hire more people.
The second thing I would do would be to have everyone pay the
same rate, qualify the same way and receive the same amount of
money wherever they are. I realize there are some differences.
Perhaps in tougher areas they might be allowed an additional week
of benefits, but that would be it. Everyone would receive the same
benefits. That would make people move around the country to find
jobs, rather than staying put, staying cushy and saying thank you
very much.
I would also change job training. I would not have human
resources development looking after job training. The hon.
member for Calgary Centre would have the Minister of Industry
look after job training, if in fact we wanted to offer job training to
people and if in fact the industry was reluctant to provide
opportunities for people to learn, to obtain jobs and to become
skilled.
The government should get out of the business of being in
business. It should lower government spending to the point where it
is only collecting money to do the things which Canadians want.
This is not a program which Canadians want; this is a program
17492
which the human resources development minister and his
bureaucrats want.
We are collecting $5 billion more than we need. It might be more
than $5 billion because there are other programs we could abolish.
We might be collecting $6 billion or $7 billion more than we need.
That is why our taxes are so high.
It used to be that the bureaucrats in unemployment insurance
who worked in the towns and cities across the land helped the
people who were unemployed. They would look in the papers, they
would get on the phone and they would find employment
opportunities. There was a three-strike rule, which is something the
minister has not addressed.
For example, a plumber is out of work and cannot get a job. He
collects unemployment insurance. The agency in the old days when
it wanted to help, would say: ``We cannot get you a job in your
trade right now, but there is an opportunity over here. Would you
like to learn something new? Would you like to try something
else?'' The plumber would reply: ``No. I want a plumber's job''.
The second time it was: ``We have something over here working in
a school. If you are on the spot and the pipe bursts you might be
lucky''. The reply was: ``No, I don't want that''. The third job they
offered was paying relatively the same amount of money he was
making or something close to it. Even if it was not close to it, they
told him to take the job because he is the available person who has
some skills they need.
Many jobs are going unfulfilled. We talk about our high
unemployment levels but we never talk about the number of
available jobs. We never correlate the two. I believe the three-strike
rule should be reintroduced as well.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m. we will now proceed to Statements
by Members.
_____________________________________________
17492
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like
every year, I would like to invite all my colleagues to attend the
Voyageur Festival in St. Boniface next February. This festival
celebrates the history, traditions and culture of the French and
Metis people.
We offer an impressive line-up of activities such as exhibitions,
dancing, singing, music and theatre, all in French. Thousands of
people from all over the world come to the festival to witness this
joie de vivre. This year, the Voyageur Festival was voted one of the
best 100 tourist destinations by the American Bus Association. It is
the second time that the largest winterfest in western Canada has
received this honour. The Voyageur Festival was also awarded
three prizes by the international association of festivals and events.
I therefore invite you, Mr. Speaker and all my colleagues, to be
our guests at this festival showcasing the tenacity and richness of
the French and Metis cultures.
* * *
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the steam
roller of cuts imposed by the federal Liberal government, that
posed not so long ago as the great defender of culture, is on the
move. The first target is unquestionably the CBC and Radio
Canada International.
Over the weekend, more than 600 layoffs were confirmed at the
CBC. These layoffs are to be distributed equally between the
French and the English networks, which is unfair.
Last week, the Prime Minister said that there was no Quebec
culture. So why protect it then? That seems to be the reaction of
CBC senior management, even though the French network has
demonstrated that it is more efficient, popular and costs less than
its English sister network.
And what about Radio Canada International, which they are
about to wipe off the face of the earth without even waiting for the
Juneau report?
These cuts will have a devastating impact on the people and
artists of Quebec and Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
justice minister stood in the House when Reformers demanded
recognition for victims of crime and told all how he listened to
victims groups, police associations and chiefs of police. He has
heard from every victims group in Canada, from police officers,
police associations and chiefs of police that section 745 of the
Criminal Code reducing parole eligibility for murderers should be
repealed.
Angry Canadians have told me this justice minister rams through
legislation that divides Canadians, but when it comes to legislation
that would unite Canadians like repealing section 745 he does
nothing.
A private member's bill is languishing in committee because the
justice minister does not have the courage to follow the wishes of
every victims group, police and the vast majority of Canadians.
17493
The justice minister will prorogue the bill that will repeal
section 745. He will allow first degree murderers a statute of
limitations on their heinous crimes. He will continue to follow the
wishes of a few instead of the many and will continue to divide
Canadians instead of unite them.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Food and Agriculture Organization, an
agency of the United Nations, released a shocking report on the
implications of the economic sanctions against Iraq.
In the four years since the Persian Gulf war more than 560,000
Iraqi children have died as a direct result of the sanctions. Present
day suffering is intolerable; food prices are extremely high; and the
water and sanitation systems have rapidly deteriorated.
Most important, hospitals are functioning at 40 per cent capacity
and many serious operations are being performed without the
proper medical supplies. The bottom line is that literally thousands
of innocent children are dying every day.
In the true spirit of the upcoming holiday season I call upon the
government to support the elimination of the UN embargo and
support the giving of humanitarian aid and medical supplies to the
people of Iraq.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the commitment by the minister of defence of the Canadian Armed
Forces to the new international force that is to maintain the just
concluded truce between the three warring parties in
Bosnia-Hercegovina remains within the parameters of the United
Nations charter.
NATO is a regional security organization within chapter VIII of
the charter. Its military commanders and political governors are
thereby placed under the aegis of chapter VI of the charter on
peacekeeping and on international law under the charter, including
the contemporary laws of war.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to recognize the seventh anniversary of the
terrible tragedy of the Armenian earthquake.
On December 7, 1988 nature unleashed its fury and hundreds of
thousands of lives were changed forever by this tragic event. The
magnitude of this natural disaster is almost unimaginable. The
death toll has never been firmly established, but estimates range
upward of 100,000 deaths and over 500,000 additional people
injured.
In response to the tragedy the Government of Canada provided
over $6 million in aid to Armenia through the Red Cross and
Canadians from all regions of our nation donated an additional $2.5
million in humanitarian relief.
When I was in Armenia last year I was told again and again that
the people of Armenia are forever grateful to Canada and
Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week
thousands of Canadians from all walks of life gathered in Hull for a
sacred assembly. We brought together spiritual leaders of many
faiths, aboriginal leaders from coast to coast, youth, elders,
political leaders, as well as guests and visitors from South Africa,
Brazil, the United States and Central America.
I am happy to tell the House that the assembly was a success. We
came together in the spirit of faith and reconciliation and agreed on
a new vision for Canada as a whole. We have laid the groundwork
for reconciliation and healing in this land.
I thank members of the House who joined us in Hull last week,
especially the member for Saint-Jean who represented the official
opposition, the hon. minister of Indian affairs and the hon. Prime
Minister. They all made valuable contributions. I hope they will
continue to work with us as the process of healing and
reconciliation continues for all Canadians. God bless.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister's bill to give five regions of Canada a right of veto on any
eventual constitutional amendment is worse than the amending
formula contained in the Constitution imposed on us in 1982.
In less than two weeks, the Liberal government will have
imposed distinct society on Quebec against the will of the Quebec
National Assembly and given a veto to two provinces that do not
want it or would prefer something else.
The amending formula for the Constitution that requires the
consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the
Canadian population was already considered particularly coercive.
Now consent will be required from seven provinces representing 92
per cent of the population.
As Jean Dion writes in today's Le Devoir, we can just imagine
some smart alecs inferring that the consent of 14 provinces
representing 142 per cent of the population will be required in the
future.
17494
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian military performed a miraculous rescue at
sea recently when five air crew aboard an aging Sea King
helicopter rescued 30 people from a sinking cargo vessel during a
raging mid-Atlantic storm.
Thirty times during that terrible storm, Master Corporal Rob
Fisher was lowered on to the heaving deck of the bulk carrier
Mount Olympus, epitomizing the best traditions of brave men in
fearful conditions.
Piloting that chopper was Captain Dan Burden, a 36-year old
naval officer from Salmon Arm in my riding of
Okanagan-Shuswap, where he attended elementary and high
schools and where his proud parents, James and Norene Burden,
still make their home.
Captain Burden recently spent six months in the Persian Gulf.
Over Christmas he plans some r and r with his wife Catherine,
four-year old son Alexander and infant daughter Elizabeth.
I ask the House to join me in congratulating the Canadian Navy
and especially the officers and crew of HMCS Calgary for their
heroic efforts.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to inform the House today that
STORA Feldmill of Sweden will be carrying out a $650 million
expansion of its pulp and paper facilities in Point Tupper in my
riding of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. The company made the
announcement today.
The investment in a new paper plant at this location will create
800 construction jobs over the next two years. Just as important,
the expansion will secure newsprint and paper production jobs over
the long term in eastern Nova Scotia.
The government, along with its provincial and municipal
partners, has pursued the expansion vigorously. Once again we
have proven that Nova Scotia can attract international investment.
The location of the facility on the Strait of Canso on our east
coast offers competitive transport costs to both the United States
and Europe. The new facility is scheduled to be in operation early
in 1998 and project planning has already started.
The government has proven it can be aggressive in attracting and
keeping international investment in Canada.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
announcement that federal and provincial governments have
agreed on a plan to finance the construction of highway 416 south
from Ottawa is being applauded throughout eastern Ontario.
Besides providing hundreds of construction jobs, the new
four-lane route will connect the nation's capital with the nation's
busiest highway.
Dozens of accidental deaths and injuries over the last few years
have been attributed to a highway that is simply inadequate.
Canadians and visitors alike can look forward to a modern, state of
the art highway in and out of the nation's capital by the year 2000.
I congratulate both levels of government for finally giving the
project the priority it deserves.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in a recent Ekos poll Canadians were asked what values they
wanted their federal government to uphold. Responses were
collated and presented in two groups. One of the top three values
identified by Canadian elites was minimal government.
What did the Canadian public say was their top three values?
They were freedom, a clean environment and a healthy population.
Minimal government was last on a list of 23 choices for Canadians.
What does the Reform Party want? It wants to cut, to gut and to
eviscerate the federal government. Canadians want a strong federal
government with strong national standards. The Reform Party is
not the party of the people as it says but a party of limited special
interests, a party for the elite and not for the people.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Thursday, judge Jean Bienvenue of the Quebec superior court made
unacceptable and revolting comments regarding the victims of the
Holocaust and women in general. The judge said that women were
capable of committing acts more despicable than those of the vilest
man.
I ask the Minister of Justice to order without delay an inquiry by
the Canadian Judicial Council. Unfortunately, the council rarely
reprimands a federal judge. In fact, the whole disciplinary process
concerning federal judges must be reviewed, and a detailed code of
ethics must be implemented.
17495
The real scandal regarding this incident is the federal process
of judicial appointments, which is based on partisanship. I still
wonder how a Liberal federal government could ever appoint Jean
Bienvenue as a judge.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just over
one week ago 1,000 Albertans attended a public rally in Edmonton
and the people overwhelmingly rejected the notion of giving a veto
to the separatist Quebec government and turned thumbs down on
the open ended distinct society clause.
However this top down government is bent on ramming these
Quebec appeasements down Canadians' throats. The Liberals have
the gall to invoke closure on the distinct society motion, once again
trampling on the democratic process. This is 1989 all over again
when the Mulroney Tories rammed the GST down our throats. Now
look at the federal Tories.
To the four Liberal MPs from Edmonton we say Canadians are
tired of politicians lacking the backbone to represent them in
Ottawa. When this mixed Liberal quartet votes on the veto and
distinct society bills, Edmontonians will be watching and they will
remember.
* * *
(1415 )
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, two announcements in the past week demonstrate that
the government's approach to reducing the deficit protects the rich
and punishes the poor.
The Minister of Human Resources Development picked the
pockets of unemployed Canadians to the tune of $1.9 billion, yet all
the top banks in Canada have announced billion dollar profits for
the last year. Clearly the federal government is forcing the burden
of paying the huge debt, which it and the Conservatives have
created, on the least affluent in Canada.
The federal government provides absolutely no funding for the
UI program and one wonders what moral authority it has to attempt
to reduce the deficit with money contributed to the UI fund by
ordinary Canadians. Ordinary Canadians are being forced to do
more than corporate citizens to reduce the deficit. With obscenely
high bank profits, the government is not taking any measures at all
to ensure that they too are paying their fair share of the deficit.
These two contrasts simply show how natural it is for the Liberal
government to look after its corporate friends. Maybe some day we
will have a government for the people, by the people.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Mouvement de
libération nationale du Québec held its first public meeting
yesterday, in Montreal. As you know, the primary objective of that
movement presided by Raymond Villeneuve, a former FLQ
member who was in exile for 16 years, is to promote Quebec's
independence.
Depicting Quebec's English-speaking and ethnic community
members as ``enemies of the Quebec people'', the movement,
through its president, intends to take all the means it deems
necessary to implement the distorted ideas expressed in its
manifesto.
The values and the ideas of the Mouvement de libération
nationale du Québec are totally incompatible with the democratic
and peaceful traditions of Quebec and Canada. Therefore, I urge
members of this House to strongly condemn this group of
extremists for its barely veiled incitement to violence.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past
weekend, the leader of the Conservative Party came another step
closer to the politics of the Reform and the Bloc Quebecois with the
statement that he would like to see the end of Canada's
multiculturalism policy.
This statement by the Conservative leader suggests that he
would be ready to dump all of the multicultural policies and the
multicultural heritage of his party in order to snatch the votes of a
few intolerant people from the Bloc and the Reform.
At a time when the winds of intolerance blow across Canada, the
Conservative member for Sherbrooke is giving in to an easy fix,
and he too has started making political hay at the expense of the
cultural communities.
It is a pity to see that the political ambitions of the Conservative
leader have led him to turn his back on the sacred principles of
multiculturalism, principles he defended tooth and claw when a
minister in the previous government.
>
17496
17496
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
This morning during a recorded interview for CBC-TV, the
Prime Minister said he would like to use the federal government's
constitutional powers to maintain peace, order and good
government to prevent another Quebec referendum if he judged it
was based on a vague question.
Are we to understand from the words of the Prime Minister that,
on the very day he feigns recognition of the distinct society in a
motion, he is announcing his intention to impose his wording on
the next referendum question?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, anyone respecting
democracy respects the outcome of the referendum that has already
been held in which Quebecers stated categorically that they do not
wish to separate Quebec from Canada.
The Prime Minister himself knows that the wish of the people of
Quebec is not for a referendum but economic action. That is the
area on which we will be focussing.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister takes a very short view of
history. We know that Newfoundland held more than one
referendum before becoming part of Canada. In that case, it was all
right, but in Quebec's case, the usual double standard applies.
Since the Prime Minister must be aware that the vast majority of
Quebecers have massively rejected his so-called offers, are we to
understand that the only way the Prime Minister thinks he can win
the next referendum is by taking control of the process himself,
thus ignoring the National Assembly?
(1420)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this was not the first
referendum. There was another referendum before that. The hon.
member may want to talk about respect for democracy, but it was
not the Prime Minister who said he would keep having referendums
until he won. Respect for democracy is uppermost in the minds of
the majority of Quebecers, who do not want a referendum. They
want economic action, something the Leader of the Opposition
admitted in his speech two weeks ago.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, respect for democracy means to recognize, in a
democratic exercise, what people want, and if people change their
minds, if
they make a democratic decision, that should be recognized. The
Prime Minister is saying he will not recognize the democratic
process. It is all right when he wins, but only then. Some
democracy.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the Prime Minister
can reconcile the honeyed words he spoke to Quebecers before the
referendum with the statement made this morning in which he
denied the Quebec people the fundamental right to determine their
own future.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is really
interested in respecting the will of Quebecers, let him come here
tonight and vote with the government of Canada to enshrine
recognition of the distinct society in this government, because in so
doing, we will respect the desire of Quebecers for real change
within Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. On Thursday, December 7,
in sentencing Tracy Théberge, found guilty of second degree
murder, Justice Jean Bienvenue of the Quebec Superior Court at
Trois-Rivières made shocking remarks about the victims of the
Holocaust and about women in general, who, according to him, are
capable of reaching a level of baseness the vilest of men could not
reach. This sort of petty and vile remark represents a grave
dereliction of a judge's duty.
How does the Minister of Justice intend dissociating himself
from Justice Bienvenue's remarks?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right to
raise this matter in the House. I was shocked and offended by the
statements attributed to the judge in the case referred to.
I have asked that a transcript of the judge's remarks be prepared.
When I receive that transcript, which I expect will be in the next
couple of days, I will review it. I have options available to me
under the provisions of the Judge's Act. I will consider all those
options when I have read the transcript and I shall take what I deem
to be appropriate action in the face of these shocking remarks.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given
that these remarks are so revolting and that this is not the first time
Justice Bienvenue is at the centre of controversy, will the Minister
of Justice take the measures necessary to have this judge removed
17497
by the Governor General on address of the two Houses, as provided
in section 99 of the Constitution Act, 1867?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the
process provided for in the Judge's Act requires steps to be taken
before any such result is arrived at.
What is first required is for me to receive and examine the
transcript of the judge's remarks and then determine how to
proceed from there.
I shall keep my hon. friend and the House advised so they can be
fully aware of the action we take when we have the transcript in
hand and have an opportunity to examine it.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
Canadians gave Brian Mulroney his walking papers I thought I had
seen the last of his top down constitutional change, but I was
wrong.
What the current Prime Minister has done is worse than anything
Mulroney ever did. The Prime Minister scribbled down
constitutional changes on the back of a napkin without consulting
Canadians, without consulting the premiers, without even
consulting his caucus. Now he has resorted to refusing debate in
this place and shutting Canadians out of the process completely.
Even Brian Mulroney was more of a democrat than this Prime
Minister.
(1425)
Why is the government breaking its 1993 election promise in the
red book of open government and greater public consultation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member really wants
to resolve the constitutional question she will come to the House
today with her party and support the motion the government has put
on the table which permits the Prime Minister to meet the promise
he made to Quebecers and which will also provide the basis for a
better Canada, something I hope she and her colleagues are actually
looking for.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, distinct
society status for the unity of the country takes more than a vote in
this place. It takes the public will and support of the people from
sea to sea.
The phrase ``begin damage control'' seems to be the only advice
coming out of the Prime Minister's office these days: a last minute
veto thrown to B.C. as opposition to the Quebec package began to
mount, and now a token town hall public relations exercise on CBC
to try to breath life into a unity strategy that is dead on arrival. The
Prime Minister is out of touch, out of control and out of ideas.
If the government is truly serious about public consultation and
if it really plans to listen to Canadians on CBC, will it abandon all
attempts to ram this Quebec package through the House of
Commons and submit it to a full debate before Parliament and
Canadians right across the country?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again we see how out
of touch the Reform Party is. It believes a cross-country
constitutional tour is what Canadians are looking for. Canadians
have expressed in the province of Quebec, in the province of
British Columbia, in the province of Alberta and across Canada
that they want us to focus on getting Canadians back to work. That
is the agenda of the government and that is the agenda we intend to
pursue.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if that
is its focus, why did it get us into this mess for the last two months?
Why has it not talked about jobs?
Nobody asked for this business to come through the House like
this. What part of consultation does the Prime Minister not
understand? It is not that difficult. Consultation is when you ask
ordinary Canadians, business people, community leaders and
politicians for their advice and listen to what they have to say; that
is before the decision is made, not after, as the government is
doing.
Will the government take the advice of the Reform leader, step
aside and listen to the national unity action plan developed by a
reconfederation conference of premiers, business and community
leaders and ordinary Canadians, not this stuffy place here that
thinks it knows all the answers?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party may hold
the Parliament of Canada in contempt in calling it a stuffy place of
people who do not know what is going on.
If Reform members talked to two or three people in their
constituencies they would discover it is almost unanimous that
Canadians do not want a cross-country constitutional road show.
Canadians want the Prime Minister to meet his commitment,
deliver on his promises quickly and expeditiously, and develop a
Canadian consensus on getting Canadians back to work.
An hon. member: What day is it?
Miss Grey: Hallowe'en.
Ms. Copps: The member may call it Hallowe'en. We call it
nation building.
17498
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Last week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage did not indicate
when he intended tabling legislation on copyright. However, last
December 22-and I do mean last December 22-the industry and
heritage ministers made a commitment to have the bill tabled in
early 1995. The increasingly persistent rumour would have it that
the Department of Industry and not of Canadian Heritage is holding
up the tabling of the bill.
Could the Minister of Industry tell us today whether he intends
honouring the commitment he made with his colleague, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, and tabling the bill on copyright
before the end of the present session?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously such a bill will be introduced as soon as possible.
(1430)
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister confirm that his reluctance to go ahead with the copyright
bill is due to opposition from the Ontario Liberal caucus, which has
been lobbied by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters in
connection with related rights?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Parliament has waited a long time for a substantive bill on
copyright. The hon. member will know that decades have passed as
governments have wrestled with some very difficult and complex
issues. We will present a bill on copyright as soon as it is ready.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister said today that he would consider disallowing a
future Quebec referendum if the question was not honest. I quote:
``I say that we have powers and we have to use the powers to make
sure that the question would be fair to Quebecers and would be fair
to the rest of the country''. He also said: ``The Constitution has a
lot of powers to act under peace, order and good government''.
I will put my question to the Minister of Justice. Is it the
government's position that it could legally forbid the next
referendum if it viewed the question as being dishonest? Is the
government actively considering that as a policy option?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the
residual powers to the Canadian government under the peace, order
and good government provision in the Constitution are
considerable. They are there for the purpose of ensuring that a
national government can act in the national interest on matters of
fundamental importance.
Let me simply say that the Prime Minister has simply observed,
if I may say so, that the power is in the Constitution and can be
invoked for the kind of proper purpose to which he referred.
I should also add that the focus of the government is not so much
on some future possible referendum. It is on ensuring that no such
referendum is held because the people of Quebec see for
themselves that their future is far better within a united Canada.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should know that nobody thinks the Government of
Canada is going to hold a referendum on this topic. It may be the
Government of Quebec that will decide to hold a referendum on
this topic.
Would the government also consider a less draconian alternative
which, if the government is not prepared to live with the question
or with the result, would be for the federal government to simply
not formally participate in a future referendum held on an unfair
question?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only say the Government of
Canada is focusing on providing good government and fulfilling
our commitments. As the Deputy Prime Minister emphasized
today, we are focusing on our agenda of jobs and growth with the
intention of ensuring that no future referendum will be held by any
government in Canada because there will be no need to do so.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
This morning, the Minister of Health tabled a master plan to
reduce tobacco use in Canada. This plan follows last fall's Superior
Court ruling that a total ban on advertising contravenes the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The minister stated this morning, and I quote: ``I hope that we
will not spend as much time in court with this bill''. Are we to
understand from the minister's comments that she did not even
bother to ask the Supreme Court for an opinion on the validity of
her action plan before submitting it to us?
17499
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Supreme Court has handed down its ruling. We are following
its directives. What we put forward meets the Supreme Court's
requirements, and we will gather the evidence required to go ahead
with our project.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister realize that, by not taking immediate steps to ensure that
her bill will be acceptable to the Supreme Court, she runs the risk
of another miserable and costly failure, as she experienced with her
other initiatives against tobacco use?
(1435)
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we know that the evidence is there to support a full ban on
advertising. We are going to gather that evidence. Meanwhile, we
will be going through a series of consultations early in the new year
in the hopes of having everything finalized so we can introduce
legislation in the spring.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow the Minister of Finance will meet with his 10
provincial counterparts, eight of whom have announced definite
dates for wiping out their deficits. Will the minister listen to them
and learn how to balance his budget, or will he bring them more
bad news about downloading and his own inadequate interim
targets?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
knows full well, we have set out a very clear procedure to arrive at
deficit elimination. The government is on track and continues to
follow that track.
As far as my preparedness to listen to my provincial
counterparts, I can assure the hon. member that is indeed one of the
major purposes of tomorrow's meeting. I look forward to hearing
what they have to say.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the news is out that the government's 2 per cent of GDP
deficit target for 1997-98 can be reached with further negligible
cuts. The minister blinked and lost his courage to do what is right
for Canada. Will the minister go back to the drawing board, lower
his deficit target, cut spending more and offer Canadians what they
want and what they so richly deserve: a hope for tax cuts before the
end of the century?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there will
undoubtedly be a requirement for the government to make further
cuts in government spending to
ensure that we hit all of our targets: this year's, next year's, the 2
per cent and any targets which may be set thereafter.
If what the hon. member is saying is that it is very clear the
action taken in our first two budgets has obviously set us on the
right track, which is indeed the very clear implication of what he
has just said, then I will take that as congratulations for the
government on its first two budgets.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Over the next
two days, federal and provincial finance ministers will meet to
discuss the criteria to be used to distribute among the provinces the
major cuts relating to the Canada social transfer.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us what criteria he intends to
propose at that meeting to distribute the $4.5 billion cut in the
Canada social transfer, shown in his last budget and relating to
1997-98?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
well aware that there are several options. The government has yet
to make a decision. It is truly our intention, tomorrow and
Wednesday, to listen to the provinces and see what they think.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, will the Minister of Finance pledge to reject the criterion
based on population, which was included in his budget speech and
also mentioned by his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, by virtue of which Quebec would absorb 42 per cent
of all federal cuts in that regard?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government did
not indicate a preferred option. As I just said, it is our intention,
tomorrow and Wednesday, to discuss with the provinces.
Surely, the provinces will express their views, and these will
probably differ from province to province. The best that we can do
is to reach a consensus.
* * *
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
17500
(1440)
[English]
As the minister is aware, Canada's national capital region is
currently struggling under the negative economic impact of
government downsizing.
Will the minister tell us why it was important to support the
highway 416 project? What else is the government doing or
proposing to do to help the economic development of the national
capital region?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is quite right. In light of the reductions in the size
of the public service, the national capital region has taken a large
share of the cost of reducing government costs.
I am sure the member will also agree that public servants who
are leaving the public service have been offered generous
packages. As well there is the government's support under the
industrial assistance strategy for the REDO effort to help with
economic diversification in the region. Even more important is the
announcement made last Friday on behalf of the Minister of
Transport concerning the federal government's participation under
the strategic transportation initiative program to complete the
construction of highway 416. This was something our party had
committed to in the last election.
The support of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville was
crucial in seeing this completed. There is also the support the
Minister of Transport has given to the acquisition of the right of
customs preclearance at Ottawa international airport which we
hope we will be able to announce later this week. This will be of
special benefit to this region as a result of the open skies agreement
which again the Minister of Transport was finally able to negotiate
last year.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last week
the Minister of Finance stated in this House that the most important
kind of tax relief this country should look to is a reduction in
interest rates. Is that all? Is that the reward for his tough, tough
budget and his two-year revolving target? Is that all this
government has to offer to overtaxed Canadians?
I ask the Minister of Finance when, if ever, can Canadians expect
to pay less in taxes than they did the year before?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the
reaction around the world as governments have talked about high
deficits and high debt and have talked about tax decreases, in fact
the money markets have said to get the deficits down and get the
debt down. That is very clearly the course we have decided to take.
I must say I find it incredible that the member stands up and
simply dismisses reductions in interest rates. I would suggest he go
back to his riding and talk to people who have to pay mortgages. He
should talk to people who are buying cars and refrigerators. He
should talk to people who want jobs. Maybe then he will
understand how important it is for ordinary Canadians to have low
interest rates.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am not
here to compliment the minister. I am here to criticize the finance
minister for not listening to the leading economists in this country
and for not listening to the taxpayers. They are overtaxed and
overburdened. They want fewer taxes and lower taxes.
The economists say we should get to 0 per cent of GDP a heck of
a lot quicker than what the minister has put forward. He obviously
does not understand what is ticking people off. He is too busy
praising himself.
Why will the minister not do what is right, do what the people
want and commit today to presenting a balanced budget within two
years, keep his promise of eliminating the GST, thereby setting the
stage for true tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker,
that every time this member stands up he does express the Reform
Party's economic policies. He said we should follow their budget.
He then asked when this country was going to get to 0 per cent of
GDP. I will tell you exactly when. When we follow your budget.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In his last budget, the Minister of Finance announced plans to
replace the capital cost allowance for Canadian film and television
production with a refundable tax credit.
Given that Quebec film and television producers were sure that
this tax credit would apply to the funding of their 1995 productions,
could the Minister of Finance undertake to table a bill instituting
this tax credit before the end of December?
(1445)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do intend to
introduce a bill shortly.
17501
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister realize that the lack of legislation
translates into a $20 million shortfall at the very least for the
Quebec independent production industry, jeopardizing the very
survival of several production companies?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that the
change that the hon. minister and myself have initiated had been
requested by the industry and that the industry will greatly benefit
from it.
That is why we made this change, and I can assure you that we
will implement it as soon as possible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada.
In 1992 Kim Campbell, then Minister of Justice and Attorney
General, advised the House that an investigation into the activities
of certain individuals and Hockey Canada was under way. She said:
``The solicitor general has indicated that this matter is currently
being investigated by the RCMP''. In fact, the investigation did not
commence until 48 days later.
Has the solicitor general initiated an investigation into the cause
of the foot dragging by the RCMP under the previous Conservative
government to determine if there was any political influence or
interference in the RCMP investigation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have told the House on a number of occasions that it is the custom
or convention that solicitors general do not get directly involved in
operational matters. This is particularly the case when it comes to
investigations undertaken by the RCMP.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the problem, Mr. Solicitor General is that Canadian-
The Speaker: I know it must have been a slip. The hon. member
will address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that it was
American law enforcement agencies that had taken the ball and
were running with an investigation of what was essentially a
Canadian problem.
In relation to the Eagleson investigation, in 1992 a request was
made by American law enforcement agencies that the RCMP
execute two search warrants to seize the records of All Canada
Sports Promotion Limited in Toronto. The search was not carried
out for a full two years after the U.S. agency requested a search
warrant be executed.
Canadians have a right to know the reason for the delay. Will the
solicitor general commence an investigation to determine if the
delay was caused by political interference by the previous
Conservative government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is interesting that the spokesman for the Reform Party is asking
that the solicitor general involve himself directly in police
investigations.
I want to reflect on the implications of the hon. member's
question. I will see what information I can properly provide to the
hon. member in light of the convention I have mentioned that
police investigations are carried on at arm's length from ministers.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who I would
like to congratulate for his achievement at the United Nations last
week.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, because of transboundary pollution,
Canadian freshwater scientists are reporting that airborne toxic
substances from other countries are seriously damaging our lakes,
threatening both the environment and health.
Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tell us whether he
intends to maintain Canada's freshwater research capacity despite
recent budget cuts in his department?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Davenport
for his question, especially as he has long established himself in
this Chamber as the leading environmentalist of our time, second
only of course to the Deputy Prime Minister.
(1450 )
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Tobin: Of course, Mr. Speaker, you have been known as a
green thumb around here.
The Speaker: I had better intervene before the hon. minister
names everyone in the House.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the program review has reduced the
budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by 40 per cent
over the next three to four years. It is quite a deep cut but is in line
with what other federal departments are doing to meet the deficit
projection targets of the Minister of Finance. Difficult decisions
have been made all through the department.
17502
I want to assure the hon. member that no final decisions have
been made with respect to fresh water. However, we will be
maintaining the Freshwater Institute and the programs in the
central and Arctic regions, including the experimental lakes
program of which the member makes mention.
Notwithstanding our deep commitment to deficit reduction, we
on this side of the House remain committed as well to ensuring
quality of life for Canadians, unlike our friends in the Reform Party
opposite.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the discussions taking place at the federal level
concerning the Canada pension plan, as reported on Saturday
morning, are making me fear the worst. One of the scenarios
contemplated would increase the retirement age from 65 to 67 and
cut pension benefits by 10 per cent while at the same time
increasing pension contributions.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. Are we to understand that, after going after the
unemployed, this government intends to hit seniors by raising the
retirement age to 67 for CPP pensioners?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that
any changes in the Canada pension plan require the joint
consultation and agreement of both the federal government and the
provinces.
The Minister of Finance is holding meetings with his
counterparts this week to listen to their points of view of what they
consider might be an acceptable regime, in order to ensure that the
Canada pension plan is sustainable and viable for generations in the
future.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, would the minister confirm that one of the cutback
scenarios he is considering consists in reducing pensions by 10 per
cent and raising contributions to the plan for those who are not yet
beneficiaries under the Canada pension plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of
Human Resources Development just explained, we intend to
discuss the whole issue of pension funds, the Canada pension plan
and the Quebec pension plan tomorrow and the day after with the
finance ministers.
The hon. member should realize that in both cases, we share the
problems and also the possibilities for solutions. However, it would
be very premature to discuss the options today. This will have to be
done with the finance ministers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, section
745 of the Criminal Code could allow the likes of Clifford Olson
and other lifers to get parole in only 15 years. Bill C-226 is a
private member's bill on the table waiting for approval to remove
section 745.
Is the justice minister prepared to support all Canadians
regarding this removal, or does he want it to die on the Order Paper
like I suspect he does?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member creates the
impression that section 745 is a provision which results in the
automatic release of people who have been convicted of murder.
Section 745 simply provides that such people can apply to a
court, composed of a judge and a jury picked from the community,
to decide the question of whether that person should be permitted
to ask for an opportunity to have parole.
(1455 )
When the private member's bill was before the House, there was,
in effect, a free vote on that bill. As a result it went to the justice
committee.
I have written to the justice committee and I spoke to its then
chair to ask the committee to deal with this matter as one of
priority. I want the committee to deal with it. As I told the House
last week, I shall be making submissions to the justice committee
about the broader context in which it should look at this single
important issue.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to make it perfectly clear that I said section 745 could allow the
likes of those people to be released.
This minister has brought in legislation that has divided Canada
rather than unite Canadians. The gun law, the sentencing bill and
sexual orientation inclusion and the unity bill are some examples of
how this minister is working.
When is the minister going to support bills that victims, police,
police chiefs and all other Canadians want, like the removal of
section 745 from the Criminal Code?
17503
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no matter how the hon. member
may choose to pronounce his words, the fact is that from day to
day in this Chamber, he makes a career out of creating the spectre
of public danger because of this section in the Criminal Code.
The far more responsible approach to criminal justice is to first
look at the facts and that is exactly what I have asked the justice
committee to do. That is what they will do.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
In the rush to fulfil the Prime Minister's referendum promises to
Quebec, the government has hastily assembled a unity package that
aboriginal leaders say does not recognize their historic
self-government, land and treaty rights and would make it
absolutely impossible to obtain further changes to the Constitution
to clarify those rights.
Will the government stop ignoring the aboriginal issues in these
constitutional initiatives and make a commitment today; first, to
consult with the Assembly of First Nations; second, to honour
Canada's constitutional obligations to aboriginal people; and third,
to recognize First Nations as full partners in Canada?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the member,
who spends a lot of time on the aboriginal file, did not hear the
speeches of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice or myself.
If he had, he would have heard that the words were very similar
in each one of the speeches. They were very clear that the distinct
society clause does not derogate one iota from either the inherent
right or the treaty rights of aboriginal people.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in the speech to which the minister refers there was a
commitment to a national aboriginal day, a holiday.
I am wondering if, instead of a day off, we might find a day to
actually sit down and get some work done on some of the things for
which the aboriginal people have asked, particularly the
extinguishment clause that aboriginal people have talked about.
Will the minister give us a commitment today that as the fact
finder Justice Hamilton has requested, the extinguishment clause
will be extinguished?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only does the hon. member
have the wrong speech but he has the wrong day. I am referring to
the speeches that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and I
initiated at the start of the debate on distinct society and the veto
legislation.
We were not talking about a holiday per se. We were talking
about a recognition. It is in place now in the sense that the AFN has
a unity day on June 21. We can build on that because at the spiritual
gathering, all the churches were there: the Mennonites, the
Anglicans, the Roman Catholics, all the spiritual leaders.
All the parties were there except unfortunately the NDP and the
Reform. I am looking at both of them. Maybe if they had been there
they would understand what we are trying to do collectively as far
as putting some spiritualism and recognition into what the
aboriginal people have done for this country and continue to do.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
Newfoundland, as in most other provinces, seasonal work is very
important to the economy. Would the Minister of Human Resource
Development assure me, the constituents of St. John's West and the
rest of Canada, that the particular circumstances of seasonal
workers have been taken into account in considering the new
employment insurance legislation?
(1500)
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the question.
One very important change, as the member knows, is that we
have shifted the basis of eligibility to hours. That will be of
substantial benefit to seasonal workers. It will mean that many
seasonal workers qualify much sooner for benefits than they can
now and that many seasonal workers can extend their benefits
much further. In other words they will be able to extend their
weeks.
To give a working example, today with the new system 45,000
additional seasonal workers who are not eligible under the present
system and who now pay premiums could become eligible under
the new system. More important, 270,000 seasonal workers today
would be able to extend their benefits a minimum of an additional
two weeks beyond that which they have now under the old system.
In other words, they could establish their claim earlier and have
their claim last longer because we are recognizing and giving them
full credit for all the work they do.
17504
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage recently signed an umbrella
agreement to provide Quebec anglophone groups with $8.4
million. Although Reform is against such expenditures generically,
if the government is to do it we hope it will do it in a fair way.
Will anglophone groups that did not sign the deal continue to
receive funding? Or, will it be channelled entirely through Alliance
Quebec?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Official Languages
Act of Canada recognizes minority groups, francophones outside
Quebec and anglophones within Quebec.
The official languages office has been in the process of
negotiating with a variety of different groups based on principles of
equity and gender. It will certainly not cut out other groups at the
expense of Alliance Quebec. Nor would Alliance Quebec expect
that to happen.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of
Transport.
In reply to an opposition question, the minister said that
Canadian Airlines International and its partner, Alitalia, had ceased
operations at Mirabel because of insufficient passenger volume
between Montreal and Rome. However, Air Canada has applied for
permission to operate this route.
Considering the sizable Italian community in Montreal and the
fact that there is a real market for flights between Montreal and
Rome, does the Minister of Transport intend to make an exception
to his policy for allocating international routes and accede to Air
Canada's request so as to provide a direct link between these two
cities?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have no intention of changing the current existing
rules for allocating routes to these two airlines. However, I
understand the hon. member's question and his emphasis on the
importance of the service between Montreal and Italy. In fact, a
number of ministers and members on this side of the House have
already raised the matter.
However, we must realize that often the other airline applies for
a route, not because it may be very successful but because it wants
the international prestige.
We should realize, as the hon. member pointed out, that
Canadian Airlines International is not alone in thinking there is not
enough passenger volume between Montreal and Italy, since Italy's
national airline, Alitalia, has also suspended operations on this
route.
However, we will continue our negotiations. We have scheduled
meetings with Canadian Airlines International to try and find ways
to solve the problem.
_____________________________________________
17504
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1505)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-114, an act to
amend the Contraventions Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-115, an act respecting
fisheries.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition, certified by the House
and signed by 163 residents of Scarborough and east metro
Toronto.
The petitioners call on the government to reconsider the national
security certificate issued jointly by the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and the Solicitor General of Canada in relation to Mr.
Manicavasagam Suresh. This proceeding has caused concern
among Tamil Canadians.
17505
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on Canada Post signed
by 200 constituents of Lac-Saint-Jean, which reads as follows.
Whereas the Canada Post Corporation moves home mail boxes
around as it sees fit, which forces a number of citizens to use the
services of an intermediary to get their mail, we are requesting that
Canada Post put an end to its plan to move home delivery mail
boxes around as it sees fit, and to respect vested rights to postal
services.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions to present today.
The first petition is on behalf of 400 of my constituents from
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and from people across the
country.
They call on Parliament to preserve Canadian unity and
parliamentary tradition and to protect the rights of all people of
Canada by prevailing upon the Speaker of the House of Commons
to recognize the Reform Party as the official opposition during the
remainder of the 35th Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from 75 constituents.
They call upon Parliament to reduce the federal deficit by
reducing government spending and by refraining from any form of
tax increase.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from 25 concerned constituents.
(1510 )
They call on Parliament to support laws which severely punish
violent criminals who use weapons, to support new Criminal Code
firearms provisions which protect the law-abiding gun owner, and
to repeal existing legislation which does not improve public safety
and has not been proven to be cost effective.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the next petition is on behalf of 60 constituents from
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
They call on Parliament to protect our children through stringent
enforcement of our existing laws by imposing maximum sentence
if an offender preys upon children, by denying early release in such
cases and by bringing in new legislation to specifically protect
children.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the final petition is from 110 of my constituents from
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
They call upon Parliament to end the legal approval of spanking
children by repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
today on behalf of the little brother campaign sponsored by Tom
and George Ambas of Scarborough, Ontario. The signatures are
from in and around the area of Wild Rose.
The petition prays and calls upon Parliament to amend the Young
Offenders Act to provide that young offenders charged with murder
be automatically tried in adult court, that if convicted they may be
sentenced as adults, and that identities should not be hidden from
the public.
I am very pleased to present the petition on their behalf.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions under Standing Order 36 to present. The first is from the
residents of Smith, Alberta.
The petitioners request that Parliament amend the Divorce Act to
include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec civil code
which states that in no case may a father or a mother without
serious cause place obstacles between the child and grandparents.
Failing agreement between the parties, the modalities of the
relationship are settled by the court.
Further they request an amendment to the Divorce Act that
would give a grandparent granted access to a child the right to
make inquiries and to be given information on the health, education
and welfare of the child.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from the residents of Fort McMurray in my
riding.
They ask that Parliament support laws which severely punish all
violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime;
support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which
recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and
use recreational firearms; and support legislation which will repeal
17506
or modify existing gun control laws that have not improved public
safety, have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be
overly complex as to be ineffective or unenforceable.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the following question will be answered today: No. 224.
[Text]
Question No. 224-Mr. Cummins:
With regard to work contracted for involving the department of fisheries, (a)
does the department of fisheries have a contractual relationship with Bristol
Communication, if so, what is the service provided, (b) what was the billing in
the fiscal years 1994-95 and for the first half of 1995-96, and (c) what is the
policy or regulation governing contracts with companies in which departmental
officials or minister's staff have an interest?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed
by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Treasury Board as
follows:
(a) The Department of Fisheries and Oceans no longer has a
contractual relationship with Bristol Communications.
(b) $63,493.19 was invoiced by Bristol Communications in
1994-95 and $5,382.19 was invoiced in the first half of 1995-96.
(c) Departmental officials (employees) are subject to the
provisions of the conflict of interest and post-employment code for
the public service (public service code). This code does not make
any specific statement ``governing contracts with companies in
which departmental officals-have an interest''. However, there
are provisions relating to assets held by employees.
Pursuant to sections 21 to 23 of the public service code,
employees must make a confidential report to the designated
official of all assets and of all direct and contingent liabilities,
where these might give rise to a conflict of interest in respect of the
employee's official duties and responsibilities. Such assets might
include ``interests in partnerships, proprietorships, joint ventures,
private companies and family businesses, in particular those that
own or control shares of public companies or that do business with
the government''.
Employees must divest assets where it is determined by the
designated offical that they constitute a real or potential conflict of
interest in relation to the duties and responsibilities of the
employee. Divestment of assets is usually achieved by selling them
in an arm's length transaction or by making them subject to a trust
arrangement.
Minister's staff are subject to the provisions of the conflict of
interest and post-employment code for public office holders
(public office holder code). This code does not make any specific
statement ``governing contracts with companies in which-
minister's staff have an interest''. However, there are provisions
relating to assets held by public office holders, which includes
minister's staff.
Section 9(1) requires a confidential report to the ethics
counsellor of all assets and of all direct and contingent liabilities.
Pursuant to section 10 to 14, the public office holders then make
a public declaration of certain types of assets (such as interests in
businesses that do not contract with the government and do not own
or control publicly traded securities), and divest themselves of
other types of assets which could be directly or indirectly affected
as to value by government decisions or policy (such as publicly
traded securities and businesses which contract with the
government). Such divestment is by sale or by establishing a blind
trust or management agreement approved by the ethics counsellor.
For more detailed information on conflict of interest and code of
conduct, please refer to the codes.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
17506
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-111,
an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Centre has
the floor and has a minute left in his intervention.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
the opportunity to finish my intervention with about 60 more
seconds of words of wisdom for the government on its
unemployment insurance efforts.
It collects $19 billion and it pays out some $11 billion. The other
billions of dollars are just to get votes. The government has the
opportunity to truly reform unemployment insurance, to truly push
it down to the level of government that is closest to the people and
let it serve them, to truly eliminate overlap and duplication of
services, to save the taxpayers $5 billion, and to lower government
17507
spending. If it is a matching fund between employer and employee
it should never go into a deficit whatsoever.
The government had the opportunity to offer some hope and tax
relief to corporations through a reduction in the payroll tax. It has
chosen not to do any of those things that stimulate the economy. It
has chosen not to do any of those things that would benefit
taxpayers. Instead it has chosen to continue taxing on the side and
overburdening us with more and more taxation.
(1515 )
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, listening to
the member for Calgary Centre I feel we are reading two separate
acts. One of his concerns was that we were changing the name of
this bill from the Unemployment Insurance Act to the employment
act, and even that bothered him. Imagine trying to take a positive
stance on getting Canadians back to work; this is just another thing
they object to.
Canada works when Canadians work. This is the essence of Bill
C-111. The previous Unemployment Insurance Act was basically a
passive support system. It in many ways encouraged people not to
seek employment in other areas. The Canadian economy is very
much evolving from what some economists would like to call the
old economy into a new economy. It is very appropriate that as
Canada approaches the 21st century it attempts to evolve its
legislation in the area of encouraging skills and skill development
in our workforce.
There is always the question of cause and effect when we get into
the issue of unemployment or employment benefits. Many of our
younger people are joining the workforce. Alarmingly, over 60 per
cent of new entrants have received only a high school education. It
is apropos that the government has recognized that and wants to
upgrade the basic qualities of skills in the labour market.
Many of us can relate stories from their own ridings, anecdotal
or whatever, of people who have purposely chosen not to work
because the incentive to work was not there. In other words, they
received unemployment insurance benefits and for them to take a
job, with possible babysitting costs or whatever other costs
attributed to going to work, it was cheaper to sustain themselves on
unemployment insurance.
I do not believe unemployment insurance was ever intended to
be an income support system. It was basically supposed to
encourage and develop skills so that people would seek
employment.
It is interesting how Canadian economist Nuala Beck said the
economy in Canada has been changing over the last number of
years. More people work in the sophisticated electronics industry
than in pulp and paper. This is even true in British Columbia. More
Quebecers have jobs in health and medical care than in the
traditional sectors of construction, textile, clothing, furniture,
automobile, forestry and mining combined.
More Nova Scotians work as teachers and university professors
than in fish processing, forestry and construction put together. The
province has the largest number of universities per capita of any
province, making it one of the best knowledge intensive regions in
the country. Why I submit that information during this debate is
that sometimes we forget how our economy has been changing. We
often look at the unemployment statistics and they also follow
some of what people would call the older economy.
Basically we want to not subsidize and underwrite people
staying with an old economy that possibly is leading to dead end
jobs. Rather, we want to give them the skills and the incentive to
move along within the workforce.
Canada has one of the highest benefit plans of unemployment
insurance in the world. Many have suggested this has created a
situation in which people have been reticent about seeking new
employment in other areas. In a sense it has actually contributed to
the immobility of our workforce and has possibly made it not as
dynamic as it should have been.
We have watched the unemployment insurance system change in
the last 12 years. In 1982, 15 per cent of workers were repeat users.
By 1994 over 40 per cent of the people who accessed the
unemployment insurance system have also done so at least one
other time in the last five years, which tells us that more and more
people have been using the unemployment insurance system not so
much as an avenue for getting back to work or looking for new
work but as a way to maintain their income levels.
(1520)
Another aspect affecting our economy is a tremendous change in
the remuneration for young people. Those under 24 years of age are
today earning less than a similar age group in 1969. Many of these
younger people are finding it difficult to access the labour market.
Many aspects of this legislation create an open door which allows
some of our younger people to get work experience.
How is this new act better than the old unemployment system
with the problems I have mentioned? It is better in a number of
ways. It assists employers in keeping assistance to small and
medium size businesses. Premiums for workers will drop from the
current level, which the previous speaker neglected to mention, of
$3 to $2.95 in 1996, while employers will pay $4.13 per $100 of
employee insurable earnings as compared with the current $4.20.
This combined with a reduction in the annual insurable base from
the current level of $42,380 to $39,000 means employers could
save as much as $170 per worker in 1996.
17508
Time and again employers have told us as a government that
payroll taxes kill jobs. Payroll taxes, whether unemployment
insurance or Canada pension plan and other benefits paid to
employees, mean a cost to the employer to hire that extra
employee. The government has realized that, has heard those
concerns of employers and has changed the legislation to give
employers more of an incentive to hire new workers.
This new system will streamline paperwork and simplify
reporting requirements facing employers, thus reducing
administrative cost. The elimination of weekly minimums and
maximums to determine insurability means employers will save in
the order of $150 million in administration costs.
The old system basically made people account by weeks with I
believe 15 hours per insurable week of employment. One can
imagine where an employer who had employees, some working 15
hours, some working 12 hours, some working more than that,
would have a horrendous accounting procedure trying to figure out
who was insurable and who was not. It also created a barrier. Some
people wanted to get 15 hours in so they could have insurable
employment. Many relationships between employers and
employees were about who could get these hours and so forth.
It created an administrative nightmare for small business. It also
created abuse in the relationship between employers and
employees. The government has recognized this impediment to
hiring people and has changed it in this legislation.
It is estimated that 60 per cent of small firms that currently
contribute to the unemployment insurance system actually pay less
under the EI while another 16 per cent will pay the same amount.
This is a significant factor. Remember, small and medium size
businesses are the employers of the future and have been almost the
sole creator of jobs in the past. Over 76 per cent of small businesses
will realize a significant reduction in their payroll costs. This will
give them an incentive to hire more people.
In addition, further relief will be provided by a temporary
premium refund for those small businesses that experience a
significant premium increase over the next two years. Some 300
small businesses will be eligible for these rebates. This is another
area where the government has heard the concerns of small and
medium size business and their desire to create new jobs and a new
economy.
(1525)
In addition, we have recognized the importance of people being
able to find that new job. Often the problem has been with the
changing workforce and also a changing economy. In moving from
the old economy to the new economy people have been displaced.
Their displacement has also created a situation in which they were
reticent about accepting lower paying jobs which may get them
into a new labour force.
This legislation provides up to a $5,000 a year subsidy over a
three-year period to allow them to access those new jobs. Eight
hundred million dollars will be spent for new employment benefits,
and on and on.
There is also the recognition of low income families. It was often
cheaper for them to go on welfare than it was to work. The
government has recognized that by subsidizing the child tax benefit
provisions of the unemployment insurance system to providing
more benefits for those young families trying to find a job, find a
career. This is only a part of what is a very excellent piece of
legislation.
These changes will assist Canadian corporations and their
workers in providing new jobs for the young and for all workers in
Canada in the new economy and putting the old economy behind
us.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-111 runs counter to the historical demands of Quebec and to
women's rights to equality.
Let us travel back in time, stopping in the year 1864 during the
discussions leading up to Confederation. The future central
government wanted to have jurisdiction over higher education. It
would appear that this did not suit a good number of participants,
because the provinces ended up with full jurisdiction over
education.
Now, after a long jump forward in history, let us stop in 1940.
This is the year, you will remember, in which, after an unsuccessful
attempt to legislate on an unemployment insurance proposal, the
government succeeded in having the constitution changed by the
British Parliament and was accorded a new
jurisdiction-unemployment insurance.
This jurisdiction over unemployment insurance was interpreted
by the courts, and the decisions are very interesting indeed. The
well known constitionalist, Mr. Beaudoin, covered the subject
briefly in his La Constitution du Canada.
The courts decided the federal government's jurisdiction over
unemployment insurance included the right to determine the types
of jobs that were insurable, the sorts of jobs that involved a risk of
unemployment and could perhaps be covered by the program, the
sorts of income that could be taken into account in calculating
unemployment insurance contributions and, finally, the eligibility
criteria for benefits.
From these powers, one conclusion is obvious: Parliament's
jurisdiction covers unemployment insurance solely. That is, like all
other forms of insurance-life insurance, fire insurance, disability
insurance-the risk is insured, period.
17509
This leads us to the question of where Parliament got its so
important authority over job training, because it has none over
education. Training, education, are we not talking about the same
process? Basic logic would say it was, and yet, in reality, quite
the opposite is true.
The question is simple and so is the answer: Parliament's power
is not derived from any formal document. No province has ever
said to the federal government: ``Here, you have control over
unemployment insurance, you should also have it over job training.
Take it, I give it to you''.
It did not happen that way at all. It happened surreptitiously. The
federal government said: ``Since I am the one collecting the money
and redistributing it among those meeting the criteria, I think I
should also arrange it so that I do not have too many clients. I will
look after their training. I will provide nice programs, special
courses, counselling centres, all kinds of goodies. I will see to it
that they do not come back begging too often, so that I can use the
money for other purposes as I see fit''.
(1530)
That is what happened. All thanks to the famous federal
spending power. There was a hitch, however: Quebec, this king of
spoilsports, according to the Deputy Prime Minister, protested.
Quebec society as a whole said no to federal control over job
training. We told the federal government: ``Leave our jurisdictions
alone. We have a very good idea of the kind of job market we want
to develop. We know what kind of society we want, what our
economic priorities are, what family policies we want to include in
our programs, what markets we want to open''.
In short, Quebec society told the federal government: ``We know
where we want to go. We have the skills needed to do so. Get out of
here and do not take the money with you; it belongs to us''.
Again, as history has shown on many occasions, the federal
government does not understand anything. It continues to deny us
through this bill. Worse yet, it has broken all records by changing
the name of its constitutional jurisdiction, an amendment adopted
in 1940 when the federal government was given jurisdiction over
unemployment insurance; it has now decided to call it employment
insurance. This throws the door wide open to new encroachments,
since any new initiative can be justified in the name of a so-called
jurisdiction over employment insurance. The government is acting
in bad faith, in obvious bad faith.
I do not know where this bad faith comes from. What I know is
that overlap and duplication will not stop there and will continue.
I also know that the federal government is maintaining and even
increasing the amount of duplication and overlap. And it does so in
many areas, such as health, education, agriculture, culture,
communications, the environment, natural resources and fisheries,
just to name a few.
I also know that the 10,000 unemployed workers living in my
riding are no better off with the HRD minister's new UI reform; in
fact, they are being penalized. They have nothing to gain from this
reform. In my riding, the unemployment rate hovers around 20 or
25 per cent, with a welfare caseload of 28 per cent. This percentage
will keep growing as the number of people looking for work who
no longer qualify for UI increases. What choice will they have
other than going on welfare?
I also know that the 2,000 people who gave up looking for a job
in the Quebec City area last month and were therefore struck off the
UI rolls as they joined the ranks of the welfare recipients have
nothing to gain from this reform.
Women and young people in particular have nothing to gain
from the minister's reform proposal. With this bill, women
continue to be penalized. For example, the new conditions to
qualify for benefits will penalize women, since 70 per cent of part
time jobs are held by women and since women are the ones who
re-enter the labour force after extended leaves of absence for child
rearing purposes.
It is so unfair for a government to add to the negative impact that
being away from the labour market had on the careers and financial
position of women instead of recognizing the value of the work
these women have done with their children. Such an attitude is far
from promoting equal opportunities for women.
I ask the government: whatever happened to the funds that were
going to be used to create daycare spaces? Where is that money?
The government promised 100,000 new daycare spaces. This is
another election promise that was quickly forgotten because it did
not affect the interests of wealthy contributors to the party's
election fund.
After promising to create massive employment, get rid of the
GST and eliminate overlap, this is yet another unfulfilled
commitment that will adversely affect women.
History will soon show that the federal government should have
been content with its already large powers under the original
constitution. History will also show that Quebec women have
become tired of being treated like second class citizens.
(1535)
They stopped believing in nice rhetoric a long time ago. They
only believe what they see now, and that is a bleak future for them,
a future without work, which will hurt the poor in particular, a
group with which women can identify.
17510
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to
enter into the debate on the bill today and on the motion before us.
I will begin by talking briefly about the problems we will have if
we send the bill to committee prior to second reading. It is a
problem for me because I was a member of the committee when
Bill C-43, the Lobbyists Registration Act, was first tried in
Parliament. At first I eagerly accepted it. I said it would be a really
good thing because then we as ordinary members, backbenchers,
would have input into the bill at the very beginning. Hopefully we
would be able to craft the bill so it would include from the
beginning the necessary changes that would produce widespread
approval among all the parties.
However, I was greatly disappointed. During the time of the
committee everything went really well. We had a good chairperson
and it was a time when we built good collegiality among ourselves.
There were many times when we discussed these things. We came
to a consensus but I was very disappointed when finally we came to
the end of the process. Even though we thought we had agreement
on a number of issues we raised on behalf of Canadians we
represent, the members of the committee on the day of the voting
of the clause by clause came in with their little check sheets and
voted according to a pre-plan, which greatly disappointed me.
I was really distressed. A number of the things they voted against
were things that I thought we had reached consensus on. In the end,
it simply did not materialize that the individual members were able
to express their convictions.
I would like to be on record as being opposed to this process. I
know it was supposed to be new and innovative but my experience
is that not only does it not work at that level, but it cuts off the next
level of amendment possibilities and further debate which is very
important in the House; to go through the regular procedure of
having first reading, second reading, committee and then third
reading.
I am against that part and urge all fellow members to preserve
the functioning of Parliament by rejecting this motion to send it to
committee at this time. It ought to go through second reading in a
normal sense first.
I would like to now speak about the whole question of
unemployment. Unemployment is a very severe problem. In the
downturn of an economy many businesses respond of necessity by
laying off some employees. Those employees now have lost their
jobs and because generally the downturn in the economy produces
fewer opportunities in other businesses, as more and more people
get laid off the probability and the availability of getting other jobs
is reduced.
Obviously something has to be done. The present plan and the
plan by the Minister of Human Resources Development are not
long term solutions to this problem.
The types of policies the government is embarking on further
erode the employability of Canadians. The real task before us is to
provide a climate in which there are jobs available, in which there
are employment opportunities and in which it is possible for people
of all skills levels to find their niche and to contribute to society
economically and in other ways. Tinkering with the bill will not do
anything to achieve that fuller goal.
(1540)
With respect to meeting the needs of those temporarily
unemployed, Canadians should begin to recognize they are getting
a very short shrift from government, from the unemployment
insurance commission and from the whole system which is
designed to tide them over through a difficult period. Many people
would much rather have a job than rely on the limited benefits of
unemployment insurance.
I will go even further. I reiterate what I have said many times at
public meetings and in private. A number of employers have
spoken to me since the time I became involved in the political
process. They find it very difficult to obtain and keep workers
because they are competing with unemployment insurance. They
are competing with a situation in which an individual says: ``I get
this much if I do not work. Why should I work for you?''
I was at one time the recipient of this policy. I owned a small
business with a partner. We hired someone who worked for us for a
short time and then abruptly quit. When I asked him about it he
listed the salary and benefits he received from us and said: ``It costs
me only about $200 less per month to not do anything, so I am out
of here''. Unfortunately the business we were in required us to have
accessibility to our employees at very odd hours. It was not a very
pleasant working situation. We did not have the financial flexibility
to pay huge bucks to persuade people to stay. We went through a
continuing line of people who worked for us basically long enough
to qualify for unemployment insurance and then they were gone.
One thing which really annoyed me was that those employees,
all of whom were male, as it was heavy industrial work, when they
filed their income tax returns, in every case they were able to
receive a refund on their overpayment to UI. They were
unemployed and under the limit, so they overpaid. However, we as
employers struggling to keep the business going ended up paying
the maximum to the UIC and to the Canada pension plan and we
were ineligible for rebates comparable to the overpayments the
employees were making. That was a great unfairness.
17511
Unemployment insurance is exactly what its name implies. It
ensures we will have unemployment. The name is now being
changed. It is a cosmetic change. All the principles remain
essentially the same. There are a few cosmetic changes being
proposed, none of which will produce any profound changes in
how the system operates and the disincentives built in to take part
time work.
A number of years ago I worked at the Northern Alberta Institute
of Technology and once again our UI premiums increased. It was at
the time when they crossed the $100 per month threshold. I talked
to my fellow instructors. We did some calculating. There were
approximately 750 instructors at the institute. We were paying
$100 per month each, which means a monthly contribution of
$75,000. Our employer, paying 40 per cent more, contributed an
additional $105,000 per month, making a total of $180,000 per
month, sent to Ottawa for the UIC from our little group of
instructors. That makes a total of $2.16 million per year.
(1545)
Instead of being involved in that coercive system, we would
have been able to keep the money and invest it or use it. We would
have been able to provide the equivalent of 54 jobs based on a
salary of $40,000 per year. Meanwhile, our fellow instructors were
being laid off because of pressure of taxation and other things. We
were forced to pay people to leave work when we would much
rather have shared the workload with them. Fifty-four of those
people were being subsidized.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to join all my colleagues who asked that Bill C-111
be referred as quickly as possible to the standing committee of the
House, so that all Canadians can soon participate in the
development of the bill, and eventually in its implementation.
At the same time, I want to refute many myths concerning this
bill, particularly as regards part time workers.
A moment ago, I was listening to our Bloc colleague, the
member for Quebec, talking about what else but the big bad federal
government which is responsible for all ills on earth and in heaven,
and all over the planet. She mentioned constitutional interference
and injustices against Quebec. When I listen to the Bloc members
day in and day out, it seems to me that they would like to continue
and perpetuate the referendum debate for ever.
If I may, since I live in the Montreal area and see it daily, I would
like to point out the political, social and economic instability which
is now pervasive in our area as a result of this sterile and divisive
debate we are compelled to by the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti
Quebecois, and their obsession for a separate Quebec. The
Montreal economy is sick due in part to this instability which
scares away investments and jobs. This is a reality we need to talk
about.
I would like to mention the workers who, either by choice or
through no fault of their own, are working part time. Bill C-111 was
drafted, in many ways, to held part time workers. We heard claims
that Bill C-111 was a new tax on workers, or that it was tightening
eligibility to such a degree that workers most in need would never
qualify.
It is important to compare the provisions in Bill C-111 with those
of the old system.
[English]
During the last two decades almost half of the new jobs created
have been what economists call non-standard jobs. Most are part
time jobs. By 1994, 17.3 per cent of all jobs in our country were
part time jobs. Sadly, women filled 70 per cent of those part time
jobs. Studies show that more than one-third of all part time workers
actually seek and want full time work. Once again, more than
two-thirds of the part timers who seek full time jobs happen to be
women.
We should ask ourselves: Has the old approach to unemployment
insurance benefited part time workers? The answer is no. Under the
old system a worker needed to work at least 15 hours or earn a
certain amount to have his or her earnings insured. In 1995 that
amount was $163. The old system has frozen out 500,000 Canadian
workers. Many employers have deliberately held workers to less
than 15 hours. This has kept their wages lower. After all there can
be no employer share of unemployment insurance premiums for
uninsured employees. The result has been that these workers have
not been eligible for any benefits if they lose their job.
[Translation]
But there is another aspect to that unfairness. A recent study by
Statistics Canada revealed that 653,000 Canadians have more than
one job. That is definitely not a normal situation. More and more
people now have two or even three part time jobs, but many of
them are still not covered by the present plan. That is absurd and
unfair.
[English]
Then we have people who work more than the minimum some
weeks but not other weeks. They have only partial coverage. That
shows why we need this change. One central objective of Bill
C-111 is to get rid of the artificial notion of a work week. By using
hours as a measuring device and by making every hour count, part
time workers earn coverage at the same rate as every other insured
worker.
A person who loses a part time job will be treated the same as
any other worker if he or she has enough hours of work. This is fair.
We have set a reasonable standard regarding the number of hours a
person has to work to be eligible for benefits. That underlines our
17512
goal to make work pay. It is a necessary step that helps us to meet
our fiscal targets through Bill C-111.
Many part time workers amass very few hours. They may be
students. Some may be in seasonal work. They may have only a
little part time employment or maybe only a few weeks of full time
work. This bill understands that reality. It exempts people who earn
less than $2,000 a year from employment insurance premiums.
These people will have premiums deducted from their paycheques
just like everyone else but that money will be returned to them
through the income tax system.
There will be no tax grab from our lowest income workers. This
will have a significant effect. The Department of Human Resources
Development has determined that more than three out of every four
of the newly insured workers will have their premiums refunded.
Another 920,000 low income workers who now pay premiums will
see those refunded. Altogether that is equivalent to 1.3 million
workers who will not have to pay premiums because their earnings
are too low. The government has built a system based strictly on
fairness.
[Translation]
What will the impact be on part time workers? They will pay $14
million less in premiums, and a much greater number will qualify
for benefits if they are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs.
[English]
It reflects the balanced approach this bill takes to the needs of
people in seasonal work. The government clearly listened to the
recommendations of the working group on seasonal work and
unemployment insurance. These recommendations called for an
hours based system. They called for an increased clawback. They
called for steps to keep young people from leaving school for a
cycle of unemployment insurance dependence.
Despite the claims of the opposition, these are the facts. Part
time workers will see less off their income in premiums. They will
have more access to benefits.
(1555)
In contrast, the Reform Party has been pounding away at its
claims that extending employment insurance to part time workers
will lead to untold numbers being fired by employers. I use the
word untold for a reason because I have never heard Reform
members offer any credible statistics to support this claim.
Under the new system, part time workers who have been eligible
for insurance benefits at any time in the previous three years will
have the same opportunity for employment benefits as other
eligible workers.
[Translation]
To conclude, I would like to reiterate my firm support for the
motion of the government that Bill C-111 be referred as quickly as
possible to a committee so that the serious consultations Canadians
expect can get under way, and that Bill C-111 can be enacted as
soon as possible.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is it my turn for
debate? Ten minutes? I thought I could put questions to my
colleague opposite.
Mr. de Savoye: No, we have been gagged.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): We have been gagged. That is the new
way of doing things. It means that the government does not go only
after the victims, but also after the members who represent the
victims, as my colleague for Portneuf put it.
I am not pleased, but rather deeply saddened to rise today to
speak on a bill which is so tough on the unemployed, on the jobless.
Instead of tackling the problems and trying to find work for the
people who live in the regions, the government is going after what
little they have left.
What is this bill all about? As we say in French, and especially in
my region of Gaspé, it is first and foremost a deficit insurance plan
for the government, since it would save about $5 billion. It is not
the jobless who will benefit from this, but the government. So, first
and foremost, the reform proposed by the minister is a kind of
insurance program for him, for his deficit, and not an employment
insurance system, as he would have us believe.
I was regional critic for the Bloc Quebecois this last year, and I
still am, unless changes are made, and the people in areas like the
Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands are being dealt a double
blow by this bill, since the vast majority of the unemployed in these
areas are seasonal unemployed. One of the first measures that will
be applied by the government is the 1 per cent penalty for recurring
unemployment. This means that each time an unemployed person
in our regions receives UI benefits for a period of 20 weeks-20
weeks, not a year-that person is given a 1 per cent penalty
applicable to his or her future benefits. That hurts.
Then, when you look at how the system works, we know the
present rate of benefits is 55 per cent of the gross salary. This
means that, once they have accumulated five periods of 20 weeks
of UI benefits, these persons will no longer get 55 per cent of their
gross salary, but 50 per cent. That hurts, and is discriminatory. It is
not their fault if they work in an area that has to follow the seasons.
But, nevertheless, they will get a 5 per cent penalty. That is one
thing.
Also, benefits are calculated not only based on the number of
hours, but also based on the number of qualifying weeks. First, the
benefits will be divided by 14 and subsequently, in 1997 or 1998 I
think, they will be divided by 16.
17513
(1600)
This means that if I manage to accumulate the required 420
hours in a period of 10 weeks, the total amount of benefits I am
entitled to will be calculated and divided by 14, as if I had
accumulated the required number of hours over a period of 14
weeks.
That is another reduction of the UI benefits to which these
unemployed people would normally be entitled. What should we
think of that?
But the funniest thing or should I say the saddest thing about
this-and I am sure all the people from the Gaspé Peninsula and the
Magdalen Islands who are listening to this will demand an
explanation from their member opposite-from what I
understand-and I hope someone will be able to give me an answer
at some point-the 420 hour minimum requirement must be met
within a period of 14 weeks. Let us take for example a worker in a
lobster plant in our area of the Gaspé Peninsula, who works mainly
in May and June.
Suppose this worker manages to accumulate only 400 hours over
this work period. According to the rules, he or she must accumulate
20 hours more in order to become eligible.
If that worker is unlucky and cannot find work for his last 20
hours before fall, let us say September or October, what will
happen between the end of his first job, in June, and the beginning
of his new job, at the end of September? He will be out of work and
will receive no benefits of any kind.
I have read the regulations and, from what I understand, the UI
commission will calculate like this: let us suppose he worked 20
hours at-I will be generous-$20 an hour, that makes $200 during
that period. When the number of hours of work reaches 420, the
amount earned is averaged over the last 14 weeks. Since the worker
in my example did not work in July and August, because he lives in
area where work is seasonal, his earnings during his qualifying
period would be $200 and it is that amount that would be divided
by 14. What, then, would be the amount of his benefits? It would be
$1.25 or something like that. This is unspeakable.
I hope that I am wrong and that my office will receive a fax
telling me that I made a mistake. I just hope that we can at least
make the minister and the deputy ministers who came up with this
scheme understand that in areas like the Gaspé and the Islands,
where people need unemployment benefits to make ends meet, they
are very edgy about these changes to the program. People try very
hard, but nature imposes its work schedules on humans.
Mr. Speaker, did you ever try to go strawberry picking or lobster
fishing when there is three feet of ice? It is not easy. What can we
do? Should we ask our viewers across Canada to give up
strawberries and lobster forever, because people are no longer be
able to stay in their region for lack of unemployment insurance
benefits, and have to move and find other jobs? Is that the
message?
I am afraid we will see some trades and occupations disappear
because they are limited to some periods of the year. This is
unthinkable unless, once again, the member for Gaspé is wrong.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development keeping a
bargaining chip up his sleeve? I have not yet seen what regulatory
amendments the Governor in Council can make in the area of
unemployment for fishermen and seasonal workers and I do not
know if he can make some other changes. However, the core, the
basis of this bill is a slap on the wrist right from the start.
(1605)
I cannot believe how fast time is going by this afternoon. But in
the main, I have made my point. Canadians and Quebecers must be
wary. The minister is proposing a very fundamental change, and he
is the first one to dip into the pot of this insurance which I call the
deficit insurance. I ask the minister to protect the lives of those who
live in the regions.
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the member for
Calgary North, I woulk like to say to the member for Gaspé, if I
understood him correctly, that he used the word ``gag'' at the
beginning of his speech. I will allow him to reply, but I must advise
all members of the House that we are now under Standing Order
73(1)(c) which states:
(c) no Member may speak more than once nor longer than ten minutes.
I can assure the member that I have no intention of gagging him,
or any other member. However, we are now proceeding under that
rule. If the member wishes to reply, he can.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I had no intention
whatsoever of implying that the Chair wants us to do certain things.
But if I had the right to make a ten minutes speech, I thought I
would also have the right to comment after the ten minutes granted
to the other member.
This was to make our work interactive in the House: questions,
answers. That allows us to understand certain things.
In my opinion, what Standing Order 73 does, if you will allow
me to say so, is gag us.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
the Reform Party's Atlantic issues critic, I have met with and
spoken to Atlantic Canadians from all walks of life, including those
with, to them, an unwelcome dependence on the social program
known as unemployment insurance.
17514
It is the future of this social program that we are debating today.
Reforms to the program are long overdue. It is a prize
understatement to say that there is an unemployment problem in
the Atlantic provinces.
The latest unemployment rate in Newfoundland is 15.9 per cent.
In P.E.I. it is 12.2 per cent; in Nova Scotia it is 11.2 per cent and in
New Brunswick, the lowest of the four Atlantic provinces, it sits at
11 per cent. By contrast the national unemployment rate for Canada
is 9.4 per cent.
It is ironic that the Liberals are now going to call the system in
which these disastrous rates of unemployment are flourishing,
employment insurance. They have certainly done anything but
foster employment for Atlantic Canadians in the past. What they
have done is foster an unwelcome dependence on politicians, their
programs and their promises.
In 1994, the Atlantic region, with 8 per cent of Canada's
population, collected 16.6 per cent of UI benefits. Also last year,
$15.8 billion was paid out across the country in UI benefits, $2.6
billion of which ended up in Atlantic Canada.
This is a huge chunk of our national wealth. The tragedy is that
so many of these hard earned dollars do not end up in the hands of
those who really need assistance. The distribution of these moneys
is too often governed by political considerations rather than sound
planning.
The great seaworthy vessel known at Atlantic Canada is in need
of a major refitting. The weight of dependence on political
intervention has punched a very large hole in the bottom of the
boat.
Now the ship is taking on water at an alarming rate and who is at
risk of drowning? First, our young people. In some fishing
communities it is not uncommon for teenagers to drop out of
school to take a position on a fishing boat because it gets them
enough weeks of work to qualify for UI. The result is one less
person in the school system. In the end, one person has been robbed
of an opportunity to receive an education.
Young people like this are suffering twofold. On one hand, they
will be penalized for being labelled a frequent user. For years, they
were led to believe that the UI benefits would always be there.
Now, in a cruel twist of irony, they are also feeling the brunt of the
years of mismanagement of the oceans' fish stocks which have
disappeared.
Also facing the risk of drowning from the foundering ship of UI
are the communities dependent on this social program,
communities where the dollars from UI have literally kept the town
alive. In the past the government has tried to bring in training
programs to help workers move out of failing industries. The
Liberal government is trying this again. Unfortunately, the job
training programs, by the minister's own admission, have failed to
deliver in the past.
(1610)
As the hole in the bottom of Atlantic Canada's economic ship
grew and as more water poured in, the people who could save the
foundering ship were also penalized by the government. For years
small business, the driving force behind job creation, has asked for
relief from UI payroll taxes. Now, as the UI surplus fund grows, the
government is offering a small stipend to the business community.
The amount a business will pay in UI taxes will drop by
one-twentieth of 1 per cent. This means that for every $100 of
earnings it will drop by 5 cents. This is a very frail tool to hand to
our economic builders.
The ship that foundered over the years sank steadily through
debt, mismanagement and abuse. As the hole in the bottom of the
ship grew wider, successive governments tried to lighten the
weight of the sinking ship by throwing overboard a couple of deck
chairs, rather than by repairing the damage.
The Liberal government still has not moved to repair the damage
caused by the heavy borrowing of its own and previous
governments. What the ship needs is to be repaired, to be pulled
into drydock for a short time and to be made seaworthy again.
Think of the possibilities of putting back to sea in a fully
seaworthy ship. We can repair the ship and our social programs by
making tough decisions now, saving them from being made for us
down the road.
The international community, whether we like it or not, is
watching what we do very closely. By bringing financial spending
under control, the economic ship can be rebuilt and put back to sea.
It will be a refitted ship, able to withstand the storms of the open
ocean of global competition and avoid the rocks along the coast of
variable interest rates and currency fluctuations.
The ship that is repaired and put back to sea has a host of ports to
head for. The ports of possibility for Atlantic Canada are bountiful.
By moving on the Reform Party's policy initiative Atlantica, the
Atlantic provinces could open up new markets and a new
north-south trading arrangement with the New England states, a
market of 15 million people. Let us not forget the opportunity of
tapping into the European market. By capitalizing on their unique
proximity to other trading partners, the people of Atlantic Canada
will be the real winners. The people who helped to carve out a
country and a harsh new world 200 years ago can compete in the
21st century.
Sending a pile of cash in to try to solve the problems of a region
does not work. According to the auditor general it never did.
Programs designed to create employment, growth and prosperity,
such as those set up by the Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency,
have shown questionable results at best. The importance of good,
17515
solid infrastructure to enable movement of products for businesses
with initiative cannot be stressed enough.
ACOA has often been used as a means to create competition to
successful enterprises by funding grants to new but unviable
enterprises. This has had the effect of setting up the new for failure
and at the same time damaging the success of the old.
The people of Atlantic Canada need ways and means to become
self-sufficient. A region with natural resources such as lumber,
fish, mining, Hibernia and Voisey Bay has opportunities to rival
those of any other part of Canada if the shackles of government
restriction, red tape and taxes could be thrown off. The federal
government must free up the governments of Atlantic Canada and
its citizens by giving them the opportunity and their own resources
to manage and make decisions on the areas they see as being
needed most. A move toward creating real jobs, not the make-work
projects of the past, is what Atlantic Canadians need and want
most.
What the government needed to do and failed to do with this bill
was to send a message to Atlantic Canadians that there is hope.
There are ways to lessen dependence and restore self-sufficiency.
We should not have to depend always on the ill-conceived training
programs which in the past have not worked. Politicians can trust
the initiative of working people.
(1615)
Atlantic Canadians want to work. They have a right to go to work
but have been prevented from doing so by the very governments
they say are trying to protect them. They have been taxed out of
jobs. While the federal government increased taxes over the years,
the provincial governments followed suit. Borrowing money and
taking out a mortgage on our children's future is not the way to
build a strong country.
Atlantic Canada is a region of the country which feels that the
debate on this topic over the next few weeks is one that will have a
very strong impact on them. I urge the government to take
measures which will give this part of the country the long term plan
and hope it needs to build a strong economic future and not tinker
with programs which have no long term plan or benefit.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, pursuant to Standing
Order 73, as I mentioned earlier, it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings to put the question now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) I
have been requested by the government whip and the opposition
whip to defer the division until 6.30 today.
* * *
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-110, an act
respecting constitutional amendments as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There are two motions in amendment
standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-110, an
act respecting constitutional amendments.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate, but will be
voted on separately.
[English]
I now propose Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-110, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 13, on page 1, with
the following:
``to by at least two-thirds of the provinces that include''.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-110, in Clause 1, be amended:
(a) by replacing line 16, on page 1, with the following:
``(c) British Columbia;
(d) two or more of the Atlantic provinces'';
(b) by replacing line 21, on page 1, with the following:
``(e) two or more of the Prairie provinces'';
(c) by replacing line 25, on page 1, with the following:
``the Prairie provinces.''; and
(d) by replacing lines 5 to 7, on page 2, with the following:
````Prairie provinces'' means the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Alberta.''
17516
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at
report stage of Bill C-110, I will discuss briefly some of the
amendments which have been put forth, including the one in my
name. As well I have some general comments about the committee
and report stage.
The amendment I have moved today seeks to replace the words
``by a majority of the provinces'' on line 13 with the words ``by
two-thirds of the provinces''. I suggest this to the government
really as a matter of drafting. On looking at the the bill one will see
that the bill as it is drafted, particularly with the amendment the
government is proposing, is a bit odd.
(1620)
The bill says that the government will consult and get the
consent of a majority of the provinces. Then it lists a formula with
the amendment to include British Columbia that would include no
fewer than two-thirds of the provinces in any case. The
government's own formula would require at least seven provinces
to get consent. In any case, the sections of the Constitution Act
which the bill refers to require at least two-thirds of the provinces.
They require either two-thirds or in some cases unanimity.
It seems to me the term ``by a majority of the provinces'' is
absolutely meaningless and actually is a bit misleading. It
illustrates one of the problems with the bill. If I have the time I will
get to that later. There are several instances where it is clear that the
drafting of the bill leaves a number of considerations fairly
undefined or wide open.
The second amendment I will also speak to is the one moved by
the government itself. This is the amendment to constitute British
Columbia as a fifth region. I have said myself in committee and
before that five regions are better than four but as I said at second
reading, that does not render this bill acceptable. The bill remains
fundamentally flawed. It does not give the power of consent to the
Canadian people in a national referendum. That is what we have
been seeking.
As I said at second reading and in committee, no matter what the
regional formula is, as long as it is the provinces in the sense of
provincial governments or premiers or legislatures that are being
consulted, the fundamental flaw remains that there already exists a
formula to do precisely that. The formula in most cases is seven
provincial legislatures representing 50 per cent of the population.
In that sense we have made the case, which I believe the Alberta
government will pursue in court, that there are some fairly serious
legal problems with delegating this power to the provinces for a
second time.
One that I raised in committee to give an example of what I mean
is that the provinces now required under the government's own
formula would be provinces representing at least 90 per cent of the
Canadian population. Clearly in the Constitution Act 1982 that is
not the formula the provinces agreed to. They agreed to a formula
that would require provinces representing 50 per cent of the
Canadian population.
The government obviously has tried to argue this differently but
it is fairly transparent that this does change the intention of the
Constitution Act where provincial governments are involved. That
is why we oppose it. Although the Motion No. 2 by the government
is in and of itself an improvement to the bill, it is an improvement
that is not adequate.
I also note that in committee the Reform Party did table its
fundamental amendment which is that this consultation would have
to occur in all the provinces through a national referendum. I would
point out that amendment was rejected by the Liberal government
and also by the Bloc Quebecois. I am somewhat perplexed by why
the Bloc Quebecois would oppose it. It is the position of the Bloc
Quebecois that the people of Quebec should be consulted on their
constitutional future. I do not know why they would object to the
Parliament of Canada consulting Canadians on a constitutional
amendment.
I should also say that we submitted a second amendment in
committee regarding protection for the amending formula where it
concerns aboriginal peoples. We had taken some advice from a
number of the aboriginal leaders who came before the committee.
That amendment was also rejected by the committee. My colleague
from Crowfoot may discuss some of the implications of that a little
later today.
(1625)
It is fairly apparent that this bill is being rushed through the
House. We have the bizarre coincidence of a government which is
trying to rush passage of a piece of legislation at almost lightning
speed, while at the same time it is proposing major amendments to
it. This is the first time I can recall this kind of situation occurring.
I do want to comment on the rush which occurred in committee.
The committee insisted on hearing all witnesses within a 48-hour
period with no more than 24 hours notice to those witnesses. The
names of witnesses who had been submitted included
constitutional experts, whom we heard two or three of, aboriginal
leaders, members of provincial governments, representatives of
intergovernmental affairs departments and in some cases premiers.
We received replies. I am not aware of how, but I know the
committee contacted all governments. I am not aware of how
specifically they replied, but I will mention that the Government of
British Columbia did wish to appear. Mr. Petter wished to address
the committee on behalf of the Government of British Columbia.
When it became technically not possible for him to do that on the
given day because of problems we had with the satellite
communication, he was promptly dropped from the list. I would
suggest that if we had heard Mr. Petter's testimony, the government
could well have known that its concession of a fifth region would
not
17517
have been enough to satisfy the Government of British Columbia,
but we missed that opportunity.
Also, without quoting the letter, I should add that Mr. Shillington
of the Government of Saskatchewan wrote to me to indicate that he
had wanted to appear before the committee but simply was unable
to in the time constraints that were placed on him. I know that is
also true for Mr. Mel Smith who contacted me earlier this week. He
is a constitutional expert and former provincial secretary of British
Columbia. He had indicated he would like to testify but there was
no opportunity.
This is not an extended witness list I am talking about. These are
people who either are experts in the field or in the case of
governments are affected parties of the legislation itself. They
wanted to testify and were refused simply because of the artificial
deadline created by the government and by the committee for
hearing witnesses. It was a very short deadline with very little time
to hear witnesses and very little time to actually notify potential
witnesses of the possibility of appearing before the committee.
In the time that remains I want to point out some of the lack of
clarity that was in the bill and which was revealed to us in
committee. These are things I notice the government has not
submitted clarifying amendments on.
First of all, the bill says that no minister of the crown shall
propose a motion for a resolution to authorize an amendment to the
Constitution of Canada, et cetera, other than through the process of
first submitting it to the provinces where there is a five region veto
formula.
The term ``no minister'' is significantly important. This does not
exclude the government from sponsoring, backing or putting its
weight behind legislation tabled by a government backbencher or
even by a parliamentary secretary. In that sense, it is unclear
exactly whether the government itself does intend to follow this
legislation.
The government assures us it is extremely unlikely that
something like that would happen, but my experience has been that
when a scenario is allowed and then we are told it is unlikely, it
probably means it is likely. That seems to be the way things operate
around here.
This second point was the subject of some debate in committee.
The bill makes reference to an amendment first having been
consented to by the provinces. It was unclear and the government
itself was unclear in its intention of whether provinces meant
strictly speaking provincial governments, which is what we would
have anticipated and what the answers of the Prime Minister in
question period seem to have implied, or whether it could actually
mean in a sense the people of a province, which is a very different
notion.
(1630)
Neither the minister nor his deputy appeared to rule out legally
the meaning of consulting the people, although they did say that it
was not a likely occurrence in their view. In fact the Minister of
Justice said that it was highly unlikely they would use that
interpretation. Furthermore, his deputy minister said that particular
interpretation could also be challenged in court. She was not clear
how the courts would rule if that meaning of provinces, provinces
meaning provincial population, was used by the government. She
was not sure whether the courts would allow that interpretation or
not. This is very contentious.
It is very unclear in a number of ways what the government is
trying to achieve and why we all know it is trying in effect to give a
veto to the Government of Quebec over constitutional change and
in particular to the future premier. It believes it has a way to trap
him in some future scheme.
Unfortunately, as I say, even with the amendments the bill is ill
considered. Ultimately the government will end up trapping itself
and the people of Canada in what is, if not unconstitutional, a very
unwise piece of legislation.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, as the House will
know, I gave notice of an amendment to Bill C-110, an act
respecting constitutional amendments, the effect of which would
be to add British Columbia as a fifth region to which the federal
veto over constitutional amendments would apply. It is to that
amendment I rise to speak today.
[Translation]
I am pleased to support this motion which will allow the federal
veto to be used to protect the interests of all parts of this country,
that is to say Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, the Atlantic
provinces, and the Prairie provinces, since their consent will be
required before we proceed with any constitutional change.
[English]
The amendment to Bill C-110 is the result of the government
having listened to the members of its own caucus, having listened
to members of Parliament and senators from British Columbia and
having listened to the population of British Columbia, all of whom
clearly and convincingly expressed their views and those of their
constituents to the effect that the time has come for British
Columbia to be recognized as a region for the purposes of the
legislation.
The change also reflects the position adopted by the leader of the
third party who spoke in the House on November 29. On that day
he asked that the government recognize ``the concerns and aspira-
17518
tions of British Columbia, the third most populous province in the
country, as a region in its own right''. We listened to that as well.
Bill C-110, as amended, responds to the need for realistic
reflection of British Columbia's status as a specific region of
Canada. British Columbia is one of the most rapidly growing
provinces with 12 per cent of the country's population and almost
42 per cent of the population of the western provinces.
Beyond this the province's economy and its position on the
Pacific make it different from the provinces in the prairies. This
recognition coincides with the position that B.C. governments have
taken for over 20 years. Indeed it was a position of Premier W. A.
C. Bennett in 1971 that British Columbia should be recognized for
constitutional purposes as a separate region.
(1635)
[Translation]
The recognition of British Columbia as the fifth region is
consistent with the position taken by New Democratic Party
members from British Columbia before the Beaudoin-Edwards
Committee.
[English]
It is also consistent with the case British Columbia has made in
recent years with some success that one of the three western
positions on the supreme court bench be reserved for that province
on a permanent basis.
As to Alberta and the other prairie provinces, it should also be
noted that the bill as amended will give a veto to a combination of
three prairie provinces, that is to say two or more of Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Alberta representing at least 50 per cent of the
regional population.
Given the population figures, the amendment would provide as a
matter of practical fact a veto for Alberta because it has over 50 per
cent of the prairie region's population. At the same time, however,
Alberta alone cannot consent to an amendment due to the minimum
requirement of the approval of two provinces. The other prairie
provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, could defeat an Alberta
consent.
The federal government has listened carefully to the case made
for British Columbia as a separate region. We have been convinced
and we have acted quickly to make the change. In particular our
own members of caucus from British Columbia who vigorously
made the case for the recognition of their province as a region have
made a real difference in the debate.
The government has concluded that the arguments favouring
recognition of British Columbia, its size, its population, its
contribution to the Canadian economy and its Pacific positioning,
were compelling.
[Translation]
We believe that contrary to what is being said by those who
always try to belittle what we want to do and who always say no,
this bill and this resolution will contribute to Canadian unity and
will reinforce the fabric of this country and the bonds between
regions.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, ``the
Prime Minister has missed the boat with his reform proposals''
wrote Mario Fontaine in Friday's edition of the daily La Presse.
The journalist was commenting the SOM poll published that day.
The Prime Minister is probably the victim of political amnesia,
but Quebecers have a long memory. They remember all the
promises that the Prime Minister made to get their votes. The
helmsman of the constitutional Titanic has not delivered, and the
way things are going he, himself, will be responsible for Quebec
sovereignty. Quebecers are fed up and they will let the Prime
Minister and his henchmen know soon enough.
The poll I was referring to shows without a doubt that Quebecers
are dissatisfied. The master of bungling, amateurism, and
improvisation should not be surprised to see that his proposals on
distinct society, veto power and the federal government's
withdrawal from manpower training are rejected by Quebec.
According to the SOM poll, not even one Quebecer out of four,
or 24 per cent, is satisfied. Fifty-three per cent of Quebecers are not
satisfied. Moreover, 30 per cent of Quebecers see the proposals
from the federal clowns as clearly inadequate, while only 4 per cent
think they are completely adequate.
The last straw is the motion before us. With his proposals, the
Prime Minister has managed to do one thing: get himself hated by
all Canadians.
Under the big top of the federal circus, the Prime Minister is
continuing to perform his act of bungling, amateurism, and
improvisation. Imagine, in less than 15 days, the Prime Minister
has forced distinct society on Quebec, against the will of the
National Assembly, and given a symbolic veto to two provinces
that never requested it, but would prefer something else from the
federal government.
(1640)
Let me recall what has happened to Bill C-110 since it was
introduced at first reading stage on November 29, not quite two
weeks ago. Yet, they say it is a major bill. At least, this is what the
Liberal government says, through its double talk. Why hurry, then?
Bill C-110 was introduced on November 29. The day after, on
Thursday, we started debate at second reading stage. On Friday, the
government invoked closure to gag the opposition and the debate
ended. On Monday, December 4, right after the vote at second
17519
reading stage, the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice, where at 7.15 p.m., the Minister of Justice gave his sales
pitch. On Wednesday the 6th, the clause by clause examination was
already going on.
It was on that last day of committee review that the government
did not see fit to make amendments to the bill.
But the next day, the Prime Minister made an about-face and the
Minister of Justice, surrounded by the British Columbia caucus,
announced hastily that the Pacific province would also get its veto
and that, consequently, Bill C-110 would be amended at report
stage.
The federal bulldozer continues to decimate and destroy the
constitutional landscape of this country. This government uses the
road roller on any reform of the Canadian yoke. The Prime
Minister, through his justice associate, is pursuing his almost
constitutional endeavour without taking anyone or anything into
account. His narrow-minded attitude may cost him the next
election.
We owe Bill C-110 giving a regional veto to four Canadian
regions to this same person who did not even want to hear about the
Constitution during the 1993 election campaign. Today, we are
wasting our time debating whether the federal government should
add a fifth region. On top of all that, he tells us that he is fulfilling
his referendum promises. That is nonsense, that is window
dressing!
Last Thursday, the Minister of Justice hastily announced an
amendment to Bill C-110 in order to divide the western provinces
into two ``regions''. The day before, he was still maintaining that
the bill would remain unchanged. That goes to show how they
improvise on that side of the House. By giving everybody the right
of veto, the Minister is blocking any possibility of constitutional
amendments for future generations.
Anyway, this so-called veto is so meaningless that, as far as I am
concerned, it could be given to P.E.I., Saskatchewan or even
Newfoundland, I would not lose a wink of sleep over it.
What is the real effect of giving a veto to the Prairie provinces?
Alberta will have what amounts to a constitutional veto on its own,
because its population accounts for nearly 55 per cent of the Prairie
provinces' population. Similarly, the other two together will have
the same type of veto.
Last week, the Minister of Justice described these veto rights as
negative, in that a real right of veto consists in refusing to support a
constitutional amendment. In fact, Alberta will be able to block the
Prairie provinces' right to a veto because one of the two conditions
for exercising the veto will not be fulfilled. Two provinces with at
least half the region's population are required, and the provinces
will never be able to meet that demographic condition without the
agreement of Alberta. So there is a negative veto.
On the other hand, while Alberta can block the Prairie provinces'
veto, it cannot on its own exercise a right to veto, because it does
not satisfy one of the conditions required. It is obvious that Alberta
is not two provinces.
If Bill C-110 is adopted, four provinces will have a constitutional
veto, i.e. two more than in a four-region formula. A constitutional
amendment will require the support of a least six or seven
provinces representing at least 90 per cent of the Canadian
population.
(1645)
According to the 1982 general amending formula, we only need
seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. That
amounts to constitutional deadlock. I even wonder if Bill C-110 is
constitutional, since it changes the amending formula without
following the procedure provided under the Constitution Act, 1982.
The Minister of Justice ought to know he cannot do indirectly
what the law does not allow him to do directly.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester begins his intervention, I am obliged to tell
the House that under our standing orders the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member
for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Social Programs; the hon.
member for Bourassa-Immigration; the hon. member for
London-Middlesex-the Middle East.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to this bill.
Hon. members will soon be asked to vote on measures introduced
by the Prime Minister of Canada which recognize Quebec's distinct
society and offer Canada's regions, in other words, Quebec,
Ontario, British Columbia, the Prairies and the Atlantic regions, a
veto on constitutional amendments.
This is a bill of Parliament. It is not a discussion on the
Constitution, as members of both opposition parties are claiming. I
may remind them that the date set for discussions on the
Constitution is 1997, according to the Constitution Act.
Bloc members are of course against our bill, which means the
government must be right and must be on the right track. Separatist
members kept telling us and all Quebecers and all Canadians
during the referendum campaign that they wanted was to be
recognized as a distinct society, that they wanted veto powers, so
we took them at their word, and we came to the House and told
them: ``We listened to what all Quebecers had to say, and we will
now recognize distinct society as a principle in the Parliament of
Canada and we also recognize that Quebec has a veto like the four
other regions of this country''.
An hon. member: Put it in the Constitution.
17520
Mr. Bellemare: The hon. member for the Bloc said: ``Put it
in the Constitution''. As usual, they will not listen and they did
not understand when I said that according to the Constitution Act,
we are to discuss these issues in 1997. This was the action taken
by the federal government in response to the commitment made
by the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign to meet
the needs and demands of all Canadians.
[English]
Every day I receive correspondence from my French and English
constituents, étant donné que mon comté est bilingue, who
although they may have different ideas on how to deal with Quebec
the majority recognize the different culture of their Quebec
neighbours and recognize the need for change.
The turnout for the unity rally which I attended was a clear
indication of the overwhelming support from all Canadians, les
Québécois inclus, for a united Canada that includes Quebec.
[Translation]
Why recognize the francophones in Quebec as being a distinct
society and not the anglophones? We could recognize the
anglophones, but why? What would be the point? The anglophone
culture is not in danger of disappearing, I know something about
that. The anglophones are not being targeted by the factors
threatening the francophone culture in Canada with its demise.
Although Canada's anglophone culture is distinct from
American culture, it will always be supported by it. The media and
the telecommunications industry will provide an environment that
will sustain the anglophone culture. On the other hand, there is no
such support for the francophone culture.
[English]
When we travel across the country we see the obvious
differences from region to region. Nowhere is the difference more
obvious than when one travels to Quebec. The difference in that
province is accentuated by culture and by language.
(1650)
[Translation]
Even members of the Reform Party will agree privately, but in
the House, for obvious reasons, they oppose it.
[English]
There is no denying the distinction of Quebec. That fact is that
Quebecers are different from the rest of Canadians. They have
always been different.
The country was founded by two very distinct peoples, the
French and the English. The idea of a distinct society began with
General Murray. Very few Canadians appear to know their
Canadian history. Wolfe beat Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham.
The British won that war. The territory we now know as Canada
was British.
Very few people seem to know that when Montcalm died on the
battlefield he was replaced by General Murray who knew the
practice of military procedures, that when invading a country we
should recognize immediately the laws and the distinction of the
people of the country we invade. It was practical. The practice was
to recognize their laws, their culture, their religion and their
language.
Like the Reform Party there were in the British mercantile
society those who thought that Murray was going too far. They
brought General Murray back to England for a court martial. Very
few people would know that General Murray won his court martial,
and the British government in 1774 recognized the duality of
Canada and distinct society by proclaiming the Quebec Act.
[Translation]
I highly recommend to Reformers and Bloc members that they
study their Canadian history. Canada is what it is because of its
different and distinct cultures. If we allow these cultures to be
eliminated, we will no longer be Canada, if fact, we will be quite
close to being American.
No doubt it is the francophone community especially that sets us
apart from our American neighbours. I do not want to become
American; I want to remain Canadian. Being a fourth generation
Franco-Ontarian, I have the advantage of being able to converse in
both official languages everyday. Although I am not a Quebecer, I
know I am different from my unilingual neighbours, both English
and French.
Reform frightens everybody, including western anglophones, by
arguing that recognizing Quebec as a distinct society gives that
province additional powers that anglophones and the other
provinces do not have. I challenge them to tell us what these
powers are.
Finally, the reason why the Prime Minister offered to give a veto
to all five regions of Canada is to ensure that every province has a
say in amending the Constitution.
[English]
Quebec, Ontario, the maritimes, the prairies and British
Columbia will share the right to veto any proposed constitutional
amendment that they feel would not be to the benefit of the
residents of a particular part of the country and to all Canadians.
The Liberal government believes that all Canadians should have
a say in the future of the country and the regional veto will afford
them that luxury. The introduction of a regional veto will assure
equal representation across Canada. Each region will have equal
power in these matters; no more, no less.
17521
[Translation]
Recognition as a distinct society does not give Quebecers
additional powers or take any power away from anglophones and
the other provinces. It gives Quebecers what they deserve: an
essential tool not only to ensure their survival but also to develop
their culture.
A distinct society does not mean a better or more advanced
society. The French-language dictionary Le Petit Larousse defines
the word ``distinct'' as ``clearly perceived; clear, well-defined,
different; unmistakable''.
I hear a lot of noise coming from Reform members on the other
side of the House. These people who claim that they want to learn
French, who have suddenly discovered the province of Quebec and
act as tourists, have finally realized that it is different. They tell us
as much in the halls, but here, for political reasons and for their
own reasons, which I find deplorable, they are opposed to
recognizing Quebec as a distinct society.
(1655 )
[English]
The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes the word distinct as
not identical, separate, individual, different or unlike. Those
members of the Reform Party who have visited Quebec will know
they are different in kind, not quality.
[Translation]
Recognizing Quebec as a distinct society is not a reward for
francophones or a form of punishment against anglophones. On the
contrary, it is essential to the survival of Canada-repeat, to the
survival of Canada-as we know it today. We must recognize
Quebec as a distinct society for the benefit of all Canadians and not
only for Quebecers.
We as the federal government have a duty to ensure that
Canadians enjoy the best quality of life possible.
Every morning, we can see the negative impact our infighting
about constitutional issues has on our economy.
The hon. members of the Reform Party should take note that we
should act now to give Canadians, not only Quebecers, a better
chance to develop as a nation. Only by recognizing our differences
will we be able to make any headway and only by recognizing them
here, in this House, can we lead the way.
It is high time that we give Canadians the tools they need to see
the difference and make their country a better place. Recognizing
Quebec as a distinct society and the regional veto are exactly the
sort of tools we need.
[English]
I refer to an article in the Toronto Star of December 10.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member
but his time has expired. Unless there is unanimous consent he is
out of time.
[Translation]
Does the House agree to give the hon. member a minute to finish
his speech?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members from the
Reform Party. Without speaking disparagingly of them, some of
my remarks may be directed at their party.
[English]
``Reform's hard line hinders unity of effort'' was the headline in
the Toronto Star of December 10, 1995. The article stated:
But Confederation from the start treated provinces unequally, to
accommodate their special needs.
Protestants in Quebec, for example, have the constitutional right to their own
school boards, as do Catholics in Ontario. That doesn't apply elsewhere-For
25 years, Canada has been trying to find ways to give constitutional expression
to Quebec's special identity-But Manning's visceral opposition to Parliament
making any special gesture to Quebec is dangerous and divisive. It lends
credence to the separatist argument that the rest of the country really doesn't
care. And that gives the separatists more ammunition, at the very time when
Chrétien is trying to take it away from them.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if ever there was an occasion when one should not have
been generous in allowing an extra minute, that was one. It is water
under the bridge and we cannot veto it, which brings me to the
whole point of the discussion today.
Any one of us in the House could have vetoed the opportunity for
the member opposite to add that couple of minutes to his
presentation. We could have prevented him from coming forward
for a host of reasons, some of which could have been petty, some of
which could have been meaningful. Any one of us would have been
able to prevent that member from finishing his speech. That is the
nature of a veto and that is why there is no place in a constitutional
democracy for a veto for anybody.
We should compare the American constitution with what we are
trying to cobble together in Canada. The very fact that a
constitution has flexibility allows it to live. The ability to change
and evolve over time is the lifeblood of a constitution. That is what
allows it to speak to the people and the people to speak to it.
Thomas Paine, in the mid-1700s, was an adviser to Thomas
Jefferson. He had a lot to do with the gist of the American
constitution. In Thomas Paine's book ``The Rights of Man'', from
which I have quoted in the House in the past, he makes the point
that every generation has the right and the responsibility to govern
17522
for its times and should no more bind future generations to today
than past generations should have been able to bind today to the
past.
(1700 )
A veto to any specific province puts our Constitution into a
strait-jacket. It puts the feet of the Constitution into a bucket of
cement. It also states that from this day forward future generations
will be stuck with what we give them today. For all Canadians
watching this debate, wondering why we are debating the
Constitution when our country's economy is in such a state, that is
the reason we should not have a veto in the Constitution for any
province.
If we are to have an amending formula in which a super majority
is required to amend the Constitution, we should stick to something
like the seven out of ten provinces representing 50 per cent of the
population.
Given that we will not be able to change this, because it is not a
perfect world, in the Canadian barnyard we are all equal but some
of us are more equal than others. It has to do with the residents of
our province. We could all have a veto if we all moved to a
province with a veto. That would satisfy that little problem.
However, that is not likely to happen.
What is the nature of the veto we are stuck with, the effective
veto? The government has stated it does not have a whole lot of
meaning or effect in some parts of the country. It has stated right
here in the House that the next government can simply remove this
legislation. However, it states that in Quebec it is extremely
meaningful.
I believe it is extremely meaningful legislation because once we
have gone down that road and given the commitment of a veto to
the people of Quebec, there is no going back. There is no way we
will be able to go back on that ground.
The Prime Minister has cobbled this together to try to save his
political skin in Quebec or perhaps to save the political skin of
Daniel Johnson in Quebec. He has effectively put our Constitution
in a strait-jacket, which will make it impossible to change in the
future.
Why on earth would any Prime Minister give a separatist
government in Quebec a constitutional veto which would prevent
change of our Constitution for evermore? Surely if we must give a
veto to a province we should give that veto to the people in that
province, not to the government or to the legislature.
Most legislatures are elected with a minority of the votes cast. A
case in point is this Chamber. The Liberals have a massive majority
with 175 seats but received only 43 per cent of the popular vote.
The same thing can happen because of vote splits in every
legislature. Therefore a legislature with a veto could use that veto
even though it has not received a plurality of the votes cast in that
province to put it into power in the first place.
A legislature could be elected three or almost four years prior to
the constitutional issue about which it is being required to make a
decision. Here we have a situation in which a province could have
the right to veto constitutional legislation. The legislature could
have been elected with a minority of votes cast and have been
elected three years before the question at issue came to the floor. Its
election, the fact that it is there and has the ability to veto the
legislation would have absolutely nothing to do with its popular
right to do so.
An hon. member: No mandate.
Mr. McClelland: No mandate. None whatsoever. That is why in
the regions the veto power must rest with the people and not the
legislators.
(1705)
An hon. member: Read the bill.
Mr. McClelland: A member opposite says read the bill. It does
not rest with the people. It rests with the federal government which
may at its pleasure make the distinction of how that decision is
arrived at. It is not required that it be by referendum of the people
in the province, which is what I am saying it should be.
My friend opposite earlier in his comments made brief reference
to the distinct society. Very few people would recognize Quebec as
being anything other than a distinct society, one which the vast
majority of Canadians cherish as a fundamental part of Canadian
identity. Most every Canadian recognizes that.
Our amendments essentially reinforce that first, recognizing
Quebec as a distinct society would in no way confer on it powers or
rights not be conferred anywhere else; second, that there would be
no chance to abuse minorities; third, one nation, the affirmation
that we are one nation. These were the things we felt must be
affirmed in the distinct society status.
I thank the House for the opportunity to share a few thoughts. I
ask the government to consider one other change to the legislation:
make sure it is a popular ratification by the people.
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be
reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with
respect to the report stage and the third reading of Bill C-110, an
act respecting constitutional amendments.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a Minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to
17523
allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and
disposal of proceedings at the said stages.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I tabled a private members' bill the other day, Bill
C-362. I take full responsibility. There is an error in the bill. There
was a later draft which should have been presented.
I would like to bring the correct draft to the House but first I
must have the unanimous consent from the House to withdraw the
current Bill C-362. I have agreement from the government side and
from the Bloc.
Therefore I ask that the House give unanimous consent for me to
withdraw Bill C-362 from the Order Paper.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-110,
an act respecting constitutional amendments, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure
to be debating Bill C-110 and more specifically Motion No. 2 to
Bill C-110. Wherein Bill C-110 the veto powers were given to four
regions of Canada, Motion No. 2 gives this veto power to five
regions of Canada.
Where did this veto proposal come from? Let me take the
members back to the referendum. The Prime Minister made certain
promises about recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. Having
many relatives in Quebec, I find it very incomprehensible that the
Bloc Quebecois would vote against the recognition of a distinct
society. I hope that somehow, maybe on a one to one basis, it can
clarify that for me because I find it shocking.
(1710 )
We have excellent support for the direction the Prime Minister is
taking. Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow says the proposals
deserve to be carefully considered by political leaders and the
public as an honest effort by an honest individual, the Prime
Minister, to keep this great country together.
An Edmonton Journal editorial states: ``To hear some of our
politicians'', and we are hearing them today, ``you would think that
the Quebec referendum didn't happen. There seems to be little
recognition that Prime Minister Chrétien made necessary promises
during the referendum campaign and that he is honour bound to
keep them''. That is what we are doing.
The Prime Minister has tabled legislation to keep his promises,
and he is known for that. In his 30 years of politics he has never
broken a promise, which is why he is so well liked by Canadians
from coast to coast.
However, we have to settle this dispute of Quebec separation
once and for all. People are fed up hearing about it. People are
disgusted. It is affecting families psychologically. Families cannot
have a normal relationship anymore. Instead of coming home and
talking about hockey scores or other things they get on the
referendum and become depressed. I know this from my family.
Whether in education, whether they work for the police force,
whether in the Department of National Defence, entire families are
being affected by this dispute. Let us settle it once and for all and
let us settle it quickly.
Some are complaining about why we are pushing this through
quickly. It is Canadians who want us to act quickly. When people in
Quebec voted no to separation they also gave us an important
message to bring about changes but not to bring them about as
former Prime Minister Mulroney did, dragging out commissions
and committees and joint committees, et cetera. At the end of a
one-year or two-year process what did Canada get? Nothing but
more frustration, more disputes, more dividing of this beautiful
country which was named number one by the United Nations. We
do not want that. Canadians do not want that. They want us to act
quickly and keep the promise we made during the referendum.
This frustration is not only within Quebec but outside of Quebec.
I hear it in my constituency. I held a recent town hall meeting just
after the referendum specifically to discuss what happened and
where we should go from there. It covered the entire spectrum with
frustration across the entire spectrum.
Allow me to quote a constituent, Howard Dunnick: ``Dear Mr.
Flis, I object strongly to giving Quebec distinct society status. As
for the veto, why should the tail wag the dog? We just cannot afford
to let Quebec spend our money like drunken sailors any longer.
They say they are one of the founders of our nation. If they are so
concerned, why do they first lead us to bankruptcy and then break
up the nation? In fact, they do not care if they bleed us to death''.
That is how strong the feelings are at that end of the spectrum. It
is not the majority feeling, nor a feeling I share. At the other end of
the spectrum Janet Page says: ``Quebec needs to be brought into the
Constitution. I do not want to lose Quebec. Bouchard does not have
17524
the best interests of the people in mind. The government should
force him to bargain in good faith. We need an end to this''.
That is the frustration at the other end of the spectrum. We need
an end to this dispute, to this debate. At town hall meetings we have
to allow the people to share this frustration. What I like about the
process of a town hall meeting, at least as I observe in my riding, is
that people get educated. They educate themselves. Initially at
town hall meetings they are filled with anger, with a let them go
attitude. By the end of the evening they ask: ``How can we
demonstrate to Quebec that to us Canada includes Quebec?'' They
are good debates and discussions: What is Canada? What does it
mean to be a Canadian?
(1715)
By the end of the evening the same group of people who had
those extreme views are making suggestions. They asked me
whether when I was the principal of Argentina School and it was
twinned with Canada School in Buenos Aires the children learned
anything. I said yes. They learned about each other's culture and
language. There were student exchanges and project exchanges.
That is a suggestion they give for us here in Canada. Others suggest
that cities and towns should be twinning. Families should be
meeting so they can talk around the dinner table and get to know
each other.
I was so pleased that out of the frustration grew these kinds of
positive suggestions. If we go in that spirit and we accept the
distinct society, if we accept that Quebec has a civil code for its
justice system, if we accept that regions should be given a veto
power-and I support the fact that this motion allows B.C. to have
a veto power.
I was born and raised in Saskatchewan, a third of my life was
spent there. When we talked about the prairie provinces we did not
include B.C. We included Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta
and that is a natural region. B.C. has its rising population and its
distinctiveness of trading with the Pacific Rim and everything else
that the minister mentioned in his presentation. It is natural that
B.C. is a region, the prairie provinces are a region, Ontario is a
region, Quebec is a region and the Atlantic is a region.
With that kind of check on changing and bringing amendments
to the Constitution, we will see this country grow and flower like
we have never seen. We have to be willing to share and to support
each other, not like the Reform Party where the leader was the one
who suggested that we include B.C. as a separate region. What does
Reform do now? It is going to vote against this motion.
It is that party which held up five fingers every question period.
Why not B.C.? It got B.C. What is it doing? Reform members are
not interested in Canadian unity. They are interested in scoring
political points. They are scoring political points down to the point
where they are 8 per cent in the polls.
I appeal to the Reform Party. I appeal to the Bloc Quebecois.
This is Canada. It is the most beautiful country in the world. We are
not building Canada for you and you and you and me. We are
building Canada for future generations. That is why we were
elected. If we believe in that, we will all pull together and pass this
motion and the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
have been saying for a long time that the federal Canada of 1867
was a compromise based on a misunderstanding: the vision of Sir
John A. Macdonald, who wanted a legislative union, or a single
parliament for all of Canada, and the vision of George-Étienne
Cartier, who wanted strong provincial parliaments, as well as
powers delegated to a federal legislature that would be a creature of
the provinces.
However, the creature decided to become the creator and
committed the sin of pride like our first parents, who paid the
ultimate price, as will the federal system. Earlier, the hon. member
for Parkdale-High Park told us how nice it is to have a resolution
that recognizes Quebec's distinct nature, because of its civil law
tradition. But we have known that since 1867. Indeed, subsection
92(13) provides that property and civil rights come under
provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, we were allowed, at the
time, to keep our civil code which, incidentally, was in effect as of
1866 in Lower Canada.
As for our language, one just have to use it in this House to
realize that it is different, that it is distinct from that of our fellow
Canadians. The same is true for our culture.
(1720)
Following the speech made in Verdun by the Right Hon. Prime
Minister, there was a shortage of Tylenol to bring the fever down,
and something had to be done very quickly. Consequently, the
government hurriedly drafted a resolution providing that Quebec is
a distinct society because of its language, its culture and its civil
code. We already knew that. But what comes with that recognition?
Absolutely nothing. This is a meaningless statement. No powers
are granted along with that recognition.
And to make sure of that, the government has introduced Bill
C-110 and told us: under the resolution, Quebec is a distinct society
by virtue of its language, its culture and its civil code. That is it. We
will not get anything else. And to be sure that nothing will change,
Bill C-110 gives veto power to just about everybody. I call that the
Colonel Sanders veto power: a big chicken with legs for everybody.
That is what our federation with vetoes for everybody looks like.
17525
According to what Mr. Jean Dion was saying last week in Le
Devoir, from now on it will take the approval of the equivalent
of 91.8 per cent of the population to change anything in the
Canadian Constitution. This means that nothing can change any
more. And the Prime Minister will be saying: ``There is nothing
I can do now for Quebec. I would like so much to be able to do
more, but I cannot because of Bill C-110. Heavens, has that piece
of legislation ever put us in a difficult situation. I would have liked
so much to give French Canadians, to give Quebecers the same
rights enjoyed by Canadians in the western provinces and
elsewhere''. So we are going to be stuck with that.
The leader of the Action démocratique du Québec, Mario
Dumont, was telling us the other day that because of the close
results in the referendum, the Quebec government would have to
start opening the mail. The one thing we are sure of today is that,
with the bill before us, postage will not be very expensive: half a
page, 45 cents. And they think that they will buy peace in Quebec
with half a page.
As my colleague from Joliette was saying, what Quebec wants is
a white horse, not a pony, and I totally agree with that. Let us have
something concrete. Before granting veto powers here and there to
block any constitutional amendment, the government should come
up with concrete proposals involving some devolution of powers to
Quebec. It should repeal the preamble of section 91 which
authorizes the federal Parliament to make laws for the peace, order
and good government of Canada.
This preamble has been used by the courts to grant the federal
government unforeseen powers, for example, the general spending
power, this national dimension theory allowing the federal
government to get involved in almost every area, emergency
powers and ancillary powers. All of these constitutional theories
were approved by the courts, but were never foreseen by the
Fathers of Confederation. If there had been Mothers of
Confederation, the women would probably have realized at that
time that something was wrong with the Constitution.
The government should also repeal section 91(29) concerning
the residual powers. In 1867, it was said that all powers that were
not specifically granted to the provinces would come under the
jurisdiction of the federal government. Think about the
development of all the technologies, like broadcasting, cable
distribution, television, aeronautics-we are now talking about the
information highway-which could not have been foreseen in 1867
and which automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the federal
government, pursuant to section 91(29). These residual powers
should be granted to the provinces retroactively, with a transfer
period of no more than 12 months, so that the provinces can
recover all of the residual powers which have surfaced since 1867
and the federal government can keep the power to subsidize it will
need to exercise the powers the provinces will let it have.
The government should also withdraw from section 91 the
federal powers in the area of unemployment insurance and give
those powers to the provinces as it withdraws from the field of
taxation.
If we add a distinct society clause, it should be enshrined in the
Constitution and not be limited to the present clause concerning
only language, culture and the Civil Code, or Napoleonic Code, as
the Prime Minister said the other day, in a rather revealing slip of
the tongue. The Napoleonic Code is used in France. We have had
our own Civil Code in Quebec since 1866.
(1725)
So, we should have a distinct society clause enshrined in the
Constitution stating that Quebec is a distinct society. The
Constitution of Canada must be interpreted in such a way that the
Quebec legislature is vested with all powers inherent to the
recognition of its distinctiveness.
We would then have an interpretive clause that would colour the
Constitution. We now hace a resolution of the House of Commons
similar to the ones we use to vote an anniversary or the end of a
conflict somewhere. That is not really what Quebecers want.
Section 95 of the Constitution says that agriculture and
immigration are shared jurisdictions. The problem is that in the
very same section, we see that federal legislation prevails when
federal and provincial laws clash. Section 95 should be abrogated
and immigration and agriculture recognized as exclusively
provincial jurisdictions. The federal government should withdraw
completely from these fields.
We might as well abrogate the sections concerning the Senate. In
1995, we certainly do not need this chamber any more, a
non-elected chamber which is now delaying Bill C-69 on electoral
boundaries, for example. Non-elected people telling us how the
House of Commons should be elected, that takes guts. We could
abrogate this at the same time.
According to section 91 there is nothing in the present
Constitution which specifically addresses the management of
foreign policy. It was inspired by section 132, which set out the
powers passed down from the imperial Parliament, the Parliament
of Great Britain. We could add to section 91, under federal powers,
that foreign policy is a federal jurisdiction, but solely in those areas
falling under the legislative authority of the federal Parliament.
Section 92 could have the addition that foreign relations are also
under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures.
Lieutenant-governors ought to be appointed by the legislative
assemblies, as should senators if we keep the Senate.
17526
Since today's debate is a bit short, I will skip over a few
important aspects I was going to mention. When a package, a
binding offer, is arrived at by the federal chambers, Commons and
Senate, and the legislatures of all the other provinces, for there
are many items that require unanimous consent, when that is done,
then mail it off to Quebec and the negotiations can start. That can
be the basis for negotiation. I do not expect to live long enough
to see the day when postage costs will come down to a level that
would allow such a document to be mailed.
So the Mario Dumont yardstick of at least reading the mail is no
more, and since October 30, since the referendum results, we have
had the proof in all ways possible that what the government is
proposing is a totally cosmetic change with no substance
whatsoever.
At both the report stage and on third reading, I will be proud to
rise in this House to vote against Bill C-110, which has the sole
merit of making the Verdun speech even more meaningless.
[English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Madam Speaker, let me begin
my comments by saying that through these naive and
inexperienced eyes, I view the debates on Bill C-110 and our
resolution that calls on the House to recognize Quebec as a société
distincte as some of the most important debates we have had in our
35th Parliament.
We have just completed another chapter in our collective history
and in our search for ourselves. We know that chapters talk about
the Vikings. It is absorbing to read about our First Nations, about
Jacques Cartier and about New France. When I think about the
chicken tracks that really are the depictions of Champlain's
voyages across the map of North America in the 1600s, I find that
the interest is nowhere near as exciting as the interest which is
created when we study the human intrigue we see beginning with
the conquest in 1759.
That word conquest is such a terrible misnomer. Our Canada was
never conquered in the traditional British fashion. Canada was
never a classic British colony. In fact it was quite the opposite.
Look at the demographics at that time. There were some 65,000
French living along the St. Lawrence River, compared to only
5,000 or 8,000 British. The first British governor, Murray, had very
little opportunity to quash the French culture, its language, its
religion, its customary civil rights, its civil approach to property
management and property exchange; nor did he want to.
(1730)
The history books tell us that Governor Murray Murray at the
time indicated: ``I will govern by the dictates of my heart and my
heart dictates clemency and understanding''. Those were some of
the very first notions of the British governors in Canada. That
commitment continued and it became much more formalized in
1774 with the Quebec Act.
The British needed the support of the French against the rise of
republicanism in the United States. They needed to ensure that the
French were on side. Therefore, with the Quebec Act in 1774 there
were very strong and real commitments that allowed for the free
exercise of religion, for customary property and civil rights.
Those words are not very different from the words which
included in this resolution which calls on the House to recognize
Quebec as a distinct society in its religion, language and its right to
civil institutions. I do not see the resolution as being anything
special, unique or new. Rather, it is a very important reaffirmation
of the commitments made to Canadians so very long ago.
Distinct society was understood in a very real sense by my
ancestors. They were United Empire Loyalists, loyal to the crown.
They came up from the United States after losing the revolution.
They United Empire Loyalists came up through the walnut trail
into southwestern Ontario and found a society different from that
with which they were familiar. Catholicism was being practised.
The French language was being spoken. There was no responsible
assembly. They did not understand the method of transfer of
property. The fee simple method, which was so much a part of the
British culture, was not a part of society in Canada.
I suppose my ancestors were the first separatists. The United
Empire Loyalists, who just could not make sense of the new
community, the new situation, were successful in achieving the
split into upper and lower Canada, right along the Ottawa River.
As time went on the issue and the need for responsible
government was felt very clearly in both upper and lower Canada.
We know about the Papineau revolution of 1837. We know that
Lord Durham was sent over from England to complete a royal
commission. His decision was to unify the two Canadas. He felt it
was the right thing to do. He thought it was appropriate because in
his mind it would create a homogeneous society by bringing the
two cultures together. However, that is not how it works in Canada.
It does not now and it did not then.
When the two first prime ministers, Baldwin from upper Canada
and LaFontaine from lower Canada, came together to form the first
great ministry, English was not the only language of Parliament.
LaFontaine spoke in French. He and his colleagues from lower
Canada were encouraged to speak French. As the Parliament
moved from community to community, because there was not a set
location, its members spoke in both English and French, without
translation. Somehow they worked together. They understood each
other. They took steps backward. They took steps forward and kept
Canada together with two cultures and two languages working
together.
17527
I would suggest that it is that very heritage which has made this
country what it is today. The acceptance of two cultures coming
together to forge a common foundation has created Canada as we
know it today: compassionate, humane, understanding, fully
cognizant of the fact that to get along, to make progress, one does
not have to deny a person's culture or an individual's history.
(1735 )
While it is very difficult to do, we can encourage people to keep
what is so important to them, that is, their own sense and
understanding of their personal history. It is this that has made
Canada different from Britain, different from France. It is what has
made Canada the best country in the world in which to live.
We still have difficulties and concerns. We look back and
understand that shortly after Canada's 100th birthday in 1968 was
the first comprehensive constitutional review. It was just a year
after we celebrated Confederation.
From then on, we know the history. It is a litany of referenda,
patriation of the Constitution, constitutional commissions,
committees. We have been through 20-some years of discomfort,
confused about where we are as a country.
Perhaps it is just the 100-year itch. Perhaps it is just a country
anticipating a great future in the 21st century. If we step back and
contemplate that, pull ourselves out of the reality as we understand
it today, we may be able to find some important solutions for
ourselves.
As we have noted with the extension of the veto to five regions,
Canada as a result of social, economic and technological changes is
regionalizing quite effectively. I look to my colleagues in
Dartmouth and Moncton and consider the work they are doing to
encourage the people in Atlantic Canada to think about a different
kind of political unity, the unification of the Atlantic provinces.
Now may be the time and place when Canadians can step back,
look at ourselves and ask the question, are we being paralysed by a
paradigm of administrative doctrine of provinces that is
constraining to us, that is making our clothes fit too tightly? Are we
ready to break out and think of our country in a different way?
Can we actually contemplate a Canada of five regions: a strong
Atlantic region; a strong region of Quebec with its deep cultural
heritage that is so important to making the country unique; Ontario,
which leads the industrial engines of the country; the prairies that
have such great natural resources and truly are the bread basket not
only of our country but perhaps even of the world; and of course,
British Columbia, a different and unique part of the country.
Can we step back and allow ourselves to think of streamlining
our country, bringing it together so that we can focus on our
capabilities, on our strengths to build for a future, to make Canada
not the slow moving, happy leviathan that has been treading water
both calm and rough, but create ourselves into a darting and
flexible space ship with five regions. We would add, of course, our
very important First Nations, all under the umbrella of a strong
federal government that could direct a comprehensive, cohesive,
united Canada into the 21st century.
These are my ideas. We have so much to offer as a country to the
people of Quebec, to the people of Ontario, to the people of British
Columbia. I have great optimism that we have a strong future
together and I would encourage the House to consider that as well.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciated very much the words that my colleague has just left
with us.
When the justice minister appeared before the standing
committee when we examined this bill, we were confronted-at
least I was-with the fact that in the bill it transfers power or
influence to the provinces, yet, there is no definition of province.
We do not know for sure to whom we are transferring the power.
Are we transferring the power of veto to the provincial legislatures,
to the cabinet or to the people of that province? This is very
important. We saw during the Quebec referendum that it was not
the Government of Quebec that kept Quebec within Confederation.
It wanted to take the province out of Confederation. It was not the
cabinet or the legislative assembly that kept Quebec in Canada, it
was the people of Quebec.
(1740)
If a veto is granted to the provinces surely it ought to be to the
people of the provinces. The recent history of attempts to amend
the Constitution shows very clearly that politicians will not
represent the will of the majority of their people, as was the case in
Alberta and in a number of other provinces on the Meech Lake
accord.
The people of my province had the Meech Lake accord forced on
them simply because our premier had signed an agreement. He then
came back, laid down the law to his cabinet and caucus and that is
what we were going to be stuck with.
If we want to maintain the unity of this country, as the hon.
member has just so eloquently spoken about, if we want to appeal
to those people who have vital reasons for staying within Canada
and remaining united, then we ought not to leave the power to tear
our country apart in the hands of the politicians. We must place
power in the hands of the people who have a common sense feeling
for this country and do not want to engage in these enormous social
engineering experiments.
I asked the justice minister when he was before the committee to
whom this bill was transferring power because there is no defini-
17528
tion of province in this bill. He said that it could be the legislature
who could then transfer that power to the people by way of
referendum. However, there is nothing in this bill that mandates
that the provinces go to their people.
It is a little bit like the Charlottetown accord where there were
provisions within the accord for the provinces to elect senators.
However, some of the provinces, including Quebec, were not going
to allow the people to elect the senators. It was the legislative
assembly that was going to elect them. In other words, the power of
appointment was being transferred from the federal government to
the provincial governments and they were going to do the
appointing. We cannot unite a country that way. If we are going to
keep Quebec within Confederation we must transfer the power that
this bill is going to provide to the people and not to the politicians.
I have heard hon. members say that the people of Canada want us
to move forward on this, that they support this. That is not what we
heard from those who appeared before the standing committee. We
had four distinct groups of aboriginal peoples who do not support
this bill. These people are referenced in the Constitution. They
should have been contacted and consulted just as the governments
of the provinces should have been consulted. They are referenced
in the Constitution as well.
However, the government of the day did not have time for that. It
rushed this thing through and it is still rushing it through. We were
given 48 hours, as my colleague mentioned earlier. We were going
to sit until midnight to hear witnesses if enough witnesses came
forward on such short notice. Some of them would have to prepare
with only 24 hour's notice. Is it not amazing that we were going to
rush this thing through and we are being told that the people of
Canada want this bill, yet we are not giving the provinces sufficient
time to prepare, attend and express their views about this bill?
We had the justice minister appear before the committee and tell
us that this bill was constitutional. Some witnesses could not
appear in person but appeared using a video hook-up in their own
areas. Professor Morton, a professor of political science at the
University of Calgary, stated the following concerning the
constitutionality of this bill:
The Chrétien veto law is unconstitutional, in as much as it proposes to legally
change the amending process, without following the rules of that process.
Section 41(e) of the Constitution Act, 1982, states explicitly that there can be no
amendment to the part V amending formulas except with the unanimous consent
of all 10 provinces and the federal government. The government's position is
that because the ``veto law'' is not a constitutional amendment, it need not
follow the amending formula. But this misses the crucial point that the
amending process will have been changed and that this change will have the
force of law.
(1745)
He said that is the key point.
The justice minister is telling us it is constitutional. This
professor, and I am sure others if they had had time to prepare and
appear before the standing committee, are telling us that there are
very serious concerns about the unconstitutionality of the bill.
There is an inconsistency in legal opinions on the constitutionality
of the bill.
I want to touch on some of the testimony made before the
committee and some of the concerns raised by the aboriginal
people. There were four groups. Grand Chief Matthew Coon-Come
of the James Bay Cree appeared. Ovide Mercredi, the chief of the
Assembly of First Nations appeared, as did Rosemarie Kuptana of
the Inuit Tapirisat and Wendy Moss, her legal adviser. There was
Zebedee Nungak from the Makivik Corporation. They all spoke
against this bill. Why? They said it is going to affect their
constitutional rights that are guaranteed under section 35 of the act.
In fact, Rosemarie Kuptana said:
Last week the Globe and Mail reported on a leaked federal memo that
explicitly recommended our exclusion from national unity and constitutional
discussions as well as recommending the means to achieve that exclusion. It was
based on a cynical and wildly inaccurate view that our silence or acquiescence
on national and constitutional issues could be bought by making financial
commitments at the local level on unrelated files. In its worst light, this strategy
can also be viewed as a form of blackmail, progress on matters outside the
Constitution or national unity will only come in return for silence on our
constitutional rights.
That formed part of the presentation from the leader of that
aboriginal group. I do not have time to go into all of these
comments, but the Grand Council of the Cree indicated this:
Bill C-110 is inadequate and unacceptable from an aboriginal perspective
and we think will be found to be inadequate and unacceptable from the
perspective of all Canadians.
We did not hear that many witnesses, but we heard many things
said about this bill. The individual who spoke the most and made
the most fundamental comment was Ovide Mercredi, chief of the
Assembly of First Nations, who said: ``No autocrat is going to unite
Canada''. He pointed out very clearly that Bill C-110 has not united
Canada; it has divided the provinces. It has not brought the
aboriginal peoples in; it has divided them.
I simply cannot support the bill for the reasons given.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to speak to the motion presented by the hon. Minister of
Justice proposing amendments to Bill C-110 to add a regional veto
for the province of British Columbia.
The amendments to Bill C-110 reflected in this motion are not
only a step forward for the province of British Columbia, but
recognize the importance of the province of Alberta within
Canadian federalism. These amendments show that Canadian
federalism is flexible and dynamic. It is an example of our
commitment to make federalism work for all Canadians.
17529
(1750)
With Bill C-110, the motion on distinct society for Quebec and
the recognition of the essential provincial role in labour market
training, our government has taken the initial steps to respond to
the aspirations of Canadians within our local communities for
change. It is change to make our national institutions more
responsive to the diverse regional interests and on the basis of our
unique federal state and change to deliver on the commitments
made by the Prime Minister to the people of Quebec and to the
people of Canada to involve Canadians at the grassroots level in
building bridges of accommodation and mutual respect for
diversity that will serve to bind our nation together in a common
purpose as we approach the 21st century.
The unity package is a recognition that the province of Quebec is
a vital part of our Canadian identity, an identity which has as its
basis the principles of understanding, tolerance and respect for
diversity.
The motion on distinct society reflects an important part of the
Canadian reality, the unique character of Quebec within our federal
state. The Government of Alberta has recognized the unique nature
of Quebec's language, culture and civil law traditions. The March
1992 report by the special select committee of the legislative
assembly of Alberta advocated recognition of Quebec as a distinct
society with recognition to include matters of language, culture and
civil law.
Leadership candidate Ralph Klein was a member of the
provincial government in 1992 and campaigned in favour of the
Charlottetown accord which contained the principle of distinct
society within Canada. Premier Klein has acknowledged that the
province of Quebec is distinct within Canada: ``There is something
distinct in terms of civil law, language, tradition and culture that
makes Quebec distinct''. That is from the October 24 Calgary
Herald.
The regional veto formula contained in Bill C-110 is in accord
with the Reform Party's vision as expressed on October 15, 1995 in
its 20 measures to modernize Canada. The Reform Party supported
the concept that all future constitutional amendments be approved
by majorities in all regions of Canada through a referendum. I
would remind the Reform Party that Bill C-110 leaves the regions
with an option as to how they would apply their regional veto as an
expression of the will of the people. As an Albertan I would expect
the province of Alberta would use the referendum act passed in
1992 to reflect the will of Albertans.
The residents of my constituency of Edmonton East may not
have developed consensus on the nature of changes required to
renew Canadian federalism but make no mistake: passion for this
country and the resolve to ensure its unity is felt by all in
Edmonton East. Residents in Edmonton East share with Quebecers
the same values of seeking constructive and positive changes to
build a more effective Canada for the 21st century.
Let me stress for the record that this package is the first step and
only a first step. The next step must involve Canadians in defining
the change. Dictating the 20 terms of secession from Confederation
from the political backrooms as Reform did without the active
involvement or participation of Canadians in our local
communities is not consultation. We must begin the process by
sitting down with Canadians in our cities, in our towns, and in our
communities to come to a better understanding of our similarities
and our differences as Canadians and how we can work together to
meet the aspirations for positive and constructive change that will
make Canada work more effectively and efficiently for all
Canadians.
We are a better nation when we pull together, building on our
common aspirations for change and respecting our diversities. We
are a better nation when we work for the common Canadian interest
rather than the narrow regional or provincial self-interest. History
proves it. Over the past 128 years Canadian federalism has shown
an amazing resiliency. While federalism may have bent at times, it
has never been broken. That is a tribute to the generosity of the
Canadian spirit to adapt to changing circumstances through
creativity and innovation.
(1755 )
We have successfully met all the challenges over the past 128
years. Our network of social programs are the envy of the world.
Medicare, the Canada pension plan, support for the disadvantaged
and the disabled; these were all implemented through the process
of consensus and agreement among Canadians.
We can meet the challenges of renewing Canadian federalism as
long as we work together as Canadians in a spirit of mutual respect,
understanding and co-operation. That is the genius of our federal
system.
I welcome constructive dialogue with the people of Alberta on
the implications of change. I believe it is important that Albertans
be able to speak out on change. That is the basis of our economic
and parliamentary democracy.
Our Prime Minister has acknowledged the need to involve
Canadians in the process of defining change. That is why he has
indicated that Bill C-110 will serve only as a bridge until the formal
review of the amending formula which is required by April 1997.
As we lead up to that formal review, our government is receptive to
new proposals by Canadians that will better reflect the principles of
regional equality and equity in the process of constitutional
amendment.
I will be consulting with the people in the communities of
Edmonton East as to what steps we can take as a government to
better reflect the principle of provincial equality within the
amending formula and what steps we can take to build bridges of
17530
accommodation between the people of Quebec and all regions of
Canada.
I would like to talk about a series of unity initiatives that were
held in Edmonton East two weeks ago. The purpose of the forums
and the round tables was to develop a better understanding of the
issues of distinct society and regional veto and to provide
Edmonton East constituents with an opportunity to express their
thoughts and feelings on Canadian unity, to define the desired
changes to federalism and to develop actions that individuals, our
government and groups can take within our communities to
enhance Canadian unity.
These forums involved a wide range of participants within
Edmonton East: school children, families, the business community,
francophone Albertans and representatives from our multicultural
communities. I invited the member for Vaudreuil to discuss with
the constituents of Edmonton East what the people of Quebec want
and need from Canadian federalism and to explore the changes that
are required to respect and value our distinctiveness and to enhance
our shared aspirations for change within a strong and united
Canada.
We examined four questions: How are you feeling and what are
you thinking about the Quebec referendum and Canadian unity?
When we talk about language, culture and institutions, how are the
people from Quebec and Alberta different and how are they
similar? Given our differences, what changes to our Confederation
do we need to make to accommodate the needs and aspirations of
both the people of Alberta and Quebec? What can you and I as
individuals who live, work and go to school in Edmonton East do to
enhance Canadian unity? It would be useful and interesting for us
to ponder some of the responses to these four questions. I would be
happy to share the report with anybody who is interested.
On the Quebec referendum and Canadian unity: ``There is a great
anxiety as to what is going to happen next. Canadian unity is
fragile. The referendum was a real wake-up call for all Canadians''.
A second quote: ``We must explore comprehensive change to
Canadian federalism. We cannot continue to apply band-aid
solutions''.
To the question of how people of Quebec and Alberta are
different and how they are similar: ``The differences between us are
well known. We have diverse cultural aspirations. The real test is
whether Canadians are prepared to accept these cultural differences
and aspirations in a spirit of respect and understanding''.
To conclude, these are not the comments of people who are
preoccupied with secession and separation as are the Reform Party
and the Bloc Quebecois. These are the comments of people who
want to be involved in a process of defining changes that are
necessary to respect our distinctiveness, value our diversity and
reflect our shared aspirations for a strong and united Canada.
Frankly, Canadians are tired of the politics of discord and
division that seem to be the agenda of the Reform Party and the
Bloc. I can give my assurance to the residents of Edmonton East
that I will continue to take their suggestions for constructive and
positive change to Ottawa, to our Prime Minister and to the unity
committee.
Let us acknowledge what the unity package is, that it is the first
step. Let us move on to the second step, to build bridges between
our communities, between our provinces and between our regions.
Let us build the case for Canada by involving all Canadians.
(1800)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-110 introduced by the
federal government. This bill is suppose to legislate the changes the
Prime Minister promised during the referendum campaign. In
addition to Bill C-110, we also have motion No. 26 on the distinct
society and the changes in manpower training.
Quite a menu, all these changes, at least the federal Liberals
seem to think so. Just think, the Prime Minister went on national
television during the referendum to announce sweeping changes if
the no side won. Quite a menu, according to the federalists. But
Quebecers feel they are looking at an empty plate. There is nothing
here to satisfy Quebec's legitimate demands. Nothing to meet the
expectations of Quebecers who believed the Prime Minister's
promises made in haste towards the end of the referendum
campaign and served up with a catch in the throat and, almost, a
tear in the eye.
The no side won in a photo finish: 50.6 per cent of the voters said
no, and many of them believed in the last minute national farce
produced by the little guy from Shawinigan. On the other hand,
49.4 per cent of Quebecers said yes, in fact 56 per cent said yes in
the little guy's part of the country. Most revealing.
The message from Quebecers was clear, and it will be even more
so next time. Meanwhile, we have to live with the Prime Minister's
initiatives which clearly show he did not get the message. In fact,
will he ever get the message? Will he ever understand what
Quebecers really want? In light of the changes he proposes and of
his previous actions toward Quebec, it is easy to conclude that the
Prime Minister is out of touch with Quebec and that his roots are
Canadian from coast to coast first and foremost.
Let us not forget that the hon. member for Shawinigan is
following in the footsteps of the illustrious Pierre Elliott Trudeau,
who has always advocated Canadian unity, equality among the
provinces, and individual rights and freedoms above all, especially
17531
with a view to checking Quebec's momentum. These Liberal
politicians have always believed in 10 little provinces that are
equal and subordinate to a dominant central state, the Government
of Canada.
How can someone who has been soaking in this kind of
atmosphere for 30 years not become contaminated? Can we hold
this against the Prime Minister? Of course, it is not easy to break
from the past and the illustrious Trudeau and to amend this
outdated concept that lives on in federalist minds. Too bad for
them. But is it their choice and their problem.
In this regard, I recently had a discussion with a remarkable
constituent of mine, Bernard Gilles Grenier, whom I salute, who
remembered a time when he rubbed shoulders with eminent
Quebec federalists. He told me: ``They have always wanted to
clobber us separatists. From Trudeau to the current Prime Minister.
But we should not worry, because Quebecers evolve much more
quickly than those people. Problems cannot be resolved by using
such gutter language or by stooping to that level. I can tell you from
experience''.
We must also acknowledge the giant step taken by Quebecers
between the 1980 referendum and the one held in October. With
popular support having grown from 40 to 50 per cent, Quebec's
sovereignty is at hand, and Bill C-110 as well as the other
meaningless measures improvised by the Prime Minister will
certainly not quash Quebecers' will to build a country of their own.
In this regard, editorialist Alain Dubuc wrote the following in
the November 29 edition of La Presse: ``But this beginning of a
reform remains too modest and too uncertain to represent a
proposal acceptable to Quebecers and constitute a credible
alternative to the sovereignist movement''.
In his editorial comment entitled ``Quebecers want more, much
more'', Alain Dubuc goes on to say: ``Let there be no mistake. Had
the Prime Minister declared during the referendum campaign that
all Canada had to offer in terms of prospects for change were the
three proposals put forward on Monday, the yes side would have
won''. It is interesting to note that Mr. Dubuc had sided with the no
camp throughout the campaign.
(1805)
Earlier, I commented on the Prime Minister being out of touch
with Quebec and not understanding Quebec. Mr. Dubuc, a
federalist editorialist at La Presse, a newspaper owned by Paul
Desmarais, who pulls the strings of this Liberal government,
supported my position on occasions in recent articles. First, on
November 29, when he wrote: ``This first and rather timid effort
shows mainly that the Liberal government is having a real hard
time understanding what is going on in Quebec''.
And second, on December 8, Mr. Dubuc wrote: ``The Prime
Minister is showing that he does not understand all that well the
country that he is seeking to save and that he is not living in the
same world as the Quebecers he has to convince''.
Mr. Dubuc is quite clear: the Liberal proposals just do not cut it.
That opinion is clearly confirmed by a SOM-La Presse-Droit de
parole poll released on December 8. The results of that poll are
very telling, since 53 per cent of Quebecers find the proposals
inadequate, and 30 per cent even find them totally inadequate. Is
that clear enough?
Then there is Claude Ryan who, on Friday, during
Radio-Québec's Droit de parole, said that he too felt these offers
were inadequate. Coming from such a firm believer in the
Canadian cause, this is quite the statement.
The veto proposed by the Minister of Justice is part of that last
minute plan. That second element once again created a circus-like
atmosphere, something at which the Liberals are expert. That
second element, that proposal to ``loan'' the federal veto, was
condemned by just about every major stakeholder in Canadian
politics. From coast to coast, opponents rose to strongly condemn
that proposal. The Mercredis, Filmons, Romanows, as well as the
Reform Party leader and, yesterday, the Conservative leader, all
condemned the plan.
We, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, will have nothing to do
with this bill, which contributes nothing to the debate. As pointed
out by our leader, it is, at best, a diversion used by the Liberal
government to silence those who criticize it for not doing anything
about the constitutional issue, for making promises and for
misleading the public.
This bill, which, following the minister's amendment, gives a
veto to five regions, is a political maneuver that does not change in
any way the substantive issue that concerns Quebec and Canada.
The Minister of Justice himself has said that it does not change the
Constitution and that it is primarily a form of self-discipline on the
part of the federal government. Actually, the federal government is
resorting to self-discipline in order to avoid giving too much to
Quebec.
Suppose that the federal government acted as if it wanted to give
an advantage to Quebec by transferring new powers to this
province, for example under Motion No. 26 which recognizes
Quebec as distinct. What would happen? Wham. The power of veto
of the other regions would be invoked immediately to put a stop to
any such intentions on the part of the federal government. This is
the new self-discipline the federal government is resorting to. Yet
the federal government is getting itself of the hook with this
measure. It will be able to open doors to Quebec without any fear,
knowing that the veto of other regions will slam those doors shut.
17532
Therefore Bill C-110 will have a perverse effect. While solving
none of our present problems, it will make it even more difficult for
the federal government to transfer powers to Quebec, though I
strongly doubt it intends to do so.
In this morning's issue of Le Devoir, Jean Dion wrote the
following on this issue: ``The constitutional amending formula
requiring the approval of seven provinces constituting at least 50
per cent of the Canadian population was already considered very
restrictive. Yet, this formula will now require the prior approval of
seven provinces representing 92 per cent of the Canadian
population. One can already imagine a few crafty persons coming
to the conclusion that the approval of 14 provinces representing
142 per cent of the population of Canada will now be required.
After all, this would not be the first incongruity for this country''.
(1810)
In other words, Bill C-110 is a yoke, a straight jacket, which this
country is putting on itself. The whole thing is becoming so
complex that nobody believes in it, except of course the leader of
this national farce, the Prime Minister himself.
Those of us in the Bloc and many Quebecers are left cold by the
federal proposals. We are light years beyond them, and Quebec
sovereignty alone is acceptable and inevitable. This real change
will take place soon.
[English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, the more I listen to the debate, the more I
am reminded of Sir Winston Churchill's statement that democracy
is the worst of all kinds of government except all the others.
Today we have heard many views of the solutions to the national
unity problem we are facing in Canada. Regardless of how much
we talk about it and to what depth we go into it, we must focus on
the larger picture. The larger picture is that of a strong, united
Canada. It means unity at the local level, loyalty to the community,
loyalty to the province and loyalty to the nation as a whole, all
blended together. That is what was intended by the Fathers of
Confederation and great Canadian statesmen who put the country
together.
We are now 128 years old. In terms of years and of the history of
other countries that is not very long. However, we are still
experiencing growing problems whether or not we recognize them
as that.
The ongoing project for us today is that of being pioneers of our
era and building a nation that was the dream of Canadians in the
past and is the dream of Canadians in the future by bringing
national unity into reality in a continent-wide country by bridging
the challenges of geography, by bridging diverse peoples, by going
against the pull of American influence, by bridging regional and
cultural differences and by relationships between French speaking
and English speaking communities.
A book that I depend upon a great deal is entitled Canada: A
Story of Challenge by historian J. Mr. S. Careless. In one sentence
he goes into the diversities of the country but ends up by saying the
book is a surprised and measured satisfaction that so much has
been accomplished in the face of such grave difficulties''. He wrote
that more than 40 years ago. He ended by saying: ``Nevertheless,
the author's awareness that Canada throughout her history has met
and survived repeated and rigorous challenges still gives him a
basis for believing that she will continue to do so''.
As we debate the issue today we must look at the larger picture.
Instead of getting ourselves all tied up into knots about regional
matters and who has a veto and who does not, let us be fair to the
various regions of the country. Let us develop more and more a
stronger and a more meaningful, deep and abiding national pride in
the country as a whole. The depth of that feeling is called a national
spirit or it is a feel for one's country as a whole.
We saw a good example of that in Montreal during the massive
rally when Canadians came together. Our loyalties are a three-tier
system: the community, the province and the nation. It is a pride in
the entire nation that will pull the regions and their peoples closer
together. Canadians can and should have love for their community
and admiration for their province and their nation at the same time.
But we must tie it all together with the words and the term, ``love of
nation-Canada''.
(1815)
Premiers have a responsibility to their individual provinces but
must not think of becoming a power unto themselves. A few weeks
ago the premiers were going to meet without the Prime Minister
because they wanted to discuss what the provinces wanted. This is
why Canada should have a strong national government. It will pull
the nation together. It is why the premiers and the Prime Minister
must work closely together, not separately as the premiers were
attempting to do. Everybody must see the national picture if we are
going to succeed. We must have good communications and good
transportation links.
I have been disappointed with the Reform Party's tunnel vision
on this, particularly the statement made by the leader of the Reform
Party on October 28, when he said: ``the less the politicians
themselves get involved, the better. We have a lot of work to do on
how to handle the morning after''. The people of Canada expect
their politicians to show leadership on this issue and it is what the
government is attempting to do.
The B.C. premier complained about other items in order to get
his point across, but he sounded more like the captain of a sinking
ship.
If we were not going through this process now in the House, then
the government would be accused of not being interested, not
living up to its commitments. Our response to Quebec is a
necessity. In my view, our response to B.C. is a necessity. I have
always considered B.C. a very unique part of the country. I have
17533
visited there on many occasions and have a great sense of
appreciation for it.
This legislation is a response of support for those people in
Quebec who want to stay in Canada and also to persuade others to
change their minds, to come back and stay with the nation.
The leader of the Bloc states that he does not want any changes at
all, that he is not going to accept any changes at all. That too is
tunnel vision. Is it not surprising that it comes from a man who
changes political parties like he changes his clothes?
I believe today and I have believed in times past that B.C. is a
different region of the country. I have visited on many occasions
and travelled through the Rockies on various occasions. I have
visited the site where the last spike was driven for the CPR. Our
country should put up a sign there 40 metres long and 20 metres
high. If this had taken place in the United States it would be
advertised. It is a big part of our history. Let us be proud of it.
After 1871 Canada were committed to building a railway across
the country to tie it all together. The settlement of the prairies took
place thereafter. I have visited the prairies on many occasions.
People say that they get bored travelling the prairies. I do not at all.
I think it is wonderful. As a person who grew up on a farm I have a
great sense of appreciation for that great part of Canada.
Ontario and Quebec have an industrial base. They have beauty,
tourism and culture. I have visited different areas of Quebec with
my family on many occasions.
The region of Atlantic Canada is unique, friendly, hard working.
They believe in tourism and practice it well. The people have a
wonderful sense of humour.
(1820 )
Come on Canada, look at what we have. Be positive. Be grateful
and satisfied. The good Lord has been kind to us. It is time we
showed some appreciation for the gift He has given to us. For
heaven's sake, let us appreciate it. Let us build bridges through
understanding, not hate. Let us stand up for Canada and be proud.
Shout out our national pride and look to our opportunities and our
good fortune.
Anyone can hate and criticize, but it takes a good solid Canadian
citizen from anywhere in Canada to stand up and say: ``I love my
community, I love my province and I want Canadian unity and a
Canadian spirit that works together in a dedicated way so that we
can move forward and do good things for Canadians today,
tomorrow and the next day'' and send the message to the whole
world that we have a Confederation success story to tell
everybody. We have that great purpose and vision in our hands
right now as we discuss this issue in Parliament.
Let us do it. Let us join with the Canadian people who showed
their great unity at the major rally in Montreal and who sent
messages across Canada when they could not be there. Let us show
a sense of appreciation by coming together and finding a solid
solution to the national unity of our beloved Canada.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to make a few comments on Bill C-110, an act respecting
constitutional amendments.
I believe and a lot of people in this House know that this bill was
concocted in haste. It was concocted to please the wrong people, to
please the separatists. It has already been criticized by other
provinces that are supposed to be pleased by it: B.C., Alberta and
Quebec are not happy with this bill.
An amendment to Bill C-110 was introduced today recognizing
B.C. as a separate region. We knew that right from day one. Where
has the Prime Minister been? Why did he not include B.C. in the
first place?
The hon. member for Renfrew-Pembroke-Nipissing spoke
eloquently. He says that B.C. is such a wonderful place that they
should have signs 20 feet by 20 feet. Where was he a week ago
when the bill was brought forward? Why were they all sitting there
so quiet, kowtowing to the Prime Minister who only consulted a
few people when he brought in this bill?
The issue is not five regions or four regions. We know that B.C.
is a region. We have always known that. All the members of the
Reform Party from B.C. have known that. The issue comes down to
the Constitution and what this Prime Minister and a very few
members of his cabinet are doing to it. This is what the Canadian
public does not understand. This is what I feel is important for us in
the House to point out, especially in opposition.
The Constitution Act of 1982 has rules on how to make changes
to it. If we wish to amend the Constitution, wherever it starts from,
here or in the provinces, it requires the approval of seven provinces
out of ten representing 50 per cent of the population. That is in
order to approve an amendment. It also requires the approval of the
federal government, the House of Commons.
The government is now trying to share. It is arguing that it is
sharing the federal government approval along with the seven out
of ten provinces. It is going to share that with the provinces but it is
not clear what ``provinces'' means, whether it means legislatures or
whether it means the people of a province. It divides the provinces
into regions and lumps them together.
I do not wish to address five regions versus four regions. I want
to argue that the government is tinkering with the amending
formula. By tinkering with the amending formula I am afraid the
bill is going to be ruled unconstitutional and this is all a waste of
time. We should be addressing what is on most people's minds--
17534
and the very reason this party got elected supposedly was to create
jobs-the economic agenda and the criminal agenda.
The bill may be struck down as unconstitutional. As my
colleague from Calgary West pointed out earlier, this bill violates
the principle of the seven provinces out of ten representing 50 per
cent of the population. By sharing it with the regions, whether it is
four or five is irrelevant. The bill is now requiring the approval,
before the federal House gives it, of 80 per cent or 90 per cent of
the population. Therefore, it is tinkering. It is tinkering at its worst.
(1825)
It is all a waste of time to please some people in the country who
will never be happy. They are called separatists. The more we give
them the more they want. Why do we not stop the game, please
Quebecers and please all Canadians and get on with making laws
which are important? In fact, the Prime Minister was elected to not
talk about the Constitution and constitutional amendments, and
here he is doing it.
If the federal government wishes to share its vote, why not give
it to the people? Why not be clear about it? Why not give it to the
people of the five regions? No, government members voted against
that in committee. They want to give it to the legislatures again.
The legislatures already have a vote through the seven and fifty
formula for constitutional amendment. Now, whether the federal
government approves or denies, the legislatures will be given
another vote based on regions. That is ridiculous. It is a double
veto. I do not understand that. If it really wants to have more input,
if it wants to share its veto, if it wants to share its vote, then why
not share it with the people of the regions as opposed to the
legislatures for a second time?
The reason we are criticizing this is that the legislatures already
have a say. They have one say. That is great. If they do not get their
way, then they will go behind closed doors and the leaders of the
provinces of the five regions will make a deal. We want to protect
the Canadian people against that. If Canadians are going to have a
say, they should have it through referenda. That is why we are
barking, loud and clear, about what we mean. I hope the
government is listening.
It is a double veto and a direct legal instrument. The government,
instead of the House of Commons where it has the majority, is now
going to share its veto with five regions. It gets worse. With the
legislatures of the five regions it is a double veto. Now the
government is going to give its veto to a separatist government
from the province of Quebec. How in heaven's name are we ever
going to make changes to the Constitution? How in heaven's name
are we ever going to unify the country if the government gives the
Parti Quebecois a veto? That party will never vote on anything for
Canada. It does not want to build a nation; it wants to tear it apart. I
cannot believe how such a passionate plea can comes from the
government side with such stupidity. It has failed to recognize who
it is giving the veto to. It is giving it to the Parti Quebecois, which
wants to break up the country. That province should not have a
veto.
The people of Quebec should have the veto. The people of
Quebec should be able to stand on any issue which affects their
Constitution and which drastically changes the rules of the
Constitution Act. The people of Quebec should have a say. I trust
the people of Quebec. They have voted already. Yes, it was close,
but they voted to stay in Canada. That is who we should be
pleasing.
Why does the government not give them the same right if it is
going to share? It should share with the people who helped
government members stay in their seats. It should share with the
people who helped to save the Prime Minister. It should share with
those people who want to keep the country together. Do not give it
to the Parti Quebecois which wants to tear the country apart. That is
absolutely ridiculous.
The people of the country are smarter than what we become after
being in this closed box for a year or two. That is why we need
input every once in a while. That is why we need a little jab in the
back or a pinch in the behind to wake us up. A little cool water,
running fresh over our faces, will make us pay attention to the
voters who sent us here. It gets too easy when we talk to ourselves.
I cannot believe it. I cannot believe that the government will not
listen. It plays politics with everything. The issue is the people
versus the legislatures. We are making meaningful amendments,
such as the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary West.
(1830)
It says in the bill that no changes can be made unless the
amendment has first been consented to by a majority of the
provinces. We understand that is the seven out of ten. It is kind of
funny rhetoric-and the member for Calgary West has studied the
Constitution extensively-that replacing two-thirds of the
provinces would clear up the mess. It would clear it all up and we
are down to the issue of whether we mean the people or the
legislatures.
If we give it to the legislatures we are giving it twice. We are
giving it to the party in power right now for the next two years. If
saint so-and-so gets elected as a leader of that party, who knows
how long he will be leader? The country will be held up for ransom
for time immemorial. A no vote means never and a yes vote will
mean forever. Just once we have to lose a referendum and we lose
the country.
17535
This is how serious it is, and the government laughs. It makes
snide remarks at the Reform Party. I call the government to task.
I am not here playing politics. I am serious about what I am
saying. I am serious about giving a veto to a government that can
never ever allow change. It should be difficult to make changes
to a constitution. There is no question about it, but change should
be possible with reasoned arguments and reasoned debate.
I will end my comments on that note. I hope the Prime Minister
is listening somewhere in the world.
* * *
The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the
motion and the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to order made
Wednesday, December 6, 1995, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on the motion of the Prime Minister
under government business No. 26.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on the
amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 392)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
Epp
Forseth
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -41
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
17536
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Wappel
Wood
Young
Zed-197
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Blondin-Andrew
Canuel
Culbert
Eggleton
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
Minna
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Szabo
(1900 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the amendment
lost.
[Translation]
The next question is on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those against will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 393)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Copps
Cowling
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wood
Young
Zed-148
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
17537
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -91
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Blondin-Andrew
Canuel
Culbert
Eggleton
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
Minna
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Szabo
(1910)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
Mr. Reed: Madam Speaker, if the Clerk would check, he would
find that the hon. member for Halifax West is not here in his seat
but the hon. member for Halton-Peel is.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Duly noted.
Mr. Solberg: Madam Speaker, it is important to note on this
important debate that the leader of the Conservative Party is not
here.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sure the hon. member
is well aware that we do not mention the presence or absence of any
member in the House. The hon. member for Halton-Peel will duly
be recorded as present.
The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to order made
Wednesday, December 6, 1995, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on the motion of the hon. member
for North Island-Powell River relating to the business of supply.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent that the members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted-
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Boudria: Obviously the information given by the whip of
that party was not accurate.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 394)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
Epp
Forseth
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -42
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
17538
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Wappel
Wood
Young
Zed-194
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Blondin-Andrew
Canuel
Culbert
Eggleton
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
Minna
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Szabo
(1920)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion lost.
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the President of the Treasury
Board): moved:
That the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1996, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion concurred in.)
Mr. Massé (for the President of the Treasury Board): moved
that Bill C-116, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of
money for the public service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 1966, be now read for the first time and printed.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)
Mr. Massé (for the President of the Treasury Board) moved
that Bill C-116, An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of
money for the public service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 1996, be read the second time and referred to
committee of the whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went
in committee thereon, Mrs. Maheu in the chair.)
[English]
(Clauses 2 and 3 inclusive agreed to.)
[Translation]
On Clause 4
The Deputy Chairperson: Shall clause 4 carry?
[English]
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We
have debate on this.
17539
(1925 )
The Deputy Chairperson: There is no debate. Standing votes
can be taken.
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, is that a ruling from the Chair,
that there is no debate?
The Deputy Chairperson: There is no debate.
[Translation]
On Clause 5
The Deputy Chairperson: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause 5 agreed to.)
On Clause 6
The Deputy Chairperson: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause 6 agreed to.)
[English]
The Deputy Chairperson: Shall the schedule carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Schedule agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairperson: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairperson: Shall the preamble carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the President of
the Treasury Board whether the bill before the House is identical,
in every respect, to those of previous years.
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the President of the
Treasury Board, I would like to give my colleague the assurance
that this bill is identical to those passed in previous years.
[English]
(Preamble agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the President of the Treasury Board'
Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are
passing through the House a bill which is going to spend $2.5
billion and you are telling us that there is no opportunity for debate
on this bill?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Yes. There are just
deferred divisions and no debate in the plenary session of this bill.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, the hon. member forgets that
under Standing Order 81, supply days are granted to the opposition.
We have just had five supply days which finished on Friday. Those
were five days of debate on subjects chosen by the opposition on
this very bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): When shall the bill be read
the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Massé (for the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
(1930)
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I wonder if there is consent to
apply the vote taken on government Motion No. 26, the main
motion, to the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There is not unanimous
consent.
All those in favour the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
17540
(Division No. 395)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Copps
Cowling
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wood
Young
Zed-145
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mayfield
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -86
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Blondin-Andrew
Canuel
Culbert
Eggleton
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
Minna
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Szabo
(1935)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-111,
an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, be referred to a
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the motion for reference to a committee, before second
17541
reading, of Bill C-111, an act respecting employment insurance in
Canada.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it
you would find unanimous consent for the result taken on the
previous vote to be applied to the vote now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 395]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
17541
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1940)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Madam Speaker, some time ago I asked the Deputy Prime Minister
some questions about health care and post-secondary education
social program cuts.
I pointed out that Liberal members were in opposition to similar
but not so deep Conservative government cuts, but once they
moved to the government side there had been a change of heart. I
asked whether or not tearing down the institutions of health care,
post-secondary education and social programs was a way of
building a unified country. The answer was no, yet the cuts
continue.
The reports and analyses we have show that the government's
cuts to health care, post-secondary education and social programs
are the deepest we have seen in the last 50 years.
The race is on to decentralize the federal government and to
slash social spending, so say the slashers, to save Canada.
Unfortunately the decentralizers and social program blood-letters
may well destroy the country before they save it.
In the wake of the rather narrow no vote in the referendum the
government feels compelled to carve up pieces of Ottawa's powers
as a show of good faith to Quebec and provincial politicians are
champing at the bit for more power.
How can the country achieve unity when the government
continues to destroy our safety net? We do not have to be experts to
realize that we cannot save Canada if its very foundations are being
undermined.
What about the interests of Canadians, particularly the interests
of vulnerable Canadians? Lest we forget, social programs helped
create a compassionate society and support the robust economy
that now seems almost a nostalgic memory. Lest we forget, social
programs greatly reduced the glaring inequities between rich and
poor Canadians and between have and have not provinces. As we
have seen those greater cuts, we have seen the inequities between
rich and poor grow larger. Above all, lest we forget, Canada's
health care and social system would never have come to be without
federal leadership and federal dollars.
Alas, Conservative and Liberal governments have forgotten that
between 1984 and 1993 the Mulroney government killed universal
old age pensions and family allowances. It also made two deep cuts
to unemployment insurance and reduced the social housing budget.
The government of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice has
continued down the path of cuts and devolution. It has made
unprecedented cuts to unemployment insurance and has announced
dismantlement of the Canada assistance plan. The government has
clearly forgotten the path which took us to unity.
Throughout these changes Canadians have had no say in
reshaping their social policy. As a result, allow me to voice the
views of millions of Canadians who are trying to remind the
government which path to take. Canadians are saying whenever
they are asked that social programs played a major role in building
Canada's society, economic system and political system over the
last 50 years. Canadians are saying that social programs make
Canada a distinct society and play an essential part in rebuilding
Canada.
Canadians are screaming that we need strong and efficient social
programs for a strong economy and a strong Canada. The most
effective social policy is an effective economic policy that invests
in job creation, community economic development and skills
development.
Canada will not achieve unity under the government because it
refuses to listen to what Canadians are saying. In the difficult
months and years to come, the government must remember how
social programs have helped to define the country. Social programs
such as unemployment insurance embody the values of a civil
society, one in which people care for and care about each other.
Most important, in these unstable political times and insecure
economic times it is crucial to remember how much social
programs have contributed to Canadian unity. If Canada is to
survive, Ottawa must provide courageous and effective leadership
17542
along the path to rebuilding Confederation. It must stop slashing
social programs.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I was taking notes while the hon. member was speaking.
He can rest assured that the government is definitely committed to
the principles of medicare.
The member should also understand that the reason we
introduced the Canada social and health transfer was that we
wanted to provide provinces and Canadians with the type of
flexibility for which hundreds of thousands of Canadians called
during our consultations on social security review. The hon.
member is misguided in saying Canadians were not consulted. We
undertook perhaps the most extensive consultation in Canadian
history.
(1945)
The carrying nature of that consultation was shown clearly with
the tabling of the new employment insurance bill, which will allow
Canadians to get jobs and keep their jobs. It will help the most
vulnerable in society in a sustainable fashion; not to mention the
great work we are doing on the youth portfolio under the leadership
of the Secretary of State for Training and Youth. During hard fiscal
times we have increased the expenditures and investment in young
people by $43 million to $236 million. We have provided
thousands upon thousands of young Canadians with their rightful
opportunity to gain the type of skills required for the new economy.
I am glad the hon. member brings to the floor of the House of
Commons some deep concerns, but he and his party can rest
assured that we are on the side of Canadians, not against them.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, last
November 30, I put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration concerning the fate of Anatoli Delets and his family,
who came to Canada from the former Soviet Union in 1992.
Immigration officials in Montreal are only waiting for the
release of Mrs. Delets from the hospital to deport that family to
Moldavia. Mrs. Delets is Jewish, and Mr. Delets, who has been
held in custody in Montreal for several weeks, is not considered a
Moldavian under the citizenship law of that new country.
Where will the minister send them? As is often the case, the
minister has shown no compassion towards the Delets family in
spite of the difficulties and the significant distress they are
suffering. They have no country to go to with two young children.
Where is Canada's humanitarian policy the minister is always
boasting about? This family is a typical case, and a very good one,
where the minister should use his discretionary powers to grant
permanent residency in Canada.
Again I urgently appeal to the minister, in the days before
Christmas, to show compassion toward the Delets family.
Moreover, the minister should remember that he too left his
country to come and settle here.
Another family, the Savas from Romania, is going through
difficult times. Since November 17, they have taken refuge in a
church in Saint John, New Brunswick.
The Sava family came to Canada four years ago and has
integrated very well into Canadian society. Since the youngest of
the two children was born in Canada, he is a Canadian citizen.
Mr. Sava is a mechanical engineer. He has just repaired the
church steeple; the bells now peal every day for freedom.
I pay tribute to the United Church for its support for the Sava
family. The minister should be able to find a way to deal with this
case. I hope he will not wait for six months as was the case with
Mauricio Romero, a young Salvadorian who took refuge in a
Calgary church to avoid deportation to Salvador. I had the
opportunity to visit him twice, speak to his family and meet the
pastors who were helping him.
Why will the minister not use his discretionary powers right now
to grant permanent residency to the Delets and Sava families? Both
have been living and working in this country for several years. To
deport them now is inhumane.
As immigration critic, I have been made aware of several similar
cases. I have noticed that the Canadian refugee policy is
increasingly aligned on the policy of the United States and certain
European countries that, increasingly, are less generous and
welcoming to people in distress.
As the international year of tolerance is drawing to a close, I am
asking the minister and his officials to show some compassion,
especially to the Delets and Sava families.
(1950)
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member would try to call into
question the generous and compassionate immigration system we
have.
Perhaps he is doing it for some ulterior political reason, but our
immigration system is something we have always taken pride. We
have been recognized internationally for our generosity, for our
compassion, for our deep understanding of what the immigrant
experience is all about.
17543
The government understands also the family's disappointment.
There is no question about that. However, in order to maintain a
system that is credible and fair we need to absolutely make sure
we respect the law.
The family has had the full benefit of Canada's generous refugee
determination system. It has been found not to be refugees and
must now leave Canada.
There are other options the family can exercise. We understand it
has requested removal to another country. The department has no
objection to removing it to another country as long as that country
is willing to take it and legally admit it.
The other option is for the family to return to Moldova and apply
through the normal process.
[Translation]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, as the member for London-Middlesex, I represent many
Canadians of Arab origin who are very proud to be Canadian
citizens.
[English]
Many of these constituents of mine are very successful small
business people in their own right. They were so in the Middle East
and they have continued that success here in Canada.
They have met with me a number of times to indicate they feel to
an extent they are perhaps being under used as new Canadians in
the sense that they have great knowledge and expertise of their
former countries in the Middle East; an expertise and a knowledge
they are very anxious and prepared to share with the Canadian
government and with Canadian business people looking for
opportunities for business overseas.
These constituents of mine have made it clear they are extremely
pleased and happy that at long last it looks as though the Middle
East has entered a new era of peace. There will be a tremendous
amount of rebuilding and reconstruction needed, particularly in the
area of infrastructure of all types.
It pleases me as a Canadian and as their member of Parliament to
hear them speak so highly of the Canadian leadership role in
peacekeeping in the Middle East. They are well aware this dates
back to Lester B. Pearson and the Suez crisis and his tremendous
actions then for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
It seems to these friends of mine that somehow Canada is
missing an opportunity to capitalize on the tremendous goodwill
that exists in the Middle East toward our nation.
What they mean by this is simply that they feel Canada is not
being as proactive or aggressive as we might be in pursuing
business opportunity which really are enormous in scope. Most
Middle Eastern countries would welcome Canadian business with
open arms. While we are pursuing such opportunities, many of
these friends and constituents of mine feel we need to be more
proactive and aggressive.
To that end, there is one interesting idea that has been proposed
to me a number of times. It is the establishment of permanent
Canadian trade centres in the Middle East.
These people would see such centres as being run and financed
by the private sector, by private business with help from the
Canadian government in terms of protocol and business contacts,
that sort of thing, government to government contacts which the
Canadian government could provide.
They certainly see the costs of such trade centres as being shared
by Canadian businesses. They point out that such a cost sharing
arrangement would be much cheaper than various Canadian
businesses year after year sending their own representatives to the
Middle East at a greater cost and probably with a less efficient
result.
I asked my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, two or three
specific questions. Is such an idea feasible? Where has Canada
tried such an idea? Does the parliamentary secretary agree that
Canada can be more aggressive and proactive in pursuing trade
opportunities in the Middle East when these countries are so
anxious to welcome Canadian business people?
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I congratulate my
colleague from London-Middlesex. He is a hard working and
outstanding member of Parliament who has in the past and who
continues to truly represent his constituents.
I will first share with my colleague some of the initiatives and
some of the things the government has done so far in the Middle
East. In January of this year the government opened the embassy in
Beirut. Also we have ongoing negotiations for a free trade
agreement with Israel and we have approached other countries in
the Middle East to have free trade agreements with them. Our
support for the private sector is very strong. We are trying to help it
explore markets in different parts of the Middle East.
I had the great pleasure of participating in the World Economic
Summit in Jordan where in excess of 20 Canadian companies
participated. I have also taken a trade mission to the Middle East on
a number of occasions. I agree with my colleague that the Middle
East is an emerging market that will be the Giant Tiger of Asia in
the year 2000 and beyond.
His suggestion for a trade centre is an interesting one. I will be
sure to take it to our officials. We have some of the finest people
representing us in the Middle East with embassies from one end of
the Middle East to the other. We have trade commissioners working
extremely hard. At the Department of Foreign Affairs we have a
division working day in and day out.
17544
The people in the division responsible for the Middle East and
North Africa work 24 hours a day trying to promote trade and help
to improve relations between Canada and these parts of the world.
We are delighted to see my colleague take an interest in the area
of trade in the region and I would be more than happy to work with
him on an ongoing basis.
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, the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.55 p.m.)