TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 7, 1994
Bill C-38. Motions for introduction and first reading agreed to. 4907
Bill C-256. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 4907
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 4911
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 4912
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 4915
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 4915
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 4920
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 4927
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 4930
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 4932
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 4934
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 4935
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 4936
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 4937
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 4938
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 4941
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4941
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4944
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4945
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4946
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4947
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4947
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 4948
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 4948
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4949
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4950
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4950
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4951
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4952
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 4953
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 4953
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4953
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4960
Amendment agreed to on division: Yeas, 140; Nays, 87 4972
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 179; Nays, 49. 4973
Bill C-233. Motion for second reading 4974
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 4978
(Amendment agreed to.) 4979
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn). 4979
4907
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 7, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to petitions.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the second report
of the Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development.
[English]
This report concerns Bill C-23, an act to implement a
convention for the protection of migratory birds in Canada and
the United States.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development in both official languages.
Your committee has considered Bill C-16, the Sahtu Dene and
Metis Land Claim Settlement Act and has agreed to report it
without amendment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-38, an Act to provide for the security
of marine transportation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-256, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(transfer of income to spouse).
(1005)
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to present my
first private member's bill in the House of Commons. I would
like to thank the member for Madawaska-Victoria for
seconding my bill.
The bill would amend the Income Tax Act to allow one spouse
to split or to pay up to $25,000 to the other spouse who is
managing the family home and caring for at least one dependent
child who has not commenced full time attendance at school.
The initiative would recognize the value of work in the family
home and would give parents the option of providing direct
parental care to their children. It would allow the spouse in the
home to be eligible to purchase RRSPs and therefore provide a
more equitable retirement income opportunity. Both jobs and
day care spaces would be freed up by the initiative by those who
could now afford to leave the workforce and remain at home to
care for their children.
It is a great honour to present the bill to the House. I look
forward to discussing it with my colleagues to garner support for
what I believe is an important initiative.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition from the
residents of Kent.
The petitioners request that the federal government support
an ethanol plant in the city of Chatham, Ontario, an area
devastated by free trade and NAFTA agreements. Jobs will be
4908
created in sustainable development and environmentally
friendly agricultural outlets.
The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call on
Parliament to maintain the present exemption on the excise
portion of ethanol for a decade, allowing for a strong and
self-sufficient ethanol industry in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4908
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest) moved:
That this House strongly affirm and support the desire of Canadians to remain
federally united as one people, committed to strengthening our economy,
balancing the budgets of our governments, sustaining our social services,
conserving our environment, preserving our cultural heritage and diversity,
protecting our lives and property, further democratizing our institutions and
decision making processes, affirming the equality and uniqueness of all our
citizens and provinces, and building peaceful and productive relations with
other peoples of the world.
(1010 )
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this motion
which addresses the issue of Canadian unity from a positive and
federalist perspective.
The motion has two parts: an affirmation and a description.
The first part simply calls for the House to strongly affirm and
support the desire of Canadians to remain federally united as
one people. Surely this is a proposition which every federalist in
the House can and should support.
The second portion of the motion is a brief, shorthand
description of what Reformers believe should be some of the
distinguishing characteristics of that federal union as we move
into the 21st century. It is a shorthand description of a new
Canada which our members will expand on in the course of the
debate.
Please note that there is nothing negative in the motion. The
motion does not criticize the government so that government
members cannot and should not regard it as a confidence
motion. Nor does the motion contain any implicit threat to
Quebecers who for whatever reason may have given up on
federalism.
The motion is simply a positive affirmation of the desire of
the vast majority of Canadians to remain federally united and a
shorthand description of some of the characteristics which can
and should distinguish such a union in the future. The motion is
worded generously enough and is of such positive intent that a
majority of the members of the House can and should support it.
Why do we present the motion to the House? It is because we
perceive a growing vacuum on the national unity issue, a
leadership vacuum. If it is not filled with a positive vision of
federalism and a reasoned response to the separatist challenge,
the danger is that it will be filled with constitutional delusions
and incomplete or inflammatory responses to the separatist
challenge. That will harm Canada and every province and
territory of Canada.
The past month has provided ample evidence of the existence
of this vacuum and some of the delusions and inflammations
which it encourages. It is said that nature abhors a vacuum and
so should Parliament. Reformers offer this motion and a list of
questions which we will be forwarding to the Prime Minister
later this week as our contribution toward filling this vacuum
with something more constructive and forward looking.
The Reform Party was originally created and is presently
supported by discontented federalists.
[Translation]
We are discontented federalists.
[English]
We got our start in the west and have gradually increased our
support across the country by appealing, for example, to people
who are appalled at how the federal government spends money
and accumulates debt. Our supporters are for the most part
people who reject constitutional models or public policies based
on alleged partnerships between racial and linguistic groups and
who long for constitutional arrangements based on the equality
of all citizens and provinces.
Our supporters are for the most part people who deplore the
lack of effective, regional representation in Ottawa and the
unwillingness of the traditional federal parties even to consider,
let alone embrace, such democratic reforms as genuine free
votes, citizens' referendums and initiatives or recall.
This is just a partial list of the dissatisfactions of Reform
supporters and hundreds of thousands of Canadians with status
quo federalism. We can therefore identify with other Canadians,
including Quebecers, who have also become dissatisfied or
disillusioned with that status quo federalism.
This brings me to the major point of difference between
ourselves and the Bloc. Rather than reject federalism or the
concept of a federal union of all Canadians, we are committed to
reforming federalism and overcoming the systemic problems,
chronic overspending, inequitable constitutional arrangements,
4909
top down decision making and policy making, the things that
have brought status quo federalism into disrepute.
We have weighed both status quo federalism and separatism
in the balance and have found both wanting. This has driven us
to seek for a vision of a new and better federal union of
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we have evaluated separatism and the existing
federal system and we believe that both of these formulas are
imperfect. This examination has prompted us to seek a new and
improved federal union for Canadian citizens.
(1015 )
[English]
There are two ways to bring into being a new and better vision
of a new Canada as a federal state. One is to assemble the first
ministers in federal-provincial conferences attended and
advised by various academic and interest group elites to focus
exclusively on amending the Constitution. This was the
approach taken in creating the 1982 Constitution, the Meech
Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord. It failed to produce a
vision or a form of federalism capable of inspiring a deeper
commitment on the part of Canadians to the federal union.
The other approach is to go to hundreds of meetings, big ones,
small ones, quiet ones, noisy ones, with the rank and file citizens
of the country and to ask these simple questions: ``What kind of
country do you want to live in as we approach the 21st century?
What kind of country do you want your children to live in? What
do you want the distinguishing characteristics of that new and
better Canada to be?''
Reformers have done this over the last five years, mainly in
the west and parts of Ontario. We intend to continue to do this in
the west, throughout Ontario, in Quebec, the north and Atlantic
Canada. We have found that if we ask these questions and listen
carefully to the responses Canadians will share their fears, their
dreams and their aspirations with us. If we ask them they will
answer.
In the dreams and aspirations of individual Canadians and
groups of Canadians we will find the substance, the raw material
from which to create a composite picture of a new and better
Canada of the 21st century.
We have developed shorthand phrases to refer to the
distinguishing characteristics of this new Canada, some of
which are summarized in our motion. For example, there is the
simple phrase ``strengthening the economy''. In the context of
the 21st century this means establishing a truly internationally
competitive economy, knowledge based, service oriented,
environmentally sustainable, capable of providing good jobs
and good incomes for all our citizens.
To get to that destination the new economy of the 21st century
requires the implementation of certain public policies: fiscal
policies to lower the cost of government, tax policies to pass on
the benefits of this reduced cost to taxpayers and encourage job
creation, trade policies to eliminate barriers to trade including
internal barriers to trade, educational and training policies to
produce an internationally competitive workforce.
To get to that destination the new economy of the 21st century
may also require constitutional changing: a constitutional
requirement to balance government budgets, a strengthening of
the federal commerce power and a new division of
responsibilities on education and training.
Defining and getting to that new economy of the new Canada
is far more than a constitutional exercise but it may have
constitutional aspects which cannot be ignored. In this
resolution we have used simple phrases like ``strenghthening
our economy '' as a heading. The words of the heading may seem
trite and familiar but if one understands each of these shorthand
phrases to be the tip of an iceberg beneath which lie all the
public policies, private initiatives and constitutional changes
required to actually bring into being a 21st century economy,
then each phrase can be made to stand for something substantive
and to fully describe a distinguishing characteristic of a new
Canada.
Some will ask what this approach to defining a new Canada
offers to Quebecers. The short answer to the question is that it
offers Quebecers the same benefits it offers every other
Canadian, including the freedom to develop and preserve
cultural distinctiveness.
[Translation]
In short, the answer to that question is that this approach
offers Quebecers the same advantages as all other Canadian
citizens, including the freedom to promote and protect their
cultural distinctiveness.
[English]
This approach offers to Quebecers as well as to all other
Canadians the new jobs of the new economy, jobs which are
more likely to be created and maintained if our bargaining agent
in the new free trade world represents a market of 28 million
people rather than 8 million.
(1020 )
This approach offers to Quebecers as well as to other
Canadians tax relief, not the additional tax bills that will come
from establishing a sovereignist government with national
obligations, obligations to Canada, and new international
obligations as well.
This approach offers to Quebecers as well as to all other
Canadians financially sustainable social services. Properly
designed social insurance plans which spread the risks over a
4910
larger population and a larger financial base are more secure
than those resting on smaller populations or economic bases.
The Reform approach to a new Canada also recognizes that
Quebecers as well as other Canadians want to be treated equally
under the law and to be free to preserve their cultural and
linguistic heritage. When we ask Canadians they say they want
both equality and freedom to preserve cultural diversity.
The problem in the country is not getting support for these
objectives. The challenge is to reconcile them and to provide for
the attainment of both within a single state. The approach
recommended by Reformers is a two-pronged approach. First,
in Canada's basic constitutional arrangements we should
explicitly recognize the principle of the equality of the
provinces and all citizens.
Federalists should be encouraged in this regard that the year
end Decima-Maclean's poll taken immediately after the defeat
of the Charlottetown accord showed for the first time that an
absolute majority of Canadians in every province, including
Quebec, support the equal provinces constitutional model over
the founding racial groups model.
Second, in Canada's constitutional division of powers and in
public policies flowing from that division of powers, we should
make the preservation of cultural and linguistic distinctiveness
a personal, private and provincial responsibility. The role of the
federal government in such matters should be confined to the
prevention of discrimination on the basis of cultural or
linguistic grounds.
I have only scratched the surface of developing a fresh
vigorous vision of a new and better Canada. My colleagues will
expand on this vision. We look forward to the contributions of
other members. My main purpose is to illustrate the process
whereby Canada, the whole great sea to sea to sea federal union,
can renew itself. We start by asking the people where they would
like to go. We listen carefully. We construct public policies to
move the nation in that direction. We offer more than the status
quo. If our policies require constitutional changes, we seek
those as well but only at the end of the process and not at the
beginning.
This is what Reformers have endeavoured to do over the last
five years on a limited scale as an extraparliamentary party.
Now as a party with strong parliamentary representation and
greater resources we are in a position to do more to pursue this
vision of a new Canada and to establish a rallying point for those
Canadians who wish Canada to remain federally united.
We shall do three more things to advance the cause of
federalism in the months ahead. First, we are striking a new
Canada task force within our party to further refine and flesh out
this vision of a new Canada. This task force will include
members of our caucus. It will seek additional input from people
in parts of the country where we are not well represented. It will
initiate a major teledemocracy effort on this subject in the early
fall.
Second, we are establishing a contingency planning group to
prepare a reasoned, principled, federalist response to all those
troubling questions and issues which the threat of Quebec
secession raises for Canada. A list of the questions which this
group will address will be released this week and the terms of
reference of this contingency planning group will be established
before the end of June.
Third, we will bring together the results of this work, a fuller
and more complete vision statement of a new Canada and a
reasoned, principled federalist response to the issues raised by
separatism for presentation to the country at our national
assembly here in Ottawa on October 14 to October 16.
This is what Reformers are doing to fill the national unity
vacuum with a positive vision of the future and a reasoned,
principled federalist response to the threat of separation. Our
question to the government is: What is it going to do more than
defending the status quo to fill the national unity vacuum over
the next three months?
(1025)
During the last few days our Prime Minister has been visiting
Normandy as we and other nations remember and honour D-Day
in Europe. That event still speaks to us and to people around the
world. It declares that there are certain ideals and concerns for
which men and women are prepared to die. If leaders and
legislators can discern and articulate those ideals and concerns
for their generation, they can give that generation a vision worth
living for and worth striving for.
The wartime leaders of the western democracies in the 20th
century, Borden, King, Churchill, Wilson and Roosevelt, all
understood this. One of them put this into words to this effect.
He said: ``Mothers who had lost their sons in France have come
to me and have taken my hand and have said `God bless you'. I
advised the course of action which led to the deaths of their sons.
Why then, my fellow citizens, should they pray God to bless me?
Because they believed'', and listen to the words, ``for something
that vastly transcended any of the immediate or palpable objects
of the war''.
There are certain things such as freedom, security, equality,
heritage, unity, democracy and home which vastly transcend the
immediate and palpable objects of public policy and our daily
routines. These are the things that people are in the final analysis
prepared to die for and should therefore be prepared to live for
and to strive for.
The Canadians who landed in Normandy were not fighting for
the preservation of the status quo or for a hyphenated
Canadianism or for the right to secede. They were fighting for
ideals which vastly transcend and yet were rooted in their
personal beliefs and hopes.
4911
If our Prime Minister could return home with a fresh vision of
those ideals that vastly transcend for contemporary Canadians
and if Parliament could help him link that vision to the practical
hopes and dreams of Canadians in every corner of the land then
the House would have done its part to provide a rallying point
for federalism which is the spirit and the substance of this
resolution.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I say to the leader of the Reform
Party that we welcome this debate today so that the Liberal
Party, the Government of Canada, can reaffirm its commitment
to Canada's integrity and to the vision we have for the country.
I begin with a question related to that portion of your speech
that has to do with global trading.
The Speaker: Order. Because of the nature of the speech, the
Chair today will be even more vigilant. Would all hon. members
please direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. My question to the leader of the Reform Party has to do
with global trading which the member touched upon in his
speech.
American business experts have complained that one of the
handicaps of the United States in international trade is the lack
of Americans with foreign language skills. For the last 25 years
we as Liberals have promoted a policy of multiculturalism
where we have encouraged people to preserve and promote their
language and culture of origin.
(1030 )
We believe the policy Pierre Trudeau enunciated in 1971
today represents one of the greatest advantages that we have as a
trading nation because we have people in our country who can
go home and trade on behalf of Canada because they preserve
that language of origin.
In your new vision of Canada, through you, Mr. Speaker, to
the leader of the Reform Party, that you are proposing would you
continue to support-
The Speaker: Order. With all respect, would the hon. member
please direct his questions through the Chair.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. This is a very emotional debate today. Would the leader
of the Reform Party support a multiculturalism policy that
would link multiculturalism to trade policy?
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
As our motion suggests, we support the objective of
preserving our cultural heritage and diversity which leaves all
kinds of room for supporting the concept of preserving Canada's
multicultural heritage. Regarding the member's suggestion that
it has an economic dimension, we would have no disagreement
with that. Where we will come to a difference is on how to get
there.
Our view is that we preserve this multicultural heritage by
making that the responsibility of individuals, maybe
economically motivated individuals, private associations and
the lower levels of government.
We get the federal government out of that business and
confine its role to strictly the prevention of discrimination on
the basis of culture, language or other distinction. The
difference is not with the goal, it is how to get there.
The international trade dimensions of this most effective new
Canada that it has to be a trading nation competing in the free
trade world give an additional argument for having a federal
government that did not exist even 10 years ago, and that is we
need a bigger federal government as our bargaining agent in
these big international trade agreements. Our point is that a
bargaining agent representing 28 million people is going to get
further in a free trade world than a government representing 8
million people.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the member's remarks and toward the end
when he was talking about D-Day he got to the matter of
heritage and national pride. I think he and the members of his
party know that in the end the successful nations of the world,
however we define successful, have not been built on
technicalities, on formulae, on a technocratic approach to
nationhood but in fact have been based on emotion and feeling,
common heritage.
Quite often the successful nations have developed technical
ways of channelling the energies which have come forward as a
result of this national pride.
The speaker looked forward into the 21st century but the way
we look forward into the 21st century is by looking honestly and
clearly at the nation as it exists now.
The key features of the nation which we have now, this
wonderful nation of Canada, this remarkable confederal system,
have to do with the makeup of the population. We have for
example hundreds of First Nations, aboriginal peoples who
speak several families of languages and many scores of actual
languages.
We also have, whether the member likes it or not, in the
modern nation two founding nations, two groups of people, that
feel a special responsibility, have a special place in the modern
nation of Canada; the people who use the French language and
people who, as their maternal language, use English.
4912
In addition, and I am looking now in the mirror at Canada, we
have over 200 first generation Canadians. Those people likely
speak between them perhaps 300 of the world's 6,000 languages.
Those people, including the newest of them, have accepted, I
believe, or are trying to accept a common heritage.
(1035 )
Would the member comment on his vision of the place of the
aboriginal peoples and their languages in more detail, the
historic place of the so-called founding nations, and where the
200 first generation nationalities that make up such an important
part of the country sit in his vision of Canada?
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for his questions and observations.
We see this as the tip of an iceberg and the member is really
asking for what is beneath that. This phrase that new Canada
should be characterized by a commitment to preserving our
cultural heritage and diversity has all the room necessary to
recognize the factors of Canadian diversity that the member
mentions.
There is the role of aboriginal peoples, the role of new
Canadians from many lands, the role of the original French and
English populations. This provides scope for that in our vision
of a new Canada. Our vision of a new Canada with respect to
aboriginal peoples has to include the doing away with the
paternalistic Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development and the transferring of its responsibilities,
functions and funding to local aboriginal governments. We have
said that on many occasions and again the argument is how to do
it and not whether it is the objective.
We recognize from a historical and sociological standpoint
the French and the English as playing founding roles in the
development of Canada. Our point, however, is that if we are
developing constitutional arrangements we ought not to tie
constitutional entitlements to factors like race, culture or
language because we end up dividing rather than uniting.
I suggest again that in terms of the broad objective of
preserving our cultural heritage and diversity, however broadly
that is defined, we are not in disagreement. The constitutional
arrangements that get us there, that is where there will be
diversity of opinion in the House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais
(Madawaska-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question will be
very short. I listened with incredulity to the speech made by the
leader of the Reform Party. I also listened last week to what a
Reform member said in this House about Atlantic Canadians
who, according to him, are charity cases for the federal
government.
Given what the leader of the Reform Party said today, I have
several questions: Do the remarks made last week by his Reform
colleague reflect his new vision of Canada and does he agree
with them? In his opinion, will Atlantic Canada stay in a
Confederation that will foster its linguistic, economic and social
growth, just like at the beginning of this Confederation?
[English]
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the member's
question is certainly our vision of a new Canada includes
Atlantic Canada. It includes a reinvigorated Atlantic Canada
economy.
What the other member was referring to, and he meant no
offence, was that for the last 30 years the way we have tried to
stimulate economic development in Atlantic Canada has been
through regional development grants. The Canadian approach to
regional development is now quoted by economists the world
over as the way not to do it. We have invested billions of dollars
and the unemployment rates and the economic growth rates in
those provinces are no better than they were when we started.
The alternative is embraced in this vision. Regional
development programs of the future will be exploiting the
north-south dimensions of free trade. Part of the country that
has the strongest regional economy today is British Columbia
which is doing exactly that. The premier of the province of New
Brunswick is working on a strategy to that effect which we
believe is the regional development wave of the future.
(1040)
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, it is for me a real
pleasure and an honour to participate today in the debate
launched by the Reform Party. It will be an opportunity for me
and for each of us to reflect on a fundamental and crucial issue
and to reaffirm, I repeat reaffirm, our desire to live together in a
united country.
[English]
I am speaking today as a Canadian, as a New Brunswicker and
as an Acadian. I want the members of the House to clearly
understand this. While I have a distinctive history and roots as
an Acadian and as a son of New Brunswick, I am also fiercely
proud of being a Canadian.
[Translation]
Since our ancestors arrived here, often at the cost of bitter
struggles, this part of America became a sturdy cradle for our
language and culture. Our country is not only a territory but a
crucible for the historic union of two languages and cultures.
Today's debate reminds me of the 1992 debate when this
House approved the constitutional amendment proposed by New
Brunswick to enshrine in the Canadian Constitution the main
provisions of the law recognizing the equality of New
Brunswick's two official language communities.
4913
It is important to remind Reformers, who were not here at the
time, of the significance, the real and symbolic value of this
constitutional amendment. First of all, this measure validates in
an almost irreversible fashion the progress that the two
linguistic communities have made together over the years and
the common future they want to build in a spirit of co-operation
and partnership.
This measure also demonstrates the social maturity of two
linguistic groups who want to live together and pass on to future
generations of New Brunswickers the will to continue the social
and economic experiment they started. New Brunswick is thus
in several respects a mirror of our federal reality.
By working hard, by making concessions, of course, and
especially by respecting other people's reality, we in New
Brunswick have managed to create a climate of harmony
favourable to successful and satisfactory linguistic
accommodations.
New Brunswick has always been a place of refuge for our two
language communities. First, many Acadians went there after
they had been deported in 1755. Also, Loyalists who fled the
United States after the Treaty of Paris settled there.
Today, this welcoming tradition is still very much alive in our
province. From all over the world come new citizens who want
to build a happy future with us, for themselves and of course for
their descendants. I strongly hope that this example of respect
for differences, tolerance of cultural diversity and openness to
others will spread to all of Canada.
Despite the problems we sometimes have in expressing our
national identity, we nevertheless have more in common to
celebrate than differences to divide us.
(1045 )
[English]
Canadians have shown the generosity of spirit which has
made ours one of the most open societies in the world. It is
clearly reflected by the composition of the House.
Unfortunately, I am sad to say that while Canadians are generous
and tolerant, this does not seem to be the case for the two
regional opposition parties. They want to divide Canada. They
want to divide our country into French versus English, into
region versus region, until finally it will be so divided there will
not be a country any more and we will not be able to recognize
Canada. That is sad.
I have heard the Reform Party bring forward motions in the
House against the official languages policy, a policy which is a
fair and practical approach to recognizing the linguistic facts of
life in Canada, a policy which imposes linguistic obligations on
the federal government alone and which gives linguistic choices
to Canadians. When I hear this policy opposed by the Reform
Party I hear a party which understands neither the official
languages policy nor the values of fairness and pragmatism on
which it is based.
When I hear the Reform Party attempting to come to grips
with multiculturalism I do not hear tolerance. Nor do I hear a
party in touch with the reality of western Canada, a place where
Ukrainians, Chinese, Germans, Swedes and dozens of other
peoples have come to make a better life for themselves and their
children, a life free from persecution and free from intolerance.
It is a place where they are free to adopt a new home and still
proudly claim their heritage.
Recognition and respect for cultural diversity are part of the
Canadian identity. When we walk down the streets of our cities
or visit our small towns and farms we see that multiculturalism
is not just a policy, it is a reality. I am not sure the Reform Party
fully understands that.
Yesterday the Prime Minister was in Normandy
commemorating the 50th anniversary of D-Day and the brave
Canadians who fought and died there. The Prime Minister noted
that those people had many backgrounds, many colours and
many cultures but they fought side by side as one. Allow me to
quote from the Prime Minister's remarks. Of the soldiers he
said:
They had one thing very much in common: They were all part of a young
nation, a new kind of nation, where the ancient hatred of the past was no match
for the promise of the future, where people believed they should speak different
languages, worship in different ways and live in peace. They did not die as
anglophones or francophones, as easterners or westerners, as Christians or Jews,
as immigrants or natives. They died as Canadians.
(1050)
[Translation]
Unfortunately, some politicians deal only with the negative.
Negativism and a gloomy way of seeing our great country are a
way of life for them. Yes, of course we have our difficulties and
much work remains to be done, but what country does not have
problems? Throughout the world, Canada is envied because our
living conditions are so good.
You surely know that this year again, a United Nations report
put us in first place among nations. This report says that,
considering all factors that contribute to a people's happiness,
Canada is the best country in the world in which to live. The
constant threat to Canada's unity is doing us great harm. The
confidence of other countries in our economy and our future is
shaken.
The different levels of government spend more time fighting
over powers than trying together to solve the problems which
concern us. The trade barriers which we keep in place in our
country hinder our economy, while everywhere else in the world
the trend is to eliminate them. Federal and provincial powers
overlap and programs are duplicated. That is why we as a
government prefer to set aside constitutional questions and
concentrate instead on co-operation and practical, realistic
4914
solutions to our problems, unlike the Bloc Quebecois which
wants to separate and destroy the country.
We were elected a little less than eight months ago. After
listening to the people, we have set ourselves some very clear
objectives. Our first objective was, of course, and still is, job
creation; the second one is fiscal consolidation; the third one is
the reform of social security system, while the fourth one is
restoring integrity in public affairs.
We have spent all our energy promoting economic growth and
job creation because, in our opinion, this is the number one
priority. We must give back to those who, unfortunately, must
rely on unemployment insurance or social assistance, the
dignity that comes with having a job. I think this is the main
concern of every Canadian and public official in the country, and
we must pursue that fundamental objective.
If, during all those years, we had devoted as much energy to
promoting economic growth and job creation as we did talking
about the Constitution, we would be much farther ahead, and
Canadians know that. Let me give you a few concrete examples
of our efforts to find practical solutions.
Today, the Minister of Industry is meeting his provincial
counterparts to discuss the domestic free trade issue. As I just
mentioned, we noticed that trade barriers between provinces
were impeding domestic trade. Consequently, we took action.
We co-operate with the provinces and impressive progress has
been made.
I just referred to the overlapping and duplication between the
federal government and the provinces. This is another issue
which we are looking at closely. The President of the Privy
Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is actively
reviewing this issue. He is looking at each case of overlapping
and duplication, in co-operation with every province and
federal department. This exercise is conducted to reach
administrative agreements which will enable us to serve
Canadians better and more efficiently.
(1055)
We have set up a national infrastructure program. This
program is an example of what can be done for the well-being of
the country as a whole, when the three levels of government
co-operate. (English follows)
[English]
These are the types of specific actions the voters of Canada
told us to engage in when they elected us last October. They
voted for an end to the constitutional wrangling that
preoccupied the previous government for almost a decade.
Canadians voted overwhelmingly for job creation. They voted
for a message of hope. They voted for honesty and integrity in
government. They voted for a party that has stood for and
defined federalism since the inception of Canada.
The government and the citizens of the country know what is
right about Canada and we want to work to make it even better.
That is the meaning of good government and that is what the
people of the country want. They have a right to expect it and we
intend to deliver.
We all know that words can hurt, that words have hurt people
in the country and indeed the country itself. For years now
Canadians have heard themselves and their country scrutinized,
criticized and put down by the very people who should be
offering leadership and a sense of confidence for the future.
Words can do harm because it is with words that the opposition
party leaders are trying to deceive Canadians about the reality
they see around them every day.
Reality is out there with people living and working for a
peaceful and productive future, not in endless debate over
abstract definitions on a piece of paper. We are unwilling to tie
ourselves into a straitjacket of words.
[Translation]
The Leader of the Opposition says ``Ah''. Well, two weeks
ago in Shediac, the Acadian community rejected the opposition
leader's comments aimed at promoting the separation of the
country. People simply told him ``thanks, but no thanks''.
[English]
Our political debate should be focused on how to create jobs,
build our economy, protect our social safety net, how to protect
the environment and how to make government work better at a
lower cost to our citizens. Our political debate has for too long
been infected by a virus of self-doubt and anxiety. It is sad that
the leader of the Reform Party has come down with this virus.
[Translation]
I want to quote Michel Doucet, an Acadian activist of long
standing who, recently, when referring to the Canadian vision of
our country's future, described the vision which I just
mentioned and said: ``For Canadian francophones in general and
for Acadians in particular, salvation is conditional upon
maintaining a federal system; a federal system in which Quebec
and the francophone and Acadian communities of Canada would
find the means to ensure their cultural security, since it is
essential that Canada remember that French culture is the one
which is threatened in America''.
One of the thrusts which resulted in our Confederation is the
firm belief that we could do great things by working together
rather than in isolation, and that the citizens of each of the
provinces would have a better future if they were all part of the
same country.
4915
(1100)
Mr. Speaker, since you are telling me that my time is almost
up, I would like to take this opportunity to move the following
amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words after ``Canadians to'' and
replacing them with the following: ``Continue to live together in a federation''.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I listened very
closely to the Leader of the Reform Party and to the Secretary of
State for Parliamentary Affairs. One insists that we must reopen
the debate, while the other says we should let the matter rest.
The Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs says we should
not talk about this subject any more and I agree with him
because we have debated this matter long and hard since 1989. I
have served in this Parliament since 1984 and we have been
talking about this for a very long time.
You will undoubtedly recall, Mr. Speaker, that debates have
taken place and two or three parliamentary commissions have
been struck. There have been a whole series of seemingly
endless debates, the end result of which was Meech. And Meech,
as you know, did not work, in spite of the fact that it represented
Quebec's minimum demands.
Some hon. members: Yes, but not those of the regions, for
example.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Yes, for the other regions as well.
It could have worked, but Meech was rejected.
Another debate followed after that. All kinds of debates took
place with respect to the Charlottetown accord and committees
held hearings. As you know, Charlottetown failed as well.
Therefore, it is too late for us to reopen the debate on this subject
because for us, the debate is closed.
Quebec conducted the most serious exercise in its history. The
Bélanger-Campeau Commission received 600 briefs and heard
testimony from 200 witnesses while at the same time, a special
committee of experts held meetings. Once again, Quebec's
leading experts concluded that if Quebec was to grow to its full
potential and fight its way out of this economic crisis in which it
was fast sinking along with the rest of Canada, it needed to gain
control of approximately twenty areas. These are not my
recommendations, but those of leading Quebec experts.
Charlottetown also proved to be a rejection of this position.
Therefore, when the hon. member says we must continue to
debate this issue, I say to him that as far as we are concerned, the
subject is closed. We have now proceeded to the next phase,
which is to achieve sovereignty for Quebec, not at the expense of
the rest of Canada, but for the benefit of Quebec.
(1105)
And so I agree with the Secretary of State for Parliamentary
Affairs when he says that we must stop talking about this
subject. He is right. As far as we are concerned, the time for talk
is long over. We have moved on to the next phase.
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what was
said by the hon. member, and I must say that every time the
parties opposite refer to Meech and Charlottetown without
mentioning the Charest report, I begin to wonder. After all, it
was a solution. Some people even resigned because of certain
developments.
When they talk about Charlottetown, on which a referendum
was held, I get the impression that the whole Bloc machine did
not want the accord to make it, for the simple reason that it
would have been good for Quebec and would have completely
eclipsed the separation option.
It hardly makes sense for you to invoke Charlottetown. At
least to me it does not. You mentioned the recession, but you
have now reached the point where you want to-
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but members opposite are talking
about a recession, and through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to
respond to their concerns. The hon. member told us he did not
want separation to be at the expense of the rest of Canada. For
heaven's sake, how are you going to do that? The way you talk
about separation today is already sending waves of uncertainty
on the markets. This country is no longer seen as a good place to
live and do business, now that its citizens are starting to worry
about the future of the country. And yet this is the country, this is
the Canadian federation that has been instrumental in bringing
us all, including Francophones in the province of Quebec,
Acadians and all other groups in the country, where we are
today. And now you tell us you do not want separation to come
at-
The Speaker: Order, order, please. I would appreciate it if
hon. members would always address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Robichaud: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I simply wanted to
say that they tell us they want to separate without harming the
rest of Canada, and I find that hard to take! I think Canadians
know better than to be convinced by such arguments.
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, there was at
least one contradiction in what was said by the Secretary of
State.
He started his speech by commending the Parliament of
Canada for enshrining institutional bilingualism in New
Brunswick in the Canadian Constitution, as if that were
something extraordinary. He went on to say that it was no longer
important to talk about the Constitution, that it was just a piece
of paper and that we now had to talk about job creation. I wish
the Secretary of State would make up his mind. If the
Constitution is not important, then please explain why it is so
important to have what happens in New Brunswick in the
Constitution.
4916
(1110)
We all know that the Constitution is important as the basic law
that determines who can do what in this country, and the many
problems we have, including this constant overlapping of two
levels of government, because the federal government always
thinks it can do a better job than the other governments and
encroaches on all jurisdictions of the provinces, can be traced
back to this basic law.
But let me at least point out this contradiction: If you
commend the Parliament of Canada for adopting a
constitutional amendment, how can you say the Constitution is
just a piece of paper?
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I did not say the Constitution
was just a piece of paper. I acknowledged the importance of the
constitutional amendment on official languages in New
Brunswick. What I meant and what I actually said was that
Canadians would prefer to see us discuss the reality they face
every day, which is about jobs and the dignity of work.
During the last election, Canadians realized there had been
enough talks about the Constitution and that we should focus all
our attention on the problems facing them every day: finding a
job and having the dignity of working at that job to earn a living.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
before the member got on to his more negative comments about
the Reform Party, he did share a bit of his vision of Canada with
us. I think he made reference to the historic union of two
linguistic and cultural groups modelled by New Brunswick and
suggested that was the model for the country.
Is there not a need to expand that vision because that vision is
not sufficient for the entire country? Would the member not
acknowledge if we tell people in downtown Victoria that this is a
historic union of two linguistic and cultural groups that they do
not relate to that? If we tell people in most of our aboriginal
communities that this is a historic union of two linguistic and
cultural groups, that does not describe Canada for them.
Is there not a need to expand beyond the concept of Canada as
being simply a partnership of the English and French groups?
[Translation]
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I said that I hoped the example
of New Brunswick would be followed across the country, and
you say that perhaps we should go further.
Of course, adjustments are always necessary, but I am
concerned, and I do not see any positive contributions coming
from the Reform Party when we hear proposals in this House
that are aimed at changing or eliminating the official languages
program.
In the case of communities in New Brunswick and many
communities across the country, this legislation has played an
important role, and I fail to understand why the Reform Party
says it wants the well-being of the entire community and at the
same time tries to eliminate the programs that helped us survive
and in fact develop our potential to a very considerable degree. I
am surprised at these statements from the Reform Party.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the Leader of the Reform Party for
the opportunity to participate in this debate. I was under the
impression that he would not give us the chance, since he had
said that he would not interfere in what he dubbed a family
squabble.
I think he now realizes that this is much more than a family
squabble and that we are grappling with a fundamental problem,
one that existed before all of our economic problems and deficit
woes. I think he realizes, and I thank him for that, that until the
issue is resolved, we must confront it head on. At least that is
what the Bloc Quebecois has decided to do.
(1115)
Yesterday, all of the western countries who joined the vast
anti-Nazi coalition after 1939 held ceremonies to commemorate
the 50th anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy. The
thousands of young soldiers who died and all of their comrades
in arms were in reality, to quote the cover page of Time
magazine, the soldiers of the last great crusade. Upon the
cessation of hostilities, two antagonistic blocs emerged, each
wanting to bring about lasting peace in the western world.
The western world has known peace for nearly 50 years.
Troubles and differences of opinions are of course not
uncommon, but today, no country in the western world would
consider taking up arms to resolve in its favour a political or
economic conflict with another country. Yesterday's adversaries
such as Germany and France, once centuries-old enemies, have
become the staunchest of allies.
Peace in the western world is based on two major interwoven
principles, namely democracy and national sovereignty. The
exercise of democracy guarantees the exercise of national
sovereignty. These principles provide the answers to two
fundamental questions about how societies organize themselves
politically, namely how is power achieved and who governs
whom.
The western model provides clear answers to these two
questions. Nations prefer to govern themselves and within each
nation, citizens want to democratically choose their govern-
4917
ment. In short, the democratic nation-state is the norm in our
western civilization.
What better opportunity than this solemn celebration of the
ideals that brought together 50 years ago as many peoples and
combatants under the same banner, to remind all Canadians and
all Quebecers of our deep commitment to the fundamental
values of peace and democracy!
Giving the national feeling the framework it needs to grow
normally is a guarantee of peace. And what an example of
constructive co-operation the nations of Western Europe have
been giving the whole world for more than 40 years without
infringing on national sovereignty on basic issues! This should
serve as an example for Canada, a country that is young but,
strangely enough, incapable of showing the flexibility it needs
to deal with inescapable sociological and economic realities.
Democracy certainly seems the most demanding system for
the leaders and for the whole state machinery in terms of
restraint, transparency and respect for human rights. During the
difficult times that every country experiences in the course of its
history, there is a strong temptation to play fast and loose with
democracy. Canada is no exception to this rule, as demonstrated
by the 1970 War Measures Act.
These difficult times put the democratic fibre of a society to
the test but we are not afraid of the immediate future from that
perspective. Canada will certainly not backtrack at a time when
democracy is gaining ground throughout the world, particularly
in Latin America, notwithstanding the unfortunate situation in
Haiti, and in Central Europe.
[English]
Let us be clear that it is perfectly normal for the federal
government to plan a campaign of persuasion to convince
Quebecers of the merits of the status quo, but it is also perfectly
normal for us to promote the only alternative to the status quo
which is political sovereignty of Quebec.
The leader of the Reform Party talks about a new federalism
but the last 30 years offer abundant proof that this so-called new
approach is nothing but a cul de sac. There are two options on the
table. There will be a political debate and the people of Quebec
will decide. All of us will have to abide by the results. This is
democracy.
This does not mean that anything goes, that blows beneath the
belt should be tolerated or that reaching for the gutter should not
be singled out for what it is. Are these words too strong? We
hope at the outset of this important campaign decency will
prevail. One can hold strong views on the issues of the day
without demonizing the adversary. This has been and will be our
line of conduct.
When all the peripheral noise has been removed one should be
able to focus on the central issue. If Canada is performing so
poorly it is mainly because there is in its bosom a sharp conflict
of vision. In the minds of the people of English speaking Canada
there is one national government in Ottawa and 10 equal
provinces; in other words, one senior government and 10 junior
governments.
(1120)
For Quebecers their national government is in Quebec and the
doctrine of provincial equality represents a denial of their
history and of their aspirations for the future.
Being the senior government, Ottawa can intervene in almost
all of the provincial domains mainly by using its spending
power. What happens when Quebec and Ottawa have different
sets of priorities? Not only do their bureaucracies overlap but
they are at cross purposes. If English speaking Canada prefers to
transfer some provincial powers to the federal government it can
do so not only administratively but also legally so that Quebec
cannot prevent the erosion of its powers
All this boils down to a simple reality. Canadian federalism
means that the Government of Quebec is subordinate to the
central government both in large and lesser matters. Quebec
does not have today all the powers it needs to be the key player in
setting its priorities, be they economic, social or cultural. In
other words, English speaking Canada has a veto on the future
development of Quebec within the federation.
Nobody ever relinquishes power joyfully, but one can at least
expect English speaking Canada to clearly see the impasse to
which the present regime has brought us both. The budget crisis
is but the most visible symptom of this impasse. Another one is
the sheer impossibility of significant political movement in one
direction or another. The federal government will never let go of
its extensive powers, not only on grounds of ideology but also
because many provinces do not have the resources to assume
even a few of its powers. In fact the necessity of a stronger
central government for English speaking Canada, in the
education sector for example, is not in doubt. The more
important provinces, seeing the fierce resistance of Quebec to
any transfer whatsoever to Ottawa, will hesitate to climb aboard
the federal bandwagon.
Thus gridlock and confrontation are built into the system. It is
easy to predict, for example, that the eventual blueprint of the
Minister of Human Resources Development to overhaul social
security will not meet its objectives. Unreasonable deficits will
just go on piling up, speeding in the process the relative decline
of the Canadian economy.
4918
[Translation]
The Quebec people reject the status quo that will never satisfy
them. They spoke loud and clear on this in the last federal
election. They understood what the Quebecers sitting on the
government benches in this House have not understood yet,
namely that there are times in history when governing well
means making drastic changes to the system. We are
approaching one of these times.
Some prefer to wait until they are confronted with newspaper
headlines before admitting that something is happening. It is
their right, although it shows a particular kind of historic
long-sightedness. In fact, we see with every passing month that
the federal government is unable to get Canada and Quebec out
of the increasingly devastating economic and budget crisis.
In the February 22 budget debate, we drew the attention of this
House to several questionable aspects of the budget and I would
like to remind you of two of the points we made at that time.
First, the Minister of Finance deliberately inflated his 1993-94
deficit estimate to make his performance for the current year
look better. Debt servicing for this year, in particular, was
overestimated. A few weeks ago, the Department of Finance
proved us right by stating that it now expected the deficit to be
under $44 billion instead of the $45.7 billion announced on
February 22.
Second, we said that the interest rate projections in the budget
were too optimistic. Today no one finds them credible. The
interest rates on short- and long-term securities now exceed by
almost two percentage points the average level forecast in the
budget despite the last few days' decline.
(1125)
In view of the federal government's poor financial situation,
it is impossible for interest rates to decline significantly in
Canada without a similar drop in the United States. The
American economy is approaching the threshold of capacity
utilization which will lead to larger inflationary pressures. Just
look at our southern neighbours' unemployment rate: it was
down to 6 per cent in May, while ours is still 11 per cent.
Under these conditions, U.S. monetary policy will remain
more restrictive and U.S. interest rates could rise further. Add to
this an overly optimistic revenue projection and you will
understand that the government, like its predecessor, is
underestimating the deficits from the outset.
Since the economic hypotheses on which the 1995-96 deficit
forecast is based are even more optimistic than those for the
current fiscal year, the extent of the underestimate will
necessarily be larger next year. Why be surprised then when the
financial community does not believe the finance minister's
promise to reduce the federal deficit to 3 per cent of GDP in
1996-97? The C.D. Howe Institute has just warned the
government in a very recent study that its spending should be cut
by $7.2 billion if it wants to keep the promise of 3 per cent. In a
few months, the federal government's inability to correct its
financial situation except by passing the crisis on to the
provinces will be obvious to all. That is what the next federal
budget has in store for us.
We must admit right away that the Minister of Finance has
already shown his colours. With questions pouring in from all
over about the precarious state of the federal government's
finances, he promised a month and a half ago to make massive
cuts in transfers to the provinces starting in 1996-97. He went
even further, since this is his chief method for eliminating the
federal deficit by the year 2000.
On the one hand, the federal government pretends to decide
everything; it is even eyeing education. On the other, it is
prepared to pass on to the provinces the bill for its fiscal
irresponsibility. Fiscal federalism is thus more and more
disadvantageous for Quebec. The trend of recent years will
accelerate markedly. It will become more obvious than ever that
Quebec must take back all its resources if it really wants to break
the vicious circle of a decaying system which every day is a
greater fundamental impediment to its freedom of action.
Thus we know that the political and economic dynamics of the
present system are working at a deep level and not only
superficially for the sovereignty of Quebec. The coming years
will confirm that our historical destiny is leading us to this
sovereignty.
[English]
I heard the leader of the Reform Party explain his view of
what Canada should do to get out of the present crisis. I heard
that he proposes something like a new round of negotiations but
prior to that many members and ministers of the House should
be travelling around, along with civil servants, with city hall
meetings all over the country.
When I listened to him I had a sense of déjà vu and I thought it
looked so much like the Keith Spicer approach. Do we
remember the Keith Spicer train that went all across the country
listening to people? It heard all kinds of things, disparate things,
and at the end we had nothing. Out of the mountain came a
mouse, as we say in French. I am quite discouraged to see that
we will begin again if we listen to the Reform Party.
The leader of the Reform Party does not know a lot of Quebec
history. I am 55 and I spent most of my last 30 adult years
involved directly or indirectly in the sterility of
federal-provincial discussions, constitutional quagmire. I have
a feeling that we in Quebec, and probably people in the rest of
Canada have the same feeling, lost the last 30 years wasting our
energy, our money, our political stamina that we needed to build
something
4919
real in all parts of this huge country, devoted to the sterile
discussions of the Constitution.
Here we are with a new proposal to resume this terrible circus.
People have forgotten that we went through the referendum in
1980 in Quebec, that there has been the unilateral patriation of
the Constitution in 1982 where Quebec had imposed on it a
Constitution which is our current Constitution. We never signed
it and every attempt to bring Quebec to the table to sign the
Constitution has failed because the people of Canada and of
Quebec have said no.
(1130)
I was in the House when the political establishment of the
country, the House of Commons, decided that there should be a
deal based on the Charlottetown accord. I was here when we
voted-I would exempt the Bloc because we voted against
it-and all the federalist parties voted for the Charlottetown
accord. We saw the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada
reject it.
The right reason and the great reason why the government will
not get involved in the debate with a new proposal is that it
knows it is not possible. It knows that everything has been done:
good faith, bad faith, imaginative strategy, all kinds of things.
Everything has been attempted. I would say it is a disease of the
country that we cannot move. The country has no power when it
comes to changing anything, to adapting the Constitution to
reality because the country does not accept reality.
There are two realities as long as no one accepts that outside
Quebec there is no possibility for anything. We have two
realities: we have Quebec and we have the rest of Canada.
The Quebec people do not think they are better than any other
part of the country, but they think they are different. They have
done nothing to destroy anything. We do not intend to destroy
Canada. We intend to adapt the political structures to the
realities.
I have a different vision of the country from what people on
the other side of the House have of their country. I respect their
vision. I have the ultimate, utmost respect for their vision.
I respect the people who died in the last war. When I laid a
wreath yesterday I did it out of sincerity, out of respect. We have
people in our families who died in Europe and who fought for
democracy, for whatever. We should respect those people and
not put words in their mouths because silence is now their
privilege. Silence is now their prerogative. We should not
resurrect them. We should accept the fact that they died for a
great cause, that we have inherited a legacy of their courage. We
should respect it and silence about what they thought when they
died, what they had in their hearts when they died on those
beaches far away from their families, should be respected. It is
for them for eternity because they have kept it in their graves.
When I laid the wreath yesterday I asked the member for
Quebec to do it. She had never told us before. Perhaps she was
absolutely taken by the atmosphere, the tragic and grandiose
atmosphere yesterday, when she said: ``You know my father was
there and he spent the war in Europe''. I said: ``You should lay
the wreath yourself'', and she did.
I was so upset this morning, so sad, when I read the comments
made by the Deputy Prime Minister about the significance of
our gesture yesterday.
I will close my speech. I know it is a very emotional, very
difficult debate. I pledge to stay forever a democrat and to
respect the opinions of other people. And I would ask people to
do the same for us.
(1135 )
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, I have to
respond with a comment on what I have just heard. I have to
make it clear to the Leader of the Official Opposition, the leader
of the Bloc Quebecois, that he does not respect my vision of
Canada.
My vision of Canada includes Quebec. My vision of Canada
includes Jacques Cartier and Samuel de Champlain who went up
this river only feet from where we sit today. It includes the
voyageur and the coureurs des bois who opened up the west and
the north of this great country. This is my Canada. I say that I
will fight in any way I can if you try to destroy that.
My Canada includes Quebec City. It includes the north of
Quebec. For me, my Canada includes the ability of Quebecers to
feel that the Rocky Mountains belong to them, that the Pacific
coast belongs to them, that Halifax belongs to them and that the
rocky shores of Newfoundland belong to them.
My Canada is not two Canadas. That is your Canada. My
Canada is one Canada. There is not an English speaking Canada
and a French speaking Canada. There is a Canada where people
who live outside Quebec and are francophone, a whole million
of them, can express themselves, live and be served by their
government in their own language just as francophones in
Quebec can, and just as anglophones in Quebec can.
I realize we have a serious difference of opinion about the
country. However I have an opinion, not about its parts, not
about those things that divide us. For my children I want the
history and the contribution of those great men and women who
came from France, who were the original settlers of my Canada,
to be part of their tradition and their future.
We are stronger together. We are a more vibrant nation together
than we would be as 10, 11 or 20 or even 2 pieces. I do not
believe we can end up as two pieces. I believe that the heart is
4920
ripped out of the country if Quebec leaves and I believe the rest
of the country will fall apart. I will not let you do that.
The Speaker: Again, I know that we are getting not close to
the heart, we are in the heart, but I insist that all hon. members
please address the Chair. It is very important. The hon. member
for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Please excuse me, I did not know
you had a commentary. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Bouchard: Just a short one, Mr. Speaker, to thank you for
your wise words.
I would like to say to the member who just addressed the
House that I completely respect what she said. I feel genuine
sympathy for her emotion because this debate is very much
about deep and fundamental emotions.
At the same time I would like to say, if I may, that to respect
the vision of someone is also to make sure that one does not
impose one's vision on another. This is about democracy. It is
not for me as an individual to impose anything on other people.
It is not for me to make any decision for collectivity, but it is for
the Quebec people to make a decision. Those things are not easy
and they have been said before.
(1140 )
I remember very well the last debate about Meech. We had a
very limited debate about Meech. I heard a few moments ago the
secretary for parliamentary affairs say that the Bloc was very
happy to see Meech fumbled but it was not true. I fought hard
and for a long time for Meech.
I was not the champion of Meech. Prime Minister Mulroney
was. I remember that during those debates at some point Prime
Minister Mulroney implied that if Meech was rejected the future
of Canada might be compromised. He said something like that. I
noticed then there was a very strong negative reaction all over
Canada that the Prime Minister was too emotional, that he was
not realistic, but here we are.
We tried to get Meech through. We almost begged the rest of
Canada. We are proud people but we begged anyway. We asked
the rest of Canada to subscribe to five minimal conditions that
Quebec proposed, to go to the table and sign this Constitution on
the dotted line where there is no signature, Quebec's signature.
I spent two years of my life doing that. I even accepted the
bold risk to do that. I left my sovereignist family in 1984 to work
for that because I thought, like Prime Minister Mulroney and
many people in Quebec, a majority of Quebecers, it was
worthwhile to try to reconcile the country. The minimal
requirement we could set up to save the honour; accept that
something very important in Quebec politics be enshrined in the
Constitution, not in the powers but in the preliminaries of the
Constitution; that Quebec should be recognized as a distinct
society, which is to recognize us as a people. This is the
fundamental thing, people in Quebec feel like a people. We
cannot change that. It is a fact of public life.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. Under Standing Order 43(2) and on behalf of
the Reform whip I would like to inform the House that our
caucus members will be dividing their time when they speak.
The Speaker: It is so noted and I return to the hon. member
for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member from the Bloc should not in any way,
shape or form be surprised at the fact that this party would
include them in this discussion.
Unlike some parties, we stand for including all Canadians in
our decisions. This is not a family feud. What we have is an
effort by a group of individuals in the House to fracture the
country and I, like the member across the way, will not stand for
it.
This is in part accomplished by misleading the people of
Quebec as to what is really going on in the country. I would ask
at some time what Canada has done against the people of
Quebec. I will tell members in part.
The Government of Canada gives to the people of Quebec in
transfer payments more money than what the people of Quebec
give out to the federal government. I would also say that the
federal governments in past years have pandered to the province
of Quebec in an effort to keep it within the fold. This is special
status. This is special treatment and it only causes division. It is
divisive within the country.
In this world, we have tribalism: one group or tribe against
another. It is perhaps the singular, most divisive problem that we
have in this world. Francophones, anglophones, men, women,
black, white, it is all the same thing. All we can hope for in the
world is that we are treated equally under the law, that we are
free of prejudice. What we make of our lives as individuals is up
to ourselves.
I have a question for the hon. member from the Bloc. What is
so wrong with a country where we are all treated equally, where
we all have the same rights under our laws, where culture and
language is the responsibility of each province whether it is
Quebec, New Brunswick or British Columbia? What is so wrong
with a vision of Canada that includes all Canadians? I would like
to ask the hon. member what is so wrong with that.
(1145 )
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, let me say two things to the hon.
member.
First, Quebec has already been excluded from the
constitutional family by the rest of Canada. Something we
should remember is that in 1982 the federal government ganged
up with the English speaking provinces to impose the
Constitution on
4921
Quebec. That is a fact and cannot be denied. We have been
thrown away and here we are trying now to set a political basis
out of that.
The second thing I would like to say to the Reform Party is
that I hear the leader of the Reform Party proposing a new
federalism. I have absolutely no doubt it would be a worse
federalism, if it can be, when he begins his proposal by
establishing that everything will be based on the equality of the
provinces which is what Quebec has fought against for the last
30 years.
All Quebec premiers, starting with Jean Lesage, one of the
greatest political leaders of Quebec, always fought against the
equality principle. The Reform Party is now proposing a new
federalism where a new principle will be enshrined in the
Constitution: equality of the provinces. Let me say that even if I
were still a federalist I would never accept the fact that this new
federalism would exclude official bilingualism.
Any reform proposed by the Reform Party on this basis will
not fly. There is no reform possible. There is no possible reform
in the country. The decision by Quebecers will have to be made
either to accept the status quo, which is stagnation and
everything we have tried to get away from for the last 30 years,
or a new noble project to build a real country in Quebec so as to
allow people in the rest of Canada to have their own country, a
country belonging to their minds and hearts.
I do not believe for one minute that there is not a strong
national cement binding all English speaking Canadians outside
Quebec. In the House I can hear the emotion and I can see that
those people have a genuine passion for their country, as I have
for mine.
The Speaker: It is noted that the Reform Party will now be
splitting its time so the speakers will have 10 minutes and 5
minutes for questions and answers.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to
give my most important speech to date of this 35th Parliament. It
reflects my personal point of view, not as a representative of any
race or of any province, but as a proud immigrant Canadian
citizen. It is not directed to the politicians in the House but
rather to the people of Canada from sea to sea to sea, the voters
who entrust us to work in their best interests.
I will endeavour to treat today's motion in the following way.
First I will make my position on Quebec separation quite clear
and unequivocal. Second, I will discuss some of the
consequences of Quebec separation and then re-emphasize a
new vision of Canada as an alternative to separation as earlier
presented by our leader, the member for Calgary Southwest.
I humbly realize my opinions and comments on this very
important topic may not make a difference in the larger picture.
Nevertheless I believe all politicians and Canadians who want
Quebecers to remain in Canada need to reinforce their
convictions, attack the myths, present the reality and the real
face of this great country.
I want Quebec in as I want Alberta in: as part of the great
Canadian federation that has served us all so well. It does not
make any sense whatsoever to break up after 127 years,
especially in a period of high deficits and debt. Together all
parts of Canada are stronger. The proof of that is our enviable
record of war participation, political stability, prosperity and
freedom. If it is worth dying for, it is worth debating for.
To be unable to work together as Canadians to reach an
accommodation quite frankly is unthinkable to me. To continue
this uncertainty is already straining our economic, social and
cultural diversity and the world is watching.
(1150 )
I respect the convention that federal politicians should stay
out of provincial elections. I respect the rights of Quebecers to
send the Bloc Quebecois to Ottawa. I respect their right to a
referendum on separation, but because this affects me directly I
feel I have the right to speak out on this issue.
I respect the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the many
members I have worked with on committees and recently on the
basketball court, but I truly regret the course they have chosen.
The leader of the Bloc Quebecois is intelligent, charismatic and
experienced in trying to get the best deal for Quebec that he can.
However I fundamentally disagree and stand against the method
he has chosen: separatism over a new federalism.
The reality of the consequences of Quebec's separation would
in many ways be very costly for all Canadians. I have evaluated
this as a businessman with 25 years of experience. To assume
entitlement to all existing benefits of the federation by
separating is not only dangerous but very naive.
We have no buy-sell agreement in place to handle separation,
no terms of reference that were agreed to while we were friendly
partners to facilitate the secession of a province. Neither the
British North America Act nor the Constitution Act, 1982,
defines an orderly breakup of our great country.
In the face of this fact the reality is that all the many views put
forth by the separatist forces in the absence of precedent are in
many cases inaccurate projections about the way things will be
in a sovereign and separate Quebec. All Canadians should make
an honest assessment of the pending separation issue and ask
themselves if the risk of separation leads to a more predictable
future as compared to working together to create a new and
better federalism.
Let me raise a few of the questions about separation that are
on the minds of Canadians. Who will negotiate this separation?
Will we need a federal election to decide? While we fight over
the right to break up the country our fragile economy will suffer.
Is this what we really want? Our deficit and debt are so high,
how can a new nation start off with such a high debt load and
what share will it take? What about the value of the dollar and
Canadian interest rates? Will Quebec pay? Will creditors
refinance two separate entities so deeply indebted? I, for one,
fret over making this assumption. The currency issue places
Que-
4922
becers in an inferior colonial status at the mercy of Canadian
monetary policy. Is this acceptable to the Quebecois?
Have Quebecers evaluated the impact of separation on
subsidized sectors of their economy, like textiles, furniture and
the protected status of the dairy industry? Will the aerospace
industry continue to grow without support from the rest of
Canada?
If negotiations become emotional and hostile, what
favourable and satisfactory settlement can be achieved in areas
like defence, dual citizenship, the North American Free Trade
Agreement, the free trade agreement, control over the St.
Lawrence River and the boundary in the Gulf of St. Lawrence,
all of which require consent of Canada?
What about territory and territorial rights for aboriginals?
Can they remain with Canada, or will the majority in Quebec
have the right to decide the future for aboriginal peoples?
I believe Canada will accept separatism if it is the result of a
clearly worded referendum on the issue and reflects the will of
the majority of Quebecers, but who ever said outside Quebec
that sovereignty association was a negotiable option? If the
referendum question is sovereignty and the vote is yes, how do
we negotiate with the other party that says that option was never
on the table, only separation and not sovereignty?
In the light of these questions are we not better off working
together in kickstarting our economy, by resolving the unity
issue once and for all? For those Canadians who may not think
that is possible, let me quote one of the Fathers of
Confederation, the Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee, who faced the
same crisis in the 1860s and like me wanted to make Canada the
happiest of homes.
He said: ``The policy of linking together all our people in one
solid mass and making up for the comparative paucity of our
numbers by the repeating and detonating moral influence of our
unity, the policy of linking order to order, of smoothing down
the sharp and wounding edges of hostile prejudices, the policy
of making all feel an interest in this country and each man in the
character of each section of the community and in each other,
each for all and all for each-this policy will never grow old,
never will lose its lustre''.
Bloc Quebecois members claim that federalism has not,
cannot and will not work. They point to the failures of the
Constitution Act, Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accord as
sufficient proof. While I agree these constitutional efforts
represent failure, they failed everyone and not just Quebecers
because the wrong people were negotiating the right things the
wrong way: top down.
(1155)
This 35th Parliament has the right people in the right place to
negotiate the right way with the new vision of federalism as
presented by the leader of the Reform Party together with the
Prime Minister and his party who also believe in keeping this
great country together.
The leader of the Bloc Quebecois has a tremendous
opportunity to apply his great skills in resolving the weaknesses
of the current dying federalism, protecting the interests of
Quebecers and making all Canada a stronger and richer nation.
Madam Speaker, through you to the people of Quebec, demand
this of him.
By putting Canada first, a Canada which includes Quebec, we
all benefit from a bilingual nation applying the original
recommendations of the Laurendeau-Dunton bilingualism and
biculturalism report, not the current expensive second language
mess created by the technocrats which the majority of all
Canadians in and outside Quebec say is not working.
By revisiting and applying the spirit of the British North
America Act, restoring to provinces the complete power they
should have over resources, education, language and culture, by
acting as a true Canadian official opposition party, the Bloc
Quebecois together with the Reform Party can more effectively
force this indignant, stubborn and weak government to address
the real problems of this great country. Together we could force
the federal government out of areas of provincial jurisdiction
where it has no business being involved.
Together we could convince the government that Canada has a
spending problem, not a revenue problem, and that the culprit is
the deficit and the debt, not Quebec separation. Let us resolve
the deficit and debt problem which is keeping us in this
recession, causing high unemployment and threatening our
social programs. Let us attack the enormous debt load together
with constructive, creative reductions in spending which will
restore real confidence in the financial community.
Let us not add to the uncertainty of our quality of life by
separating. We need a new balanced democratic federation of
provinces with a healthy economic development program
sensitive to the environment and a Constitution that recognizes
the equality and uniqueness of all its citizens and provinces and
that includes Quebec.
In conclusion I will once again use the words of the Hon.
Thomas D'Arcy McGee speaking in 1860, a believer in Canada
who described the reality that still holds true today and reflects
my personal philosophy: ``I look to the future of my adopted
country with hope, though not without anxiety. I see it quartered
into many communities, each disposing of its internal affairs,
but all bound together by free institutions, free dialogue and free
commerce. I see a generation of-''
4923
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am very sorry, but the
hon. member's time has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Madam
Speaker, I want to congratulate the Reform Party member for his
excellent presentation. I simply would like to point out a few
facts.
The hon. member, with whom I have often had the opportunity
to work in committee and who does an excellent job, said at the
beginning of his speech that we must stop telling Quebecers that
their only alternative now is either status quo or sovereignty,
and that we should instead talk of a renewed federalism. I am
still very young, but ever since I was very little I have been
hearing about renewed federalism.
Remember the meeting which took place in Quebec City, in
1964, between the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, for whom I
have a great deal of respect since he is one of the greatest, if not
the greatest Canadian politician, and Jean Lesage, the Quebec
Premier of the time. Remember also all the constitutional
conferences and meetings held between the Canadian provinces,
or between Quebec and the federal government. Remember the
1971 conference in Victoria, with Robert Bourassa.
Remember also the whole constitutional debate of 1980, when
the future of Quebec and Canada was discussed. Remember
1981, after the No victory, when Mr. Trudeau, who was then
Prime Minister, said to Quebecers: Say no to sovereignty and
you will get in-depth reform and renewed federalism, as you
have been hoping for since 1867, when you were told that you
could have a place as a nation in this new confederation, which
was never a real confederation.
(1200)
Remember also the forced patriation of 1982, when the
federal government put Quebec in its place, instead of making
room for it, by imposing a unilateral patriation of the
Constitution as well as a Charter, a measure which was almost
unanimously opposed by the members of Quebec's National
Assembly.
In 1984, Mr. Lévesque, a true statesman, was in charge in
Quebec and extended a hand to federalists by saying that Quebec
was prepared to take a bold risk. Then, there was Meech with
Mr. Mulroney and all the subsequent failures.
Ever since I was a little boy, even a baby, I have been hearing
about renewed federalism. Recently, the whole debate
intensified with the failure of Meech, the Beaudoin-Dobbie
Commission, Beaudoin-Edwards, the July 7 agreement which
became the Charlottetown accord, and which also ended up
being rejected.
This is not the failure of your country; your country is yours.
You love it, you love this Parliament, but you should let us build
our own. We do not want Canada's destruction, but we are well
aware, after 30 years and particularly in later years, that this
renewed federalism is a smoke screen. Right now, there are two
options: status quo, which is unacceptable for Quebec, or
Quebec's sovereignty.
I wonder if the hon. member, who is a friend, is aware of this
saga in which a lot of time was wasted. Every time Quebec tried
to find its niche in this regime, and every time promises were
made and federal politicians talked about a new place for
Quebec within Confederation, every time that happened, our
province was put back in its place. (English follows)
[English]
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, first I would thank the hon.
member for his compliment. I know he was sincere in that. I too
have respect for him and the work we have done together.
Being inexperienced, it is difficult to express yourself in such
a way that you do not offend. You lay out what you believe in. I
think it is time we did that. We have to lay out here what we
believe in.
I go back to Thomas D'Arcy McGee. I see in this life a
generation of industrious, contented, moral men and women
free in name, men and women capable of maintaining in peace
and in war a Constitution worthy of such a country. That is the
important thing.
What we have built for 127 years is important to preserve. We
in Alberta may have differences of opinion with the federal
government, as we do. You have a difference with the federal
government in Quebec, as you do. We should fight together to
make the sum total stronger than any one of the individual parts.
That is the message we are trying to share.
All the examples that the hon. member gave us about what did
not work and the reports and commissions that did not work
were all examples of a top down approach to democracy, a top
down approach of trying to deliver goods and services to what
the people want. We in the Reform Party, as do the members of
the Bloc Quebecois, recognize that it does not work.
Why not pool our resources in opposition, fight for Quebec
and fight for our areas we represent against the government to
show that a bottom up approach-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, your time
has expired. I have gone over.
The Reform Party has advised the Chair that it wishes to split
its time. I do not see any other Reform members prepared for
debate. Questions and comments are finished. They are splitting
their time.
4924
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, if we have a half hour allotted to
us and I split my time and my colleague for whatever reason is
unattainable, is that time still allowed to me so I can finish off a
proper answer and continue comments and questions? Would
there be unanimous consent to continue comments and
questions until our time is up?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): If we have unanimous
consent the hon. member for Calgary North may use the 14
minutes allotted to him. Do we have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Returning to debate, the
hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Mr. Silye Madam Speaker, I would like to basically finish the
remarks I made earlier to the hon. member of the Bloc
Quebecois. What is important about today and what is important
about the future of Canada is that we have to get out into the
open the essence of what is at stake.
(1205)
The consequences of separation are uncertain. It is the
uncertainty that we must approach. It is the uncertainty that we
have to deal with. All the questions I raised in my speech were
general questions. The specifics of them and the other side of
them will come about if, as and when Quebec decides its future.
We will be ready for those. As our leader pointed out, we will
have a lot more work done on them and a lot more solutions
through the task forces that we are presenting.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker, may I relinquish the
remainder of my time to my hon. colleague who is now present
to give her 10-minute speech with no comments and questions
to allow for the last 10 minutes?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Do we have unanimous
consent to return to the original scheduling of the debate?
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I give consent on a
condition. The member already used a few minutes so the next
member may have the remaining time and not necessarily the 10
minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Do we have unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Madam Speaker, the
motion before us today reaffirms the desire of Canadians to
remain federally united as one people and asks the House to
support them in that desire.
Surely nothing could be a higher priority for those of us who
have accepted positions of trust and responsibility in the
Parliament of Canada than to preserve and protect the unity and
character of the country we have been elected to serve.
Unity is more than an abstract concept, more than some ideal
detached from practical realities. There are things that unify
people in the structure and operations of a federation. Citizens
must realize concrete benefits from their association in the
confederation.
In Canada our social support systems have for decades been
an important element in making us the envy of the world.
Unfortunately our current economic situation has eroded those
traditional support systems. In light of this our citizens want to
be assured that leaders of the new Canada of the 21st century
will act and act decisively to ensure they continue to benefit
from affordable and sustainable social services.
A fresh approach to the delivery of social programs is
imperative for one simple reason. Our country's financial
resources are being increasingly drained away by Canada's huge
debt. Over one-quarter of our total spending is paid out in
interest every year, a whopping $41 billion this year alone on the
more than $500 billion which was borrowed by past
Conservative and Liberal governments.
Incredibly this present government intends to borrow a
further $100 billion which will diminish our cash resources by
an additional $4 billion to $6 billion each year in higher interest
charges. These are billions of dollars that will be lost when we
need to fund health care, pensions and education for Canadian
citizens.
For more than two decades those we have elected to manage
the affairs of this great nation have seen fit to violate the most
basic rule of sound fiscal management, living within one's
means.
In order to buy the goodwill of every interest group in society
and to fund extravagant and wasteful government, Conservative
and Liberal decision makers have placed a mortgage on our
country which as of today stands at nearly $518 billion. That is
more than $18,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada.
We owe almost $1,500 more every single second than we did the
second before. In fact, in the time it takes me to complete my
remarks in today's debate, our country's debt will have shot up
by nearly a million dollars.
This incredible mismanagement and the resulting debt has
severely reduced our ability to pay the cost of the social
programs that we have enjoyed in the past.
With this evidence before them of instability and
unsustainability of current social programs, it is no wonder
many Canadians are losing faith in our federal system.
(1210 )
It is no wonder they believe a united Canada offers little long
term personal benefit in return for the huge long term liabilities
it has amassed.
As services are reduced so is the incentive to stay together as a
country. Raising taxes with decreased benefit to the citizens
4925
being taxed has throughout history been a sure fire recipe for
social and civil unrest, instability and eventually even revolt.
If Canadians willingly continue to turn over a large amount of
their earnings to the federal government, they will expect value
for their money. Canadians have in the past been proud and
thankful for the fact that they can rely on programs to ensure that
their basic needs will be met when they are most vulnerable,
when they are young, old, sick or destitute.
It worries many of us when services and benefits are wasted
on those who do not truly need them. For too long our political
leaders seem to have lacked the will to make the hard choices,
the courage to do the right thing, to put social programs on a
sound financial footing for the long term.
Reformers believe that Canadians want to preserve federal
funding in support of health care, advanced education, the child
benefit, the guaranteed income supplement for seniors,
veterans' pensions and old age security for households below
the national average household income.
They believe their contributions to the Canada pension plan
should be managed in such a way as to ensure that benefits will
be available to them in their retirement years. This means that
there will be less money available for OAS for seniors with a
household income above the national average, for federal
support for UIC and to some extent for welfare and equalization
payments.
Canadians are committed to caring for those who cannot care
for themselves, the most vulnerable members of society, but
they know we cannot possibly sustain our present social
program spending without some intelligent priorization and
reorganization.
Unfortunately in spite of the current roles with our shaky
social safety net, our federal government continues to refuse to
take the bold steps necessary to save it. When others like the
Reform Party offer specific and concrete proposals designed to
preserve and protect essential services, they are derided and met
with fearmongering.
One particular blatant example of this attitude is our present
health minister labelling those who want changes designed to
preserve health care funding as advocating a two-tier health
care system. She knows full well there are at least 10 tiers of
health care in this country, her own privileged access to DND
medical services being one of them.
The ministers of the government should fear the
consequences of not acting to bring about the change.
Threatening provinces will accomplish very little. What are
Canadians to think when the cost of services goes up? The level
of services goes down but they are told that constructive
proposals for better management are harsh and unfair.
An explicit element of the Reform Party motion being debated
today is recognition of and support for the desire of Canadians to
remain federally united as one people, committed to sustaining
social services. We believe present and future Canadians could
count on receiving the services they most need and want if we
took the following steps.
First, reorganize contributory social programs like UIC and
the Canada pension plan so that they pay for themselves. Our
unfunded CPP is a political and fiscal time bomb. The Reform
Party believes that Canadians need the financial security which
would be provided if CPP were fully funded. If this does not
happen, the CPP premiums of working Canadians will be hiked,
something that is already happening. CPP premiums started out
at 3.6 per cent of income and today they are 5.2 per cent. By
2016, premiums are expected to be 10 per cent of income.
Second, focus the benefits of non-contributory social
programs like old age security on households whose incomes are
below the national average Canadian family income. With good
management, we can continue to assist seniors who need help
from society. We cannot do this if we give away money to
citizens who are not in need.
Third, give students and job trainees a greater say in how
education dollars are allocated by the use of education vouchers.
Let user needs and demand drive the provision of education
services rather than automatically awarding institutions scarce
funds without reference to provision of effective training.
(1215 )
Fourth, amend the Canada Health Act to allow provinces more
flexibility in the funding of health services to better rationalize
diminishing resources and ensure that essential services can be
maintained.
No one should be denied adequate health care in Canada
because of inability to pay. It is clear that if we want to count on
this we can no longer afford to pay 100 per cent of the cost of 100
per cent of the services for 100 per cent of the people regardless
of need.
It fools no one to pretend that nothing has to change in the
provision of health care services. Rather, we ought to honestly
face the new realities and work to ensure that Canadians can
have confidence that certain core services will be maintained
and indeed be sustainable in the long term.
I believe that Canadians want to live in a country whose social
spending is organized fairly so that we pay our own way. We
expected individuals, groups, governments and our country as a
whole to operate under that principle. We know that if we do we
have ample wealth to preserve and sustain essential social
4926
program spending and fulfil the obligation of any civilized
society to care for those who cannot care for themselves.
I challenge members of the House, the leaders and elected
representatives of the people of Canada, to work together to
build a new Canada to meet the challenges of the 21st century,
including managed essential social programs secured for this
and future generations of citizens.
[Translation]
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Madam Speaker,
before I begin my speech, I want to inform the House that
government members will be dividing their allotted time into
10-minute speeches and 5-minute periods for questions and
comments, except ministers who will take up all of the allotted
time pursuant to the Standing Orders.
I have had the honour of representing the people of
Saint-Léonard since 1984. During that time, I have never
forgotten for one minute that, since the birth of Canada,
generation after generation of members have sat in this House to
express their pride and their confidence in Canada.
These men and women, of different ages and different
backgrounds, also come from the various regions that make up
one of the largest countries in the world. Too few of them
represented in the past or represent today the people who lived
here hundreds of years before the first European even set foot on
this continent.
All of these people, whose memories are still with us here,
today, belonged to different political parties which took part in
some pretty vicious sparring matches. As you know, Madam
Speaker, unanimity is not the rule in this House. It is more the
exception. However, members who sat in this House until
recently all shared the same desire to serve their constituents
and to contribute to the growth and unity of Canada.
In time of peace as in time of war, in time of prosperity as in
time of economic crisis, every generation of members has
strived to make Canada one of the most prosperous, peaceful
and admired countries in the world.
Our sovereignty as a nation and our maturity as a society have
gradually, patiently and relentlessly been built by those who
believed in the rule of law, the invincibility of justice and
respect for our differences, those who know the value of
experience, efforts, destiny and solidarity. It is now our turn to
add to this magnificent institution designed by our predecessors
who also laid out the foundations.
Whether we were born in Senneterre or in Siculiana, in
Saskatchewan or in Sicily, whether we speak English with a
Bonaventure accent or French with a Berlitz accent, in our own
way, we all say the same thing.
(1220)
Like thousands of other hon. members before us and like
millions of Canadians, we say that, today and yesterday, this is
the country that we love, this is the great and magnificent
country that we want to protect.
Since the last election, there is in this House a group of
members whose numbers are large enough to form the Official
Opposition and whose ambition is to put an end to the Canadian
experiment. I respect unreservedly and unhesitatingly the
decision of many Quebec constituents to send separatist
members here, in Ottawa.
All Bloc Quebecois members were elected here as were the
members of the Liberal Party, of the Reform Party and of other
political groupings. These federal separatist members speak,
sometimes with emotion, of the need to protect bilingualism in
the Canadian Armed Forces and to take care of our Canadian
publishers. But nobody in this House nor elsewhere in Canada
has any illusion about the real objectives of the Bloc Quebecois.
The Bloc Quebecois does not say this in so many words, but
what they want is to destroy Canada, since Canada without
Quebec will not be Canada any more.
The Bloc members claim to be good surgeons. They want us to
believe that, with the help of the PQ, their big brother, they
would be able to painlessly sever one of the parts of the
Canadian Federation. The operation could be a success; the only
problem is that the patient, that is Canada, will die.
Now, these few members of the Bloc are protesting their
temporary patriotism, even boasting about it. This is the first
stage of the surgical operation they want to do. This is what I call
the anaesthetic.
But I can assure you that nobody will be beguiled by this.
Quebecers, the sons and daughters of explorers, of discoverers,
of inventors will never turn their backs on the country which
gave them the freedom, the wealth and the dignity to grow up
and develop.
I think that the presence among us, in this Parliament, of
members who claim to be able to represent Her Majesty's loyal
opposition while working towards the break-up of Canada could
have a beneficial effect on all Canadians, particularly on
Quebecers. By reminding us every day of what we could lose as
Quebecers if Canada broke up, members of the Bloc, who are
allies of the Parti québécois, help us to better appreciate the
value of our Canadian citizenship.
And because of the presence here of separatist members, all
Canadians are finally becoming aware that Canada's unity and
the preservation of our cultural heritage and of our economic
security are not a problem unique to Quebec.
In the 1980 referendum, a majority of Quebecers reiterated
their attachment to Canada before the whole world. Of course,
we have important problems to solve, and a lot of these stem
directly from the relationship between Quebec and the rest of
Canada, but the Bloc is not a remedy for Quebec's problems. It
4927
is partly a symptom of the frustration that many Quebecers feel
because of our failure to break the constitutional deadlock. Yet,
the Bloc has done nothing to help solve these problems.
Similarly, the Reform Party is not a remedy for Canada's
problems. It is largely a symptom of the impatience that many
Canadians feel because of economic and political problems for
which the Reform Party offers no solution.
You cannot cure a disease simply by monitoring the
symptoms. We need to have the courage to solve the problems
that hinder our progress as a federation and the wisdom to
preserve that which made Canada one of the greatest success
stories in the history of mankind.
I speak French and I am proud of it; my wife and my children
speak French and are also proud of it. We are Quebecers as well
as Canadians.
(1225)
For me and for all my family, the knowledge of the French
language and the bonds of friendship it enabled us to form have
become deep roots. The French language has been for us the
passport to contributing to a generous and dynamic society, the
only French society in America, that welcomed us with open
arms.
My deepest wish and my strongest resolve as a member of
Parliament and as a Canadian citizen will always be to have the
privilege to be able to contribute to the security of Quebec and to
the unity of Canada. Earlier I heard my colleague from the Bloc
list all the constitutional conferences that came close to giving
Canada a new constitution. He forgot that during these 30 years,
during which we were regrettably unable to solve our
constitutional problems, some things helped Quebec develop
itself. The Quebec Pension Plan and the agreement on
immigration, for example, are two of them. At present, there is
also the three-level infrastructure program that is working well.
During that time, Quebec developed. What programs, what
things prevent Quebec from developing and being a dynamic
society within a Canadian federation? I am proud to be a
Quebecer, but I am also proud to be a Canadian. I will always
work very democratically. I have always felt much respect for
those who, even in this House, are using all the tools they have to
defend their cause; but democratically, like the Bloc Quebecois,
I will fight to keep this country united and to ensure that Quebec
is strong, but within the Canadian federation.
That was the dream of the founding fathers of this country;
that is the dream that we too, as members of Parliament, must
pursue every day and at every opportunity, for the preservation
of this country. We must recognize that, in spite of all our
problems, millions of people would give up everything they
have to come and live here in Canada.
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Madam Speaker, it is
pretty clear that the hon. member for Saint-Léonard is not very
knowledgeable about surgical procedures. We found out not
long ago that he is a chartered accountant, and I think he should
have stuck to his speciality. If he looked at what is happening in
Canada and Quebec from the accountant's point of view, he
would realize that Canada has the largest foreign debt of any
country today.
Current interest rates are not going down, because 45 per cent
of Canada's debt is covered by foreign loans and lenders are
starting to have a substantial part of their portfolio invested in
Canadian loans. According to the last budget, the government
will have a deficit for many years and it will be extremely
difficult to control government spending when in addition to
being unable to manage areas that are a federal responsibility,
the federal government regularly decides to encroach on
jurisdictions belonging to the provinces, in the belief it can do
better.
This week in Le Devoir, Lise Bissonnette gave the following
analysis. The federal government has decided to intervene in
literacy programs. Quebec already spends $63 million, and now
the federal government is going to add $2.5 million! Two and a
half million, with probably one million spent on advertising,
with a lengthy press release from the Department of Foreign
Affairs-does the federal government already consider Quebec
to be a foreign country?-plus the whole federal-provincial
bureaucracy, because in the final instance, after a lot of
discussion, the federal government acknowledged this came
under Quebec's jurisdiction and that it was necessary to
co-ordinate approaches and agree on certain criteria. A host of
officials met for months to try and agree on these criteria.
And after all that, about $25,000 per school board in Quebec
may be spent on literacy training!
(1230)
My goodness, $25,000! This is less than the annual salary of a
teacher, but the federal government will probably spend more
than $2.5 million on advertising to give $25,000 per school
board. How can someone who is a professional accountant
lecture us on surgical procedures? Give us a break! I hope that in
his next speech, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard will stick to
dollars and cents.
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his
comments on my accounting expertise even if I have been out of
practice for the last ten years. The member says it shows.
Perhaps.
When it suits them, the Bloc Quebecois often uses the same
argument as the Reform Party on the national debt. They bring
that argument forward in order to make their point. But the
member knows very well that I am aware he has a sound
economic background and is very familiar with the national debt
system. We are not dealing only with the federal debt. Quebec,
which is developing in all its splendour, also has a debt as do all
4928
other provinces and even every country in the world. This is part
of our system.
We might also show that the problem of the debt has played a
role in the development of Canada and Quebec. We enjoy a high
quality of life. For the second consecutive year, the United
Nations have declared Canada the country enjoying the best
quality of life in the world. Talking about our financial
problems, I hope the member will also acknowledge the fact that
we have the best system and the highest quality of life in the
world. Those things must be said. The Canadian experience has
not been all negative. It has been good to us. The hon. member
talks about interest rates. He wants me to talk about economy
and finance.
When I arrived to Canada in 1958-my time has expired but I
would like to have two more seconds-Montreal was the
metropolis of Canada. All the large companies had their
corporate offices in Montreal. The people across have been
trying to separate Quebec from Canada for the last 30 years and
during that time, Montreal has lost its title of metropolis. It has
become the metropolis of poverty.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Madam
Speaker, a German federal minister was telling me the other day
that after the war, when the allies decided to give Germany a new
system of government, they opted for a federal system because it
would give more flexibility to the various parts, provide a better
balance between stronger regions and weaker ones, and also
because it had worked particularly well in several countries,
namely Switzerland, the United States and Canada.
Among all these countries, Canada is certainly the most
decentralized. Having a very complex Constitution dating back
to colonial times, it is a difficult country to govern. Certainly,
Descartes would have concluded that the Canadian system of
government is unpractical and that Canada, as is it, is impossible
to govern.
The Canadian system defies the rationalism of constitutional
and governmental concepts. The miracle is that-despite some
frustrations and a scattered population over an immense
territory, despite regional disparities that resist all our efforts,
despite the formidable obstacles we are faced with every
day-Canada has not only survived, but progressed in a unique
way among world nations.
(1235)
The descendants of the two founding peoples, who had fought
each other in the past, have chosen against all odds to build a
new country based on peace, fraternity and sharing.
[English]
The miracle of Canada is that it was born in peace. It has
endured in peace inspired by a spirit of freedom, of justice and
of tolerance. Indeed, viewed from afar, from the point of view of
a stranger, our so-called quarrels, our so-called bickerings and
debates, our verbal battles every day seem so picayune, so futile,
so small.
Having had the chance over the years of listening to a number
of citizens from various countries of the world, I know how
surprised, indeed astounded, they are at our endless family
debates. I see it in their eyes. I see it in their expressions. They
view us as spoiled children who cannot appreciate the measure
of our countless blessings and advantages.
We enjoy the special blessings of wide open spaces, the
immensity and ever changing beauty of our landscapes and
seascapes. We enjoy the quality of life only a rich and privileged
country can offer. Above all, we share the valuable wealth of
enduring values which have stood the test of time and common
sacrifices: values of humility as a people, values of generosity
within our community and toward others, a continuing ideal of
social justice in spite of the inevitable hurdles of colour, of creed
and of economic constraints.
The fabric of our values is enduring. It is firm. It is steady.
The fibre of Canadian unity runs very deep. It may be quiet and
understated but it is extremely strong.
[Translation]
Those who seek to destabilize Canada and to reject this
common heritage bear an immense responsibility towards our
fellow citizens. Sadly, I listen day after day to the laments of
Bloc members who attack Canada and the federal system. All
the ills that plague Quebec, so we heard earlier today, can be
attributed to the federal system.
Independence will solve everything. This will be heaven on
earth. Soon, it will be perfect bliss. The new independent
Quebec will build the nirvana. Whoever sounds a warning, even
an institution like the Bank of Montreal the other day, is reviled
and there is a general outcry. Immediately, separatist forces call
for a boycott by the people.
[English]
Those who would destroy the country, its heritage of values,
its system of shared wealth, its balance of equity and fairness,
hold a very deep responsibility to not only their fellow citizens
in their own province but to all citizens of Canada. Inevitably
separation and the risks of it, the recklessness of it, will not only
bring economic hardship but will tear people apart within our
communities, within Quebec; not only there, but province
against province, destabilization of a wonderful country, the
separation of the maritimes from Ontario, the geographical
tearing apart of a country which has shared a wonderful destiny
for nearly 13 decades.
4929
(1240)
[Translation]
Those of us who have been given the privilege of preserving
this country, of preserving values we have shared for 127 years,
must be prepared to defend these ideals fiercely, passionately.
Madam Speaker, fraternity is a lot more productive, a lot
healthier than internal squabbles! A lot more productive, a lot
healthier than division! A lot more productive, a lot healthier
than destruction! It is a lot more productive, a lot healthier to
build bridges than to dig trenches to separate us!
[English]
Is it not better to do than to undo, to rise beyond and above
instead of bickering and bemoaning, to work toward the
common will instead of for sectarian objectives and interests, to
build bridges that will unite us and cross the differences between
us rather than walls which will separate a few of us from the
others and tear us apart?
I believe passionately in Canada because Canada is a kind
country, a generous country. It has been very generous to me and
to my family. Quebec has also been generous to me and I cannot
conceive of Canada without Quebec. Quebec is wise. It is
vibrant. It is dynamic. It brings a difference to Canada that
makes it unique.
Those of us who believe in our country have to fight
passionately for the ideal of preserving a country that is blessed
among all. I share the profound wish that Canada live long and
that Quebec always be a vibrant part of it.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I am please to respond to my Liberal colleague. As long as we
have known him, either as a member of the National Assembly
or as a member of this Parliament, we have grown accustomed to
his lyrical speeches which bear no meaningful relationship to
the political realities and debate now taking place in Quebec and
in Canada.
A while ago, he called us prophets of doom and individuals
who have taken a hard-line approach with financial institutions.
I would remind him that each time financial institutions take it
upon themselves to get involved in political debates that
concern Quebecers and their democratic right to choose
sovereignty, it will be our duty to single them out and to
denounce their activities, since they should normally be
confining themselves to economic and financial analysis.
Let us look at the financial institutions which have over the
past two years harshly criticized in their reports the sovereignty
option. The list includes the Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal,
the CIBC and Scotiabank. When we look at the list of major
contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada, we will find the
names of the Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal, the CIBC and
Scotiabank. These are financial institutions which supposedly
conduct objective analyses.
Considering that these financial institutions make substantial
contributions to Liberal Party coffers-and I am not talking here
about small donations of $2,000 or $3,000 dollars, but about
$35,000 to $47,000 per year-I would not be surprised to learn
that the Prime Minister and these financial institutions hold
regular, open discussions on the national unity issue.
Therefore, enough about the freedom of financial institutions
to wade into a political debate. They do not have the right to get
involved and we doubt their credibility. Personally, I intend,
along with all my sovereigntist colleagues, to openly denounce
in the coming months any political involvement not clearly
based on a serious analysis, whether financial or economic, of
the situation.
Earlier, the Liberal Party whip spoke about the fact that we
were all one big family. Let me just say in conclusion that the
lyrical speech about Canada which the hon. member has just
given us is without foundation. It has no basis in fact.
(1245)
We should look at the real problems facing this country. If you
are true Canadians and if you want to build a new Canada
without Quebec, look at the problems now facing Canada,
economic problems keeping the unemployment rate at 11 per
cent, one of the highest rates in the Western world.
Look at the debt rate. Canada is the second most indebted
nation in the world and the finance minister's budget will not
solve the problem. A week or so ago, the C.D. Howe Institute
strongly reminded us that the finance minister's budget will not
do anything to bring public finances under control, does not
contain any measure except for undermining the rights of the
unemployed and cutting their benefits by $5.5 billion over the
next three years. As a whole, the budget is so lacking in
credibility that the extra interest charges alone will just about
cancel out the savings achieved on the backs of the unemployed.
Look at how much Canada invests in worker training and
compare its record with that of the other industrialized countries
that take control of their own destinies and manage to meet the
challenges of internationalization. Look at Canada's child
poverty rate. When the UN told them Canada had one of the
highest child poverty rates, the Tories were so ashamed-and
you too, I think, because you perpetuated the situation-that
they changed the formula used to determine the poverty rate.
That is Canada's reality.
4930
If you continue with your lyrical speeches-since I have
known you, all your speeches have been lyrical-nothing
concrete has ever been put on the table and I am not surprised by
your arguments-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I remind the hon.
member that comments must be addressed to the Chair and not
directly to the member. I was not indicating that your time was
up, but I also wanted to tell you that your comments must deal
with the speech made by the previous speaker.
The parliamentary secretary has the floor, very briefly.
Mr. Lincoln: Madam Speaker, that is not very fair. The Bloc
member took up all my time. Am I not entitled to two minutes?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There must be
unanimous consent of the House to extend your speaking time.
[English]
Do we have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, we would also like to be
able to ask a short question following the hon. member's answer.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, I am afraid
we cannot extend the debate indefinitely. The parliamentary
secretary has about 30 or 45 seconds.
Mr. Lincoln: It just shows the arrogance of the Bloc
Quebecois. He accuses me of being a lyrical speaker, a speaker
lyrique.
[Translation]
I would rather be a lyrical speaker than a bitter one. I would
rather be lyrical than always try to pick quarrels with all those
who do not agree with me. The financial institutions which
denounce the Parti Quebecois do not have the right to make
political statements. We must remember that. According to the
hon. member, they do not have the right to make political
statements. The Bank of Montreal does not count as they are
anglos. The same goes for the Royal Bank.
Mr. Loubier: No, no.
Mr. Lincoln: I did not interrupt the hon. member. He should
at least have the courtesy of listening to others. It just shows
their arrogance; they never want to listen to others.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I
wonder if I might have the consent of the House, as I asked
earlier, to ask a short question. The other hon. member took so
much time and made a statement rather than asking a question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am afraid it is
impossible to extend the hon. member's time. If you ask a
question there must be a response.
Do we have unanimous consent to extend the time for a
question and response?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster):
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will be brief.
The hon. member in his statement mentioned that the Bloc is
not correct in suggesting that if Quebec separated from Canada
everything would be heaven. I agree with his statement.
However there are a lot of Canadians both in Quebec and
outside Quebec who are concerned because our economy may be
going to the other place. I am not talking about the Senate when I
say ``the other place''.
(1250 )
I wonder what the hon. member might offer in the way of
some economic hope that would make all of us want to stay in
Canada and have none of us worry about going to that other
place.
Mr. Lincoln: Madam Speaker, very briefly I refer the hon.
member to a headline today in Quorum: ``Economy outpaces
Martin's budget forecast''. Canada will have growth of 3.9 per
cent estimated in the coming year. We have taken over a country
with a very bad economic forecast. We have committed
ourselves to reduce the budget to 3 per cent of GNP within three
years. We are going to do this. Things are going to get better
under the Liberal government.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I am
delighted to rise to speak to the motion by the hon. member for
Calgary Southwest that we affirm our desire for unity as a
federal state. Specifically I would like to address the clause of
the motion that we affirm the equality and uniqueness of all our
citizens and provinces.
The equality of citizens is at the heart of a fundamental
principle of democracy and one that I put to members we have
drifted from in recent years, at least some would say the elite
have drifted from as a country toward a concept called group
rights.
In the Charlottetown accord we had this concept becoming
more and more a proposal to entrench that kind of concept in our
Constitution, where rights of citizens are determined not
regardless of race, language, culture or gender but because of
them. This commentary, this observation is not simply my own.
The former leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Trudeau, noticed this
during that period when he talked about the hierarchy of rights
embedded in the accord.
4931
What this trend toward group rights has done, in our view, is
not just detract from the fundamental principle of the individual
and the individual's rights within the collectivity but has also
had the effect, in our view, of a loss of our greater sense of
collective identity as a nation.
I would reflect on Andrew Coyne's editorial yesterday in the
Globe and Mail where he noted that group rights and its linkage
to comprehensive philosophy of political victimology had led us
to see ourselves increasingly as a nation of victim groups and
ultimately as a victim nation, one without identity or power.
As Reformers we propose that we get back to the roots of
liberal democracy, that we reaffirm the principles of democracy
in a modern age and manifest political equality through
institutional reform. Specifically we advocate free votes for the
people's representatives in the Parliament of Canada, direct
democracy among the population at large, introducing in the
modern age with our educated populations mechanisms of
referendum, initiative and recall, and even in the area of
constitutional change, mechanisms like constitutional
conventions and popular ratification.
The equality of citizens does not preclude the uniqueness of
citizens. We hear objections whenever we raise this point. We
recognize there are all kinds of communal and individual
identities within the country. We are suggesting the Government
of Canada should concentrate its efforts on the responsibility for
the promotion of our collective identity as a nation rather than
the focus it has had in the past generation on things like official
multiculturalism or the promotion of Canada as a federation of
two founding peoples: the English and the French.
In our view we should be going toward more race, culture,
language neutral concepts of our nationhood. Defining a country
as a union of founding peoples, English and French, in this day
and age is to Reformers as ridiculous as it would be to define it
as a nation of two founding religions: the Protestants and the
Catholics.
I would also like to speak about the equality of provinces, the
second portion of that clause. This refers, in our view, to what is
a fundamental principle of a federation. The fact that we are a
federation of provinces was clearly recognized in the 1867
Confederation constitution and quite properly so since it
superseded the disastrous binational unitary state of 1841 to
1867. In Canada we have not always lived up to the concept of
equality of provinces. My province of Alberta and the prairie
provinces generally were deliberately created as inferior
political units after Confederation, an error that was not
corrected for decades.
(1255)
At all times, because of the way our parliamentary system
unfolded, small provinces have found themselves at the federal
level subjected to the domination of the central provinces of
Ontario and Quebec through the systematic skew of power in the
House of Commons and the decline of the Senate as an effective
political institution.
Later all provinces, even the large provinces, have found
problems in the federation as an increasingly unbalanced federal
spending power has been able to override clear areas of
provincial jurisdiction. This breakdown of division of powers
has occurred for both the federal and provincial governments.
We propose as Reformers to reaffirm our commitment to
provincial equality through institutional reform and also
through re-establishing a balanced division of powers in the
federation. I have spoken many times in the House of our hope to
reform the Senate based on the triple-E model, to restore the
Senate as an effective second Chamber through electing
senators and providing equal representation to the provinces. In
other words, we want a Senate that is the kind of effective
regional Chamber that the Fathers of Confederation had
intended so that in the Parliament of Canada federal
law-making is more than a simple domination of small
provinces by large provinces.
[Translation]
This concern for regional representation is not only a matter
for small provinces; it is also a concern for small regions in large
provinces like British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec as well.
Indeed, we hope to have a provision in a reformed Senate for
regional representation within large provinces, for example, for
the Gaspé and the North Shore in Quebec or for northern
Ontario.
Of course, when we speak of the equality of provinces in this
motion, we also speak of their uniqueness. Our critics will say,
``Of course you just want to see Quebec as a province like the
others.'' Of course not. Equality does not mean identity. The
federal principle does not mean that the provinces are identical;
it means that they share certain values and policies, for example,
the economic criteria mentioned in the motion, but the federal
principle also means that provinces have their distinct character
and uniqueness through the division of powers in a federal state.
Canada's uniqueness includes, for example, such things as the
cultural realities in the province of Quebec, language, of course,
and certain geographical realities such as natural resources in
the western provinces. In a federal state, these things should be
in provincial jurisdiction and the division of power should be
respected in a developed federal state.
[English]
In conclusion, I have spoken in the context both of equality
and uniqueness of provinces, of many things that are in Canada
today and also things we would like to see changed. Some of the
4932
changes I have mentioned are mere policy matters. Others
would be more serious constitutional changes at some point.
I remind all members, in conclusion, that all serious
constitutional change, all constitutional change, anything that
would significantly change in our federation the status of any
citizen or any province requires respect for democracy, for the
Constitution and for the rule of law. It is not compatible with
unilateral or illegal actions. I expect that as we debate our future
in the next few months that the expectation of all Canadians will
be that we continue to function in the context of a constitutional
democracy and we will all respect the rule of law.
(1300)
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Madam Speaker, I just have to
say how baffled I am by the fact that this motion is being
presented on the floor of the House today.
My goodness, over the course of the election campaign that
we just fought the only thing I agreed with the Reform
opposition was the fact that the Canadian people are tired of
discussions about unity and the Constitution. Yet here in the
House the Reform Party presents the motion to us.
More and more I am aware of confusion. I hear the Reform
Party saying: ``We are against the process, the top down
approach that this government is taking''. Yet as we take the
approach of reviewing our social safety net that is inclusive of
Canadian people, that encourages them to come and debate with
us, they say: ``That is not good enough. We want strong and firm
action. The government must take action in this regard''. I do
not understand the difference.
In his speech the hon. member talked about the difficulties we
face with approaching group dynamics and looking at people as
groups. Yet in their motion, the Reform members talk about
diversity. To me diversity means understanding individual
differences, talking about those differences and knowing that by
encouraging parts and bringing them together as a sum we get
far greater results in the whole.
I am very confused by the motion. The hon. leader of the third
party talks about a new Canada. My God, what is wrong with the
Canada that has grown and developed over the last 127 years, a
Canada of compassion and generosity?
The member talks about debt and deficit. I thought the
member had seen the light, had seen that there are important
additions to governing a country, not only the importance of
debt and deficit management but the importance of issues that
face individual Canadians as human beings. I thought he had
seen that light. Yet we go back to that same old conversation. I
am confused, totally confused.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I would agree
strongly with the hon. member that she is confused. In fact she is
so confused that I was barely able to understand the last half of
that intervention.
However I will comment on the initial point which I think was
important, and that is the issue of constitutional change and
when and how we should pursue it.
Our party did say during the election campaign, as did the
government, that Canadians were not interested in discussions
of comprehensive constitutional change at this time. I would
certainly agree with that. I think our priorities should be
elsewhere.
Unfortunately we have to face the reality we have here. We
have a party in the House which day after day is talking about the
most dramatic and wide-ranging constitutional changes
possible and that is the disintegration, separation, division,
redivision of the federal state into two completely separate
states, one which would presumably be a unitary state in Quebec
and the other which as yet is undefined.
We hear this daily. We are heading into an election in Quebec
where this will be an issue. Of course the separatists do not want
to describe this as constitutional change because they realize it
would immediately raise in the minds of the population of
Quebec all the complexities and difficulties that are involved in
that. The fact is that Quebecers are going to be asked very
shortly to discuss constitutional change once again and to
discuss it in the context of all the problems that exist with
federalism.
We recognize those problems are there. We advocate some
solutions to them. I am merely pointing out in my statement that
we do have some constitutional perspectives here. We also have
some things we would like to change about the country that can
be pursued outside the constitutional framework.
The whole purpose of the motion while obviously not entering
into constitutional negotiations is to raise the fact that there are
alternative constitutional perspectives, including reforming
ones, that do not require the kind of upheaval that separatism
would entail.
(1305 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Madam Speaker, in
Canada, indeed around the world, the common element that
joins all human beings is that of our environment. We cannot
avoid consuming air and water as we sustain our lives. All
elements of our environment impact positively or negatively on
these two essential ingredients of life.
As I travel throughout my constituency, the people who are
most interested in the issue of the environment are young
people. Going from school to school I can count on the fact that
4933
they will be bringing up the issue, not just with academic
interest but with serious concern.
I say time and time again in the House and in public speeches
that the future of Canada is our young people. Their future is
surely on my mind as I am delivering this speech today. We owe
it to the young people of our great nation Canada to be deadly
serious about protecting their future.
I have been involved with both the Standing Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development and the Standing
Committee on Natural Resources, especially on forestry issues,
since the commencement of this Parliament. In that time I have
become very aware of our environment which impacts the flow
of air and water. It does not have anything to do with man-made
political boundaries. These lines that have been arbitrarily
drawn on a map do more to fragment or impair our ability to
control our elements within our environment than any other
force.
In Canada competing provincial jurisdictions create an
imbalance for industry and influence investment decisions
being made by business. By way of example, as an alternate
member on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage I
have looked at national park boundaries. Unique ecological
realities are frequently dissected by those national park
boundaries.
Environmental events inside a park reflect what is happening
outside a park simply because they are part of the same unique
local ecology. Insects and disease that destroy our forests while
developing within the national park boundaries can spread
across that man-made line and destroy commercial forests. Of
course the opposite may also be true. For example, river
pollution from industry on the upstream side of a park can have
severe consequences for wildlife and ecological balance within
a national park.
I cite these examples to underline current Canadian examples
of the potential negative environmental results in fragmenting
Canada by creating a sovereign state of Quebec. The arbitrary
man-made boundaries, lines drawn on a map to carve the
province of Quebec out of our great nation, cannot possibly give
us any comfort from an environmental perspective. Political
activists in Quebec want to develop control over their own
geographic jurisdiction, including generation of their own
environmental protection regulations.
The point of my speech today is to talk about the
environmental concerns facing our nation and show how a
separate Quebec jurisdiction could have a harmful effect on that
province and the remainder of Canada.
I am not raising this point on the environment to tell tall tales
of dark horses and earth shattering catastrophes but simply to
outline all of the consequences a separate Quebec will have on
our nation and that province.
Here is a small sample of what has happened since the
beginning of this parliamentary session. I say with the greatest
respect to the Bloc Quebecois members on both the Standing
Committee on Natural Resources and the Standing Committee
on Environment and Sustainable Development that I have
viewed their intercessions as being somewhat narrow and
oriented only to Quebec.
For example, our natural resources committee is studying
responsible forestry management especially where so-called
clear cut logging is used to answer the question: Is clear cut a
legitimate tool that can be used by responsible professional
foresters?
We are trying to assist the Canadian forest service and the
ministry of natural resources as they bring forward a
Canada-wide position on sustainable forest practices in
international meetings. Those meetings will be attempting to
establish international standards for sustainable forest
management. The standards will lead to ecological labelling for
forest products world-wide.
Placing a new international boundary between Canada and a
new state of Quebec would simply complicate an already
complex problem and divide our collective voice on the world
stage. Will the province of Quebec, for example, as an
independent state be prepared to utilize identical standards in
international discussions on eco-labelling or would it be a
competing voice to Canada?
Healthy forests generate oxygen. It is the air we breathe.
Creating a new political jurisdiction will do nothing to make me
breathe any easier.
The Liberals in their red book wanted to work toward the
position of an environmental auditor general for Canada.
(1310 )
Following exhaustive hearings, the Standing Committee on
the Environment and Sustainable Development produced a
detailed report on the position of a commissioner of the
environment and sustainable development. The Liberal election
promise called for an environmental auditor general. The
decision to proceed with the position of the commissioner
instead of an auditor general was a consensus decision that came
from serious discussion following exhaustive hearings.
The Bloc Quebecois committee members offered a dissenting
opinion. While this dissenting opinion is a legitimate part of our
national Canadian process, I know that if the Bloc Quebecois
were representing an independent Quebec today we would not
be proceeding with this very important function.
My party supports one window environmental review for all
provinces and our country as a whole. Could the Bloc possibly
argue that the concept it represents is not myopic and unique to
Quebec?
4934
It states in its conclusion: ``We feel, however, that the
committee is paving the way for an organization that will only
add to the jumble and confusion now prevalent in environmental
matters''.
The Bloc is concerned about a national Canadian government
representing the second largest land mass on our globe having
precedence over its smaller provincial jurisdiction. The danger
is that smaller jurisdictions invariably lead to narrower
approaches, never ending discussions and negotiations. This
would ultimately lead to a compromise of independent nations
that would do nothing but magnify the confusion which
currently exists between the individual provinces and the
Government of Canada on environmental issues.
The Reform Party supports the principle of sustainable
environment which balances the need for a healthy environment
with the continued progress and growth of Canada's economy.
The Reform Party believes that environmental considerations
must carry equal weight with the economic, social and technical
considerations of any projects.
In the same report I have been referring to on the
commissioner of the environment and sustainable development,
page 25, Reform committee members expressed the concern that
Canadian industry might in the short term be put at a
competitive disadvantage if Canada adopts the principles of
green accounting ahead of other countries.
When I refer to greening and green accounting, I am referring
to new imaginative accounting practices and business practices
that give specific dollar values to previously undefined
environmental costs. These real costs appear on a business or a
country's formal balance sheet. Premature independent
greening of the Canadian system of national accounts could alter
our gross national product and have the effect of discouraging
domestic and foreign investors.
In order for Canadian business to remain internationally
competitive, the Reform Party believes it would be advisable
that Canada not get too far ahead of its major trading partners in
issues like greening of national accounts or imposition of green
or carbon taxes.
In the context of this speech today, this example relates to the
potential fracturing of Canada with the separation of the
province of Quebec. Obviously the separatist leader had the
autonomy and control of Quebec as an objective. A separate
political and economic jurisdiction that would be competing for
international trade with what was left of Canada would open the
very real possibility of competition at the lowest common
denominator of environmental standards. Progressive concepts
like green accounting would most likely be set aside due to the
new competitive pressures.
If the Bloc Quebecois cannot even agree with other
environment committee members to arrive at a consensus on an
environmental report as benign as the establishment of the
office of commissioner of environment and sustainable
development, what does that tell us of the potential for
co-operation between a sovereign country of Quebec and the
rest of Canada?
The common element that joins all human beings is our
environment. Fracturing the nation of Canada with man-made
lines on a map can only serve to weaken our will, even our
ability, to protect our ecologically balanced resources.
As a leading middle power in the world, we can lead the way.
We have within the nation of Canada a large critical mass that
can bring responsible environmental practices to a new high
standard. The fragmentation of Canada will dilute our ability to
impact the world. Our globe is desperate for leadership in the
development and establishment of responsible environmental
practices that ignore political boundaries.
We must not build political walls. We must break them down
for our environment, for our children, for our future.
(1315 )
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Madam Speaker, I compliment the member on his
very fine speech. The hon. member spoke not only to the issue of
saving the planet, but he also talked about this whole notion of
creating national standards. I believe that is how national will is
created and from that national will we develop a sense of
patriotism and a feeling for our country.
The hon. member talked about national standards on the
environment and I support that totally. Can the member not see
it is also important in other areas? For example, is it not better to
have a national standard and a national program on
multiculturalism rather than 10 different provincial ones? This
whole notion of creating national programs and national
standards should not just be on the environment but on other
issues as well. Then those in the disadvantaged regions could
come up to the advantaged regions, for example in health care,
education and training. Would the hon. member not agree that
would be a much better way to go to build a nation?
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of
the hon. member.
When we are dealing with issues like water and air, we are
dealing with absolutes. When we are dealing with issues relating
to multiculturalism, biculturalism and those other issues, we are
talking about interaction among human beings. While I respect
the fact he has made that linkage, I suggest they are slightly
different. When we are dealing with the absolutes of water and
air, water and air proceed over political boundaries and that is
the absolute place where we must have national standards.
4935
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Madam Speaker, the Reform
Party member talked a lot about the environment. I can tell him
one thing about the environment. Quebec's environmental law
and Ottawa's, which was passed after Quebec's, are so different
and so unlike that two environmental studies are required for
every major project.
Even the president of Hydro-Québec says that he cannot bring
federal and Quebec officials together to go over an
environmental review. Personally, I sincerely believe that the
federal government is again trying to meddle in environmental
management just so that it can control and centralize more in
Ottawa.
I will give you an example. Our particular natural resource in
Quebec is hydro-electricity. Sometimes hydro-electric projects
are blocked, perhaps to benefit uranium development in Ontario
or oil in western Canada; if we had responsibility for our
environment, we could do the proper studies and at the same
time develop economically according to our own priorities.
Again, the federal government is responsible for the
atmospheric environment and probably some world body should
be involved. As far as the environment and economic
development projects are concerned, where we can very well do
our environmental studies in Quebec, we do not need the federal
government to meddle in our industrial development, often to
the benefit of other fields of activity outside Canada.
It is in this regard that we absolutely want real power over the
environment and in many other fields as well.
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, I can see quite clearly that the
hon. member and I have different opinions on this issue. I
simply restate what I said in my speech.
In an ideal world it seems to me we would not have any
political boundaries with respect to questions relating to
environmental issues. In an ideal world we would not have the
environment being used economically as a ploy or as a pressure
tactic. I am suggesting the erection of additional formal
boundaries is not working in the best interests or the best
direction of protecting our environment.
(1320 )
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canada along with other
western nations remembered the sacrifices young men and
women made on behalf of world peace and freedom. Their
courage enabled Canada to emerge as a world leader. We
pumped our chests with pride yesterday as we listened to our
Prime Minister. We watched our Governor General and the men
and women who went over to Europe. They remembered fallen
comrades and spoke so well on our behalf. They reached out to
the general assembled gathering and took the congratulations
that were offered.
Many Canadians felt that sense of pride. Many Canadians felt
that they wanted the country we call Canada maintained, this
place which is our home, which many of us who came after the
post-war era chose as home.
Canada has created jobs and opportunities. I stand here as
someone who selected this country, who came with a sense of
pride and was received and welcomed by Canadians. I was told
that with my talents and skills there were opportunities to
develop, to grow and to be very much part of the building of
Canadian society.
In our large urban areas, a large percentage of the residents
were not born in this country. Like myself, they came and have
created a dynamic community, a community which is a model
for the rest of the world, a cosmopolitan world. We are now a
diverse, multicultural, multiracial, multilingual, multiethnic
and multireligious society. We are the envy of the world. Canada
is rated as the best country in the world in which to live. Changes
have occurred but the Leader of the Opposition would have us
believe that Canada still remains as two solitudes. Canadians are
growing frustrated by the constant belittlement of the country.
I would like to share with members a fax which I have
received. It is one of many, but is especially appropriate for
today. It comes from Christa Jacobs in my riding. She wanted to
make sure some things were put on the record. She says: ``In
1962 I became a citizen of Canada of my own free will. I was
elated and proud to be a member of a democratic country
consisting of 10 provinces and two territories''.
She goes on to say a whole series of things, but I will point out
a few. Again I will quote from her letter because she also
believes Canadians are growing frustrated by the opposition's
constant belittlement of this great nation: ``Mr. Bouchard's
plans would actually destroy the contract I made with Canada in
1962, since the Canada that would remain should Quebec
separate would no longer be the country of which I became a
citizen and tax paying member. I wonder how others who
became Canadians in the way that I did stand on this issue''.
(1325 )
She goes on to talk about the two official languages: ``Do not
make two official ethnicities. I can speak several different
languages. I can speak German, Russian and Italian. I certainly
do not feel that speaking a language makes me anything. It is my
national affiliation that counts''.
I underscore the point that Canadians who watch this House
daily are growing frustrated by the constant belittlement of the
country. She says: ``Mr. Bouchard is acting like the Robespierre
of Canadian politics and together with his group of new age
Jacobins would purify Canada in some sort of ethnic historical
way. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose''. She goes on to
speak about her real frustration and the frustration of Canadians
4936
with the Leader of the Opposition's constant belittlement of the
country.
We have evolved into a society which cares, a land which is
just and free, peaceful and prosperous. Canadians who care
deeply for the country are growing impatient. Many believe they
are not respected, not understood and not wanted. We hear these
sentiments daily and that sense of frustration grows.
Canada is a model for the rest of the world. Those who created
Canada shared the fundamental commitment to freedom,
representative democracy and the rule of law. Canadians want
the federal government to maintain its powers, to remain strong
and to enable the continued efficient functioning of the
economic union and national social programs.
There are very few places and very few countries to which I
have not travelled. While in South Africa I heard 11 official
languages and saw people of different ethnic and cultural groups
attempting to work together and talking about unifying, building
and establishing the kind of country they model on our country,
Canada. I was constantly asked about our democracy and about
someone like myself who was not born in this country. Speaking
with a Caribbean accent, a person of colour, a black woman, I
said to the South Africans: ``I am a member of the Canadian
legislature'', and I felt the sense of pride that in Canada this is
possible.
Canadians know we benefit from a number of social programs
that reflect our understanding of community. These programs
are implemented in a way that permits governments to take into
account changing times and changing needs. I am presently
working on the modernizing and restructuring of our social
security programs. I can say that the constant discussion which
takes place with members of the party across the way is not
nation building.
In other nations people risk their lives and sacrifice their
material security for the very freedoms previous generations
have already guaranteed for us. Our sense of freedom is
modified by a sense of justice, caring and compassion for all.
We must remain committed to ensuring that our country
operates and that each and every individual is a part of the
national image.
(1330)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Madam Speaker, I really
appreciated the speech just given by the member opposite. As a
youngster born in a family of immigrants that pioneered in
western Canada I feel that same love for the country in its
entirety.
The question here today really is not, for most of us at least in
the House, whether this is the best country in the world. It is not
a question of whether we want to maintain the programs and the
things we are famous for. The question is really how we are to do
it.
Would the member respond in any way specifically to any of
the questions that we are asking in the motion? What vision does
she have for actually strengthening our economy? What vision
does she have for balancing the budgets? How about sustaining
social services and so arranging our affairs that we can continue
to deliver the things all of us would love to promise?
I could go on and on. Our cultural heritage, I share that. I am a
Canadian whose first language was neither English nor French.
We are, as the hon. member said so emphatically, a multiracial,
multiethnic, multilanguage country.
If we want to preserve that I believe there should be a real
vision for how we can bring all Canadians, including those 25
per cent whose first language is not English or French, into a real
sense of belonging.
Ms. Augustine: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond
because the question is who we are as Canadians, the fact that we
support a federal state, the fact that we all need to work together.
What happens in the House is really not Canadians on all sides
of the issue working together to bring about economic strength,
to work for that sense of equity, to work for all those things that
become part of the nation and the nation building activities that
should be occurring.
We spend a lot of time on discussion about who we are and
examining it instead of taking about who we are and starting
from there. We throw in all the issues about what are provincial
and federal rights, the Constitution, and many of the issues that
get rolled around, instead of focusing on who we are as
Canadians, what we want of our nation and how together we can
work to ensure that we have a nation and respond to the
community and to the faces of Canada. I think that is the
important question.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Madam Speaker, I listened to
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister talk about
how frustrated the Bloc members are. On several occasions, she
mentioned this frustration. I have to remind her that we were
given a clear mandate, following several events. First, there was
Meech which failed. Then, there was the Bélanger-Campeau
Commission which studied in detail the needs of Quebec, and
Quebecers clearly expressed their views on that matter. And
then, English Canada rejected once again the demands made by
Quebec. So, it was a total failure.
Afterwards, Quebecers sent 54 members from the Bloc
Quebecois to Ottawa. So, it seems to me that our mandate is very
clear. It is not a mandate made for frustrated people. We are here
because Quebecers want us here to protect their interests.
Maybe this is something the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Prime Minister should understand. If she does not know what
4937
happened during the last five or six years, how can she can
understand what is going on now in Canada?
I would like people to stick to the facts, and the fact is that we
were elected to this House and given a clear mandate. We have
no qualms about being here. Since Quebecers pay 25 to 30 per
cent of all federal taxes, we have the right to have a say in the
direction this country wants to take until Quebec becomes
sovereign.
[English]
Ms. Augustine: Madam Speaker, I spoke about the
frustration of Canadians on a daily basis as they listen to, as the
member said, the only mandate of the Bloc, which is to separate.
We are here to build a nation. We are here to respond to the
economic needs before us. We are here to ensure that our
societies and communities function. We are here to provide for
all people the kind of society in which our children will find jobs
and opportunities to grow and develop.
(1335)
The constant back and forth of members across the way
talking about separation, because that is their mandate, is what I
am talking about in terms of frustration. We are frustrated with
this. Canadians are frustrated with this discussion.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Madam
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate
in order to express my deep commitment to the preservation of
Canada.
I must also express my disappointment in the fashion in which
the debate has found its way into the House. I have yet to be
convinced that the leader of the Reform Party is not simply
using a critical juncture in our country's history to score fleeting
political points.
In his motion the Reform leader refers to the need for a
defining vision for Canada. He then outlines a series of policy
options to indicate his own sense of vision and that of his party.
My sense of vision for a nation does not rest with the policy
options we choose. It rests with the values we pursue; in our case
values of generosity, mutual respect and generational and
international responsibility, to name a few. Policies should then
be chosen to reflect the values contained in that vision.
To build a country purely around good management and social
order has been the mistake made by many in history and it is not
one we need make here in Canada. Having said that, I recognize
the democratic process and as such am accorded the opportunity
to place my own views on the record.
In some ways I guess I am relieved. Most of us here as well as
most other Canadians welcome the chance to reaffirm a
commitment, a commitment to remain the best place in the
world to live, just as the UN has recently decreed, because
neither a Canada without Quebec nor a Quebec without Canada
would be able to claim that same international standing.
Apart from our obvious abundance of resources and relative
affluence, the real bounty we possess lies in our unique history,
our ability to compromise and understand the position and
perspective of others, to subjugate our own narrow
self-interests in the interest of the larger whole. This is the way
we have evolved.
Canadians either consciously or unconsciously have an
abiding understanding that none of us individually, regionally,
even collectively lives alone in the country. Nor can we or
should we wish to claim some kind of moral or cultural
superiority. This is what makes our country great; not our
wealth, not our beauty, not our vast expanse and limitless
developmental potential, but our people and the course we have
charted for ourselves.
We need only look to see what is happening elsewhere to
realize that the struggle among elements of our own
Confederation mirrors a larger debate taking place in every
continent.
In many countries cultural conflict has been the source of
bloodshed and has caused the loss of generations; such a tragedy
and all because the solitudes are resolute. We watch aghast as
others, not us, fail to find the will to co-exist and even thrive.
In Canada our competing values have been a source of
enlightenment. Differences have taught us compassion, mutual
respect, a desire to know and embrace the intricacies of other
cultures, other worlds and other points of view.
We embrace these and champion our multicultural fabric as
the asset that distinguishes us from other countries. For too long
our leadership has been timid, assuming that ordinary
Canadians might not share the same spirit of compromise, the
same generosity, the same noble purpose of which I speak.
I feel otherwise. Canadians, because of our relative youth,
because of our unique history and perhaps even because of an
unnatural preoccupation with our Constitution, have spent more
time discussing, debating and defining our country than we have
a right to. However we have done it and we are a more thoughtful
place for it. We need only look a little south to our American
neighbours to recognize the truth in this. The United States
approach to nationhood demands conformity by its citizens to a
narrowly defined set of habits, traditions and principles.
4938
(1340)
Perhaps the argument can be made that this was at one time
appropriate but that time has clearly passed. Both the present
and the future belong to those able to cope with the enormity and
diversity of our world and even our country.
While considering whether to offer as a candidate in the last
election, I recall watching the American Democratic convention
in Atlantic City. One of the key speakers of that convention was
Senator Bill Bradley. I watched amazed while the senator from
New Jersey suggested that the U.S. had occupied its superior
position in the world because of its natural resources, but that
now the value of physical abundance was diminishing the
American's position would be maintained because as the global
community became smaller the fact that so many cultures called
the U.S. home would once again give it some kind of advantage
on the global stage.
While I agree in part with the senator's analysis, I take great
exception to his conclusion. It is Canada that is the place where
members of all nations can feel at home. Canada is the place
where people can truly celebrate their cultures to the greatest
extent possible with government support and encouragement.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I was privileged to grow up in the only
officially bilingual province of a bilingual country. Most of my
friends and I myself support this opening up of opportunities
and the protection of minority rights, and to us, the
opportunities of diversity are a way of life. Granted, my
generation of Anglophones in New Brunswick is mostly
unilingual, but only due to circumstances. My children and
other members of their generation are for the most part
bilingual. To them, the struggles and debate that marked our past
no longer make sense.
[English]
Earlier this century our former Prime Minister and the father
of the modern Liberal Party boasted that the 20th century would
belong to Canada. Many whose values tend toward materialism
dismiss Laurier's pronouncement as wishful thinking.
As we enter the 21st century and as countries and people
around the world struggle with questions of ethnic strife and
ideological absolutism, we face a choice. Isolationism and
scapegoating and finger pointing that go with it are not the
answer. I believe in the need for pluralism and bilingualism in
our case and the generosity of nationhood will be held up as the
primary lesson learned from the 20th century. Whether we serve
as a model of accommodation and compromise or become just
another example of unfortunate shortsightedness depends
entirely on us.
Canada is not without its challenges. Nor can we claim a past
without blemish. We must confront with resolve our failure to
include in a way of their choosing Canada's aboriginal
communities in our abundance and comfort. We must attend to
the inequities that continue to diminish us all, inequities
between the genders, inequities between those of us who have
been here for generations and those of us newly arrived.
We must be vigilant to ensure that programs and policies be in
place to protect and promote both our official languages from
assimilation regardless of where we choose to live.
Further, we must do a better job of promoting the values of
which I speak. Racism exists in Canada but I believe in most
cases it is born of fear and confusion rather than deep-seated
hatred or profound incompatibility.
We should never underestimate the work and sometimes
expense involved in nurturing a model of nationhood that
requires patience, understanding and generosity of spirit. In
short, it draws from all Canadians the very best in each of us.
To illustrate, in the spring of each year many go through the
annual ritual of deciding which plants to grow. We travel to local
markets and nurseries. Some of us, less optimistic, purchase
hardy annuals with the knowledge that little effort is required
for these plants to flourish. Braver souls recommit each year to
buying and growing roses and other such delicates. We similarly
possess the knowledge that more work is required and that the
challenge of success is more daunting. At the end of the day
those who chose the roses and finer flowers will have done
something special. Quite simply, as a country, whether it be
from good luck or vision, we have chosen to grow roses. It is
harder; it does require more work, more patience and more
creativity. Even the sting from a thorny debate is not enough to
thwart us in our overall pursuit. In the end we have done
something special and it is through the maintenance of that the
majority of Canadians remain resolute.
(1345)
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Madam Speaker, I listened to
the hon. member talking about flowers and dreams, but in my
opinion, Canada, the great Canadian dream, has lost much of its
lustre.
Last week, when I was in western Canada, there was a lot of
talk about the Canadian dream, but people tend to ignore the
debt and the annual deficit the government is unable to control.
We are on the brink of bankruptcy, and these people still think
this is the richest country in the world. They refer to a statement
by the UN that says we rank first in standard of living, but it is a
standard of living obtained on credit.
4939
I said this many times before and I will say it again for the
benefit of people who still want to dream. Sure, you can have
your dreams, but let us be realistic, when the mortgage is sky
high. Before, we did not have a mortgage, but now we are
mortgaged to the hilt, and the car as well. We still have the same
standard of living, but we got it on credit. And now we are right
on the brink, we keep on dreaming.
People still think a very strong central government will be
able to run everything, but in fact, we need thorough
decentralization, with Canada's regions in a broad
confederation and a central government with perhaps a few
members who will make recommendations. I do not know what
the exact parameters will be, but we do need thorough
decentralization to ensure that the regions can develop their
potential. Because the federal government insists on
centralizing everything here in Ottawa, Canada is going straight
into bankruptcy. It is as simple as that.
We have to stop dreaming. We have to face the facts. And the
facts are that we need a sovereign Quebec and a sovereign
Canada. And we will work very well together, as we do now at
the economic level, but we will both perform better. That is what
we have to offer. We offer a way to better results. So take
advantage of that offer.
When we tell you our performance will improve, this is not
our opinion, it was the opinion of the experts in Quebec who sat
on the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. They concluded, but
they did more than conclude, they analysed the issues and
interviewed everyone, the business community, the unions, and
all socio-economic sectors. They said that to develop its
potential, Quebec needed 22 or 23 real powers. That request was
turned down. So let us stop dreaming. Let us face the facts. Let
us build a strong and prosperous English Canada and a strong
and prosperous Quebec, and let us work in unity. We do not want
to divide anything. We do not want to hurt anyone. We want to
develop our potential, as is our right. Why prevent us from doing
so? We want you to develop your potential as we develop ours.
Let us stop dreaming and talking about flowers and let us talk a
little about dollars and cents and prospects for the future.
[English]
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Madam
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
My immediate reaction to the proposition that somehow the
country would be better if the member has his way prompts me
to think of the province I come from, New Brunswick, and the
250,000 Acadians who probably would challenge that
proposition.
I would also defer to the judgment of the United Nations as to
whether Canada is living the dream. I would also defer to the
many hundreds of thousands of people who would dearly love
the opportunity to live in the country as it is.
As for the question having to do with the deficit, I can only
acknowledge the need to deal responsibly with our finances,
which I believe we are. I would also challenge members who
constantly stand up and speak to this question to think about the
programs that are financed and have been financed. As an
Atlantic Canadian I know there are those in the Reform Party
who are not as sensitive to the nature of the country relative to
the spirit of generosity I referred to. I cannot imagine that in any
way the country could be better off being more divided.
(1350)
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Madam Speaker, I
would like to say how pleased I am for the opportunity to speak
in the debate today.
In reference to the hon. member's remarks preceding mine,
speaking of the spirit of generosity let us not forget where the
bulk of that money from taxpayers is coming from. Much of it
comes from western Canadians in a spirit of generosity to the
rest of Canada. Let us be absolutely clear about that.
I will mention again how pleased I am to speak in this debate
today. I will be addressing the phrase in our motion which talks
about further democratizing our institutions and decision
making processes. As we spend month after month in this place
we are all well aware of the situation we are all in and dear
knows we do need to have some democratic reform in our
institutions and in our decision making processes here.
It is also very clear that many people outside of this Chamber
but outside and inside Quebec as well are demanding some
things as they demanded of us in the last election. These are I
believe from people inside and outside Quebec. It is every bit as
important to them. Inside Quebec and out they are seeking
dynamic and constructive change in their political institutions.
They are asking for governments that listen to them, consult
with them and are accountable to them. Canadians and
Quebecers want to improve the quality of representative
government in the country.
We know these things well. Madam Speaker, you and I were
here in the last Parliament. We know through the national debate
surrounding Meech Lake, the Charlottetown accord and more
recently through our door knocking at the federal election last
fall, through town hall meetings and other communication with
our constituents, that there was almost a cry from people saying
something needs to be done to democratize the institutions and
Parliament itself.
This desire for reform of our political institutions is
something that all of us in this 35th Parliament can do something
about. Many of my colleagues and I have offered a number of
proposals that would lead to democratic reform in the House.
4940
As was mentioned before and was mentioned just a few
moments ago by my colleague from Calgary West, we need in
the House, regardless of what provinces or areas of the country
we are from, more free votes in Parliament. If members are to
exert influence over policy making in committees, as we have
heard so much about, or in the House they must be able to
demonstrate independence of thought.
Again we read articles of some members from the government
side who are brave enough to stand in committee and say: ``I do
not think this is right. Perhaps I will vote against it''. They are
absolutely taken aside and told they must go along with it. They
cannot give other reports. My friends on the other side are well
aware of that.
We want to make sure that more free votes are allowed in
Parliament. We also need a change in attitude to the confidence
convention. As my friends from the government and I sat on the
opposition benches in the last Parliament we heard time and
time again that every piece of legislation does not need to be
treated as a confidence convention. How things change, how
things become so different with the stroll of about 12 or 14 feet
across the aisle here.
We need a change on the part of government and party leaders
that would allow members to vote as their constituents wish
without bringing down the government. I certainly have
assurance that I can offer on behalf of my party leader that he
would be willing to give unanimous consent to the other leaders
to provide that.
We also need provisions to recall MPs who have lost or
betrayed the trust of their constituents. As members would know
I have spoken at great length on this in the House. It seems to
rattle some even now. Recall will ensure that members consult
with and serve their constituents and not merely serve their
party. That if anything is one thing we can do to change the
attitude that Canadians have about this place.
Also we believe in holding elections every four years at
predetermined dates so there would not just be something that
would be helpful or productive for the government. We saw that
again in the last election where it was thought that because it had
that benefit it was able to call the election at what it thought was
the most opportune time. Unfortunately history will show that
perhaps it was a mistake.
However, if we had elections at predetermined times every
four years it would eliminate all that hassle and trying to think
about it and manipulating dates.
(1355 )
Also we are in favour of a binding referendum on national and
important constitutional and moral issues or matters that would
alter the basic social fabric of the country. We have seen a
referendum in the country. Naturally I was pleased with the
results of it because I was the only federal political party here
that was on the no side on the Charlottetown accord.
There is nothing wrong with that, just because people in the
House and the parties which they represented lost the
Charlottetown accord. A great deal of good came out of that.
People in my constituency, and I am sure in every other one in
the country, felt that somehow they had been given real power.
They were able to exercise on a ballot their view, that it was
binding and that it carried the weight of the day.
Also citizens' initiatives are so important. People can put
questions on a referendum ballot which will be dealt with at
election time. What a marvellous sense of power. That would
free up this place so that people know they have access to the
House of Commons and not just somebody who will stand in a
public place regularly, as I have heard, and say: ``My opinion is
important. My constituent's opinion is important but when it
comes to the vote I will decide''. Nothing could be more
arrogant or any further from the truth. If we are going to
democratize this place that is something that is absolutely
essential.
All Reformers have advocated Senate reform. We are talking
about a triple-E Senate, elected by the people, equal provincial
representation, thereby making it effective in representing
regional interests. There may be people from Quebec and
Ontario, the two big provinces, who say they have more senators
and so they have absolute power of majority in the Senate. It is
important that each province realize it is one of ten equal
children in Confederation.
There seems to be no reason in my mind to justify the fact that
my province of Alberta has 6 senators and that Quebec and
Ontario would have 24. There is something wrong with the
mathematics in that. We believe Quebec is important in
Confederation. Let us turn the other place around.
I have heard many of my colleagues talk about the fact that we
need to abolish the other place. We have seen very recently that
the Senate is important, that it is essential. Its decision to reject
Bill C-18, the suspending of the operation of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act, is a good example of the Senate's
sober second look at bad legislation. Bad it was, and we would
hear from members of the government side perhaps that it was
bad, such interventions were rare, granted, and usually not
welcome because of the unelected nature of the Senate.
I proved my point. Because Canada is a federation of equal
provinces this reality should be reflected in that other place
because it does provide a function. We think that if it were that
much more legitimate it would provide a bigger and better
function on behalf of poor legislation and as a counterweight to
some of the things that come out of the House of Commons.
4941
We believe as Reformers that the adoption of these political
and democratic reforms would lead to more active participation
in the legislative process by ordinary Canadians. It would
improve the quality of debate, enhance legislation coming from
Parliament and build an even better democracy than we have in
Canada today.
What a marvellous country this is has been mentioned over
and over today. We agree. I think everyone in the House agrees
that Canada is wonderful. My colleagues to my right are wanting
to leave that. Of course my question as a western Canadian as
well as a fellow member of this family is: What does Quebec
want?
I have a researcher from the University of Michigan, an
intern, trying to look at that question for me. What is it Quebec
wants in Canada, if it is to remain in Canada?
It is one thing to say that these people are here to represent all
of Quebec. That is not true any more than my party is here to
represent all of the west or that there are members from the
government side representing all Canadians because they form
the government. There are people who supported the Bloc and
we give respect for that certainly. Earlier we talked about the
enormous amount of people in Quebec as well as outside who
said Canada is the best place. We need to build on the successes
that we have had.
We often forget the long and difficult way that we have come
together in Confederation. We seldom remember our great
achievements together. What we need to do at the very end of
this debate, and I am so glad we have been able to have it, is to
ask a question. If we in the House of Commons are willing to get
together and democratize these institutions, if we on all sides of
the House are willing to get together and say yes, this place is
wonderful or yes, we will move to be able to say Canada is a
worthwhile place, is Quebec interested in staying? If we all get
together and build it I believe they will come. That is the offer
we extend to them, to say this country is bigger and better with
all of us fighting on behalf of it rather than somebody who wants
to leave and thinks, just completely hypothetically, that things
would be better.
(1400)
My time is just about up. We have a minute left until oral
statements. I will be answering questions and comments right
after that. However, let me assure my friends here that we are
trying to build this new Canada. We make the offer to them and
to their constituents that if they will work with us, if we build it,
we give them the offer to come.
The Speaker: Of course there will be a question period when
we take up debate after the question period. We will now
proceed to Statements by Members.
4941
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, as we know 50
years ago yesterday, D-Day, the great liberation began and the
freedom of Europe and indeed the world was under way.
I was proud to represent the Government of Canada in a
wreath laying ceremony last weekend in Manitoba. I reflected
on the courage of those who gave their lives for freedom from
tyranny and oppression.
I also reflected on those individuals like Irving Scott and Alex
Tarasenko who, as young men from Provencher, were among the
first to land on the beaches of Normandy. They were the first to
brave the bullets and the land mines.
It is hard to imagine the burden of duty that we called upon
these young Canadians to perform on our behalf.
Thank you, Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Tarasenko. Thank you
all for what you did on that day. We are very indebted. We are
very grateful and we will never forget your contribution.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, as
spokesperson for the Official Opposition, I am pleased to talk
about National Environment Week.
The protection of our environment must be ensured in our
daily actions. The various projects and activities of each level of
government must be implemented in the context of sustainable
development. Our society must meet this important challenge,
and National Environment Week is the appropriate time to
reflect on initiatives which can be taken to improve our
environment.
I want to point out the work done by thousands of people who
are members of environmental organizations, or who promote
environmental protection in schools and recreation centres.
Their contribution is essential and must be recognized.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, this
week is Canadian Environment Week and it is time to reflect on
how lucky we are.
4942
If the earth were only a few feet in diameter, floating above a
field somewhere, people would come from everywhere to
marvel at it. People would walk around it marvelling at its big
pools of water. People would marvel at the bumps in it and the
holes in it. They would marvel at the very thin layers of gas
surrounding it and the waters suspended in the gas. The people
would marvel at all the creatures walking around the surface of
the ball and the creatures in the water. People would declare it
sacred and would protect it so that it would not be hurt.
The ball would be the greatest wonder known and the people
would come to pray to it to be healed, to gain knowledge, to
know beauty and to wonder how it could be. People would love it
and defend it with their lives, if the earth were only a few feet in
diameter.
Let us participate in Environmental Week.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday the Speaker drew the attention of the House to a special
group of young people who were sitting in the gallery.
These students of Ridgemont High School are participants in
the work experience program called ``Partners in Change''. This
program had its start back in 1986 due in large part to the hard
work of one of my constituents, Ms. Patricia Mainwaring.
Ms. Mainwaring is a teacher at Ridgemont High School who
specializes in helping students with intellectual and
developmental disabilities. She saw the potential of her students
to contribute in a whole variety of ways to our work here in the
House of Commons.
With the help of their volunteer buddies, they have been
learning how to do all sorts of things and also learning a new
independence and pride in themselves.
When I taught at Ridgemont High School 30 years ago, these
students would not even have been part of our school
environment. Now they are part of our environment here in
Parliament in governing the country. I congratulate Ms.
Mainwaring for her work.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
advise the members of the House that last Saturday, June 4, I
attended a short ceremony at the birthplace of Billy Bishop in
Owen Sound. The Bishop home is now a museum dedicated to
the memory of Canada's most highly decorated serviceman, the
winner of Canada's first air Victoria Cross.
At the ceremony a representative of Canada Post, Mr. Tom
Creech, announced that a postage stamp in Bishop's honour will
be unveiled in Owen Sound on August 12 of this year.
It is entirely fitting that the man who at the end of the first
world war had shot down more enemy aircraft than any other
British pilot be recognized with a stamp issue.
Bishop's remains are interred in the Owen Sound Greenwood
Cemetery, along with the remains of two other Victoria Cross
winners, Private Thomas Holmes and Lieutenant-Colonel
David Currie, who I understand for a time was the
Sergeant-at-Arms in the House.
Yesterday I mentioned Mr. Currie's name and I hope that the
record will be corrected to spell his name correctly as well as
that of his wife who was a gal from Owen Sound and who is
currently living here in Ottawa.
* * *
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox
and Addington): Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of the
Environment and the Minister of Agriculture announced 10
partnership projects in Ontario to promote sustainable
agricultural practices which will benefit and restore fish and
wildlife habitat.
Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington is proud to be
included as part of the Canada-Ontario agricultural green plan.
Over the next three years this plan will provide $1.8 million for
demonstration projects which are part of the wetlands,
woodlands, wildlife program.
I am very pleased that Ducks Unlimited, farmers and land
owners in Lennox and Addington will be involved in this
partnership project.
I am also pleased to announce that the Napanee Conservation
Authority will participate in project sites on Little Creek, Selby
and Wilton Creeks, which will include windbreaks and shelter
belts, reforestation, fence rows, retirement of fragile land,
livestock fencing, and stream bank stabilization.
The government's support of the Bay of Quinte's remedial
action plan will ensure the goals of the 3-W program.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, last
weekend, at ACFO's annual meeting, the health minister
stunned and embarrassed the 200 Franco-Ontarians who were in
attendance. All heard the irresponsible comments made by the
minister who said that Franco-Ontarians were stupid. All
witnessed the lack of democratic spirit displayed by the minister
who called the Bloc Quebecois leader a traitor to his country.
4943
Several people were shocked by her simplistic speech which left
little to the judgment of Franco-Ontarians.
This episode confirms that the Minister of Health has become
an embarrassment. Let Franco-Ontarians form their own
opinion about the Bloc Quebecois. We trust their judgment.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, sometimes we Canadians are guilty of taking our
history for granted. I too have been guilty of this.
This past weekend my wife and I attended two events which
made me realize that we must take time to remember our past.
The first was the D-Day services honouring our Canadians who
died in combat to help preserve our future and our freedom.
The second event was the sound and light show here on
Parliament Hill which brilliantly reflected Canada's history,
heritage and culture. I was overwhelmed by this magical display
radiating over Parliament Hill, our national symbol of
democracy and patriotism. I believe that feeling of being
Canadian radiates all across Canada, out to each and every little
corner of the country. We are all united in our hearts. It is a
deeply held feeling to be Canadian.
My wife and I got a very warm feeling as we sat and watched
the story of how Canada developed. It touched our hearts and I
know all Canadians share this spirit. We must dissolve any
threats to our unity vision and put an end to the notion of being
anything less than one united nation.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, to mark the
25th anniversary of native studies at Trent University, the oldest
native studies program in Canada, three prominent aboriginal
Canadians were awarded honorary degrees. One recipient was
Mohawk elder Ernie Benedict, who helped found the North
American Indian Travelling College which through teaching
helped preserve cultural traditions of native peoples. The
college is based on Cornwall Island, Ontario.
Douglas Cardinal, the architect for the Canadian Museum of
Civilization and many other structures in Canada and abroad
also received an honorary degree. He was born in Alberta and
spent most of his life there before moving his business to
Ottawa.
(1410)
The third recipient was Rosemarie Kuptana, president of the
Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the voice of Canadian Inuit. Miss
Kuptana worked with the CBC in the north and with the Inuit
Broadcasting Corporation. She is a major figure in national and
international aboriginal affairs.
We congratulate these distinguished Canadians. We also
congratulate the native studies department of Trent University
on 25 years of academic leadership.
I congratulate the member for Winnipeg South and his wife on
the birth of their son.
* * *
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great
pleasure to rise and report to the House of Commons that I have
received hundreds of replies to my householder questionnaire.
The views of the residents of Lincoln are important and I want
my constituents to know that their representative is listening.
The residents of Lincoln have made it overwhelmingly clear
that they want to see deficit reduction as one of the top priorities
of government. They want the cost of government operations cut
and they want reductions in crown corporation subsidies.
As the representative for Lincoln I too share their concerns
and frustrations. I am encouraged by the course the government
has charted in promoting fiscal responsibility and prudence.
The government will continue to improve efficiencies in
government operations the residents of Lincoln demanded and I
will do my part to help achieve our goal of good government. I
will continue to solicit the views of my constituents of Lincoln
and I look forward to sharing them with my colleagues in the
House of Commons.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I would
like the opportunity to emphasize the fact that on the first day of
Environment Week, Sunday, June 5, the federal government
released its mid-term progress report on the Fraser River action
plan.
The Fraser River is key to the present and future
environmental, economic and social prosperity of Canadians in
British Columbia. I am pleased to report that the action plan
which focuses on sustaining this key ecosystem by cleaning up
pollution, restoring productivity, and developing a government
system that would ensure the long term environmental health of
the Fraser basin is on track and demonstrating real progress in
meeting its original objectives.
Nevertheless we must continue to strive for the realization of
the goals laid out by the plan. This involves working with our
stakeholders in the basin, including First Nations, provincial
and local governments, industry and community groups.
4944
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister was again unable
to rise to her responsibilities. She said: ``It hurts me to see Mr.
Bouchard putting his wreath before the Cenotaph today''.
I would first say to the Deputy Prime Minister that the wreath
was laid by the member for Quebec whose father, Léon Gagnon,
took part in the battle of Normandy and fought in Europe from
1939 to 1945 for freedom and democracy.
The most basic decency should have made the Deputy Prime
Minister respect other people's sorrow. An hon. member should
be able to honour her father's memory even if the Deputy Prime
Minister does not share her political opinions.
The courage and sacrifice of our elders are a common heritage
which no one can use for partisan purposes. The event
commemorated yesterday belongs to the collective history of
Quebecers and Canadians of all allegiances. Quebec will never
deny this heritage, whatever the political choices it makes.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened to some members in the House who
sound as if they have been co-opted by Bloc Quebecois strategy.
The Bloc appears to have successfully softened its separatist
image in the eyes of some members. During debate, question
period, and statements some members prefer to use the words
sovereignty or sovereignist rather than the more appropriate
words separation or separatist.
I call on each and every member of the House who clearly
opposes the destruction of Canada to demonstrate their clear
understanding of the Bloc agenda by hereafter referring to the
Bloc as separatists.
Let us send a clear message to the Bloc that their mushy
terminology is not fooling anyone in this House or in Canada.
* * *
(1415 )
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to inform the House that the inaugural induction of the first 10
laureates to the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame took place on
Friday, May 27, 1994 in London, Ontario.
This is an opportunity to pay tribute to Dr. Charles Drake, a
world renowned London neurosurgeon, and the nine other
eminent recipients of these awards.
Their exceptional achievements in their respective fields and
their contributions to medicine in general have culminated in
their induction into the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame.
These Canadians reached the pinnacle of their professions and
achieved breakthroughs in their fields of expertise thus
contributing to the advancement of science. They have also
contributed to the understanding of disease, leading to the
improvement of the general health of people throughout the
world. We thank and honour them for their work.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, it is National
Transportation Week. Privileged to be the chair of the Standing
Committee on Transport, it is my pleasure to acknowledge the
excellence of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who
see the transportation industry in our country moving ever
forward.
The challenges of change on a global scale are continuing to
influence our transportation industry. To deal with these
challenges, government and industry must look to the future and
harmonize efforts to contribute to competitiveness and
economic renewal.
It may please the House to know that last Friday in Thunder
Bay the industry recognized excellence in transportation.
If time would permit, I would recognize all those who were
honoured with awards of excellence and achievement, but
among them I want particularly to mention those who received
the awards of valour: Mr. Mervyn Peever of Prince George,
B.C., a rail brakeman who risked his life to rescue a three-year
old girl from the path of an oncoming freight train, and Mr.
André Fréchette, a truck driver from Tracy, Quebec who rescued
two people from a burning bus.
In keeping with National Transportation Week, I congratulate
all those who keep Canada's transportation system running as it
should be, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay
tribute to a dedicated and courageous group of veterans who
participated in the D-Day remembrance events this past
weekend.
4945
As members of the International Association of Airborne
Veterans' established Veterans Parachute Regiment, these
veterans conducted a mass paradrop into the nation's capital and
surrounding area. This was an exciting event to witness.
I am sure that veterans as well as all Canadians were touched
by this spectacular tribute to the allied invasion of Normandy.
This paradrop operation was organized by Captain Glen
Blumberg, a constituent of Markham. He is the director of the
Canadian chapter of the International Association of Airborne
Veterans.
Through his efforts, parachutists from the three principal
nations involved in the invasion, namely Canada, the United
Kingdom and the United States, participated in the paradrop.
Additionally, representatives from our other second world war
allies also participated in this event.
On behalf of all my colleagues in Parliament, I congratulate
Captain Blumberg, the veteran-
_____________________________________________
4945
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, after cancelling last April's scheduled
federal-provincial conference of income security ministers, the
Minister of Human Resources Development has also postponed
the tabling of his action plan on social program reform which
was originally scheduled for late April. With the House slated to
rise for the summer in about 15 days, the government has dug in
its heels in the fact of the provinces' opposition and has yet to
unveil its plans for social program reform.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister indicate to us whether the
government intends to make its action plan on social program
reform public before the adjournment of the House, or whether
it is preparing instead to release it after the House rises, so as to
avoid debating the matter here in the House?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the work of the human
resources minister is proceeding very, very well. This week in
fact, he met in Europe with representatives of other countries
that are reviewing their social systems and we expect that he will
be releasing his report and action plan shortly.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, that is quite a revelation! The minister has not even
succeeded in getting together with his provincial counterparts in
Canada, and now we learn that he is meeting with European
ministers. Quite a revelation indeed!
Are we to understand that because of the provinces's
opposition to the federal project, no new date has been set for the
federal-provincial ministers' conference on social program
reform originally scheduled for last April?
(1420)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Leader of the
Opposition is not trying to make the House believe that the
Minister of Human Resources Development should not speak
with his OECD counterparts.
I realize that the Leader of the Opposition has other plans in
mind for his country. I also know that the minister received a
much warmer welcome in Europe that did the Leader of the
Opposition several weeks ago.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, all Canadians and all taxpayers will, I am sure, be
delighted to hear that the minister is in Europe to meet with his
European counterparts. However, it is not in Europe that the plan
will be drawn up and it is not in Europe that the minister will
convince Canada's provincial premiers that the plan is
acceptable. That work must be done here.
Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that
Ottawa and the provinces have reached an impasse on the
question of social program reform, given that in such fields as
health, the provinces refuse to bear the burden for the federal
government's financial decision to off-load its deficit onto their
shoulders, while at the same time, the federal government wants
to force the provinces to comply with national standards?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, this is another unfortunate
example of the Leader of the Opposition's policy of always
operating according to a double standard. He sees nothing
illogical in the fact that two weeks ago, he went to Paris to
discuss Quebec's separation. It is completely logical, on the
other hand, that the Minister of Human Resources Development
is in Europe to discuss social reform. Furthermore, we have
already stated that the action plan will be released to the
Canadian public shortly.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, we learned
from a report on French CBC TV that two children had
life-threatening reactions to an experimental drug, ALG, that
was approved by Health Canada and administered to them at
Sainte-Justine Hospital. However, this experimental drug was
never approved or authorized for export by the U.S. authorities.
This
4946
drug is the subject of a criminal investigation after two people
died from it in the United States.
How can the Minister of Health justify her department's
decision to authorize the use of ALG when this high-risk
experimental drug was never approved and authorized for
export by the United States since it was developed in the early
1970s?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, of
course, I will have to find out about the case in question. I was
not given details. If you want, I am prepared to give you all the
necessary information which I might obtain. If you have
information to give me, please let me have it.
The Speaker: Before giving the floor to the hon. member for
Roberval, I would ask hon. members to always address the
Chair.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, gladly, as I
usually do anyway.
Mr. Speaker, through you, let me suggest that the minister
listen to the CBC news where this case was reported today. At
the same time, I would like to ask her if she could investigate the
circumstances surrounding her department's decision to
authorize the use of this dangerous drug in eleven Canadian
hospitals. Does she admit that the present system for authorizing
medication is very seriously deficient since Health Canada
exercises no control over or follow-up on the effects of
experimental drugs after authorizing them?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
would like the opportunity to look into the particular case since I
have no information at this point.
Let me advise this House that the scientists and people in
Health Canada are extremely concerned with any new
experimental drug. I am sure they will do everything in their
power to ensure the safety of any product that is distributed here
in Canada.
* * *
(1425 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
As the minister knows Canada's trade ministers have been
meeting to discuss ways and means of securing freer trade
within Canada. Various trade associations have suggested there
are over 500 barriers to trade, they cost us $6 billion and, of
course, they kill jobs.
Is the federal government considering more proactive
measures, federal initiatives, to dismantle interprovincial trade
barriers if the provincial ministers fail to do more than just
scratch the surface?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think the comprehensive
approach that has been taken by the minister responsible for
industry who has been leading the federal discussion on these
issues is indeed far more than scratching the surface. He is
getting an excellent response from his provincial counterparts in
areas ranging from environmental protection to breaking down a
number of the other 500-plus barriers that prevent
interprovincial free trade.
We have every expectation that at the end of June, the
deadline that the minister has imposed for himself and his
provincial colleagues, we will have another success story to
speak of for the Liberal government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the track record of these discussions is that the trade ministers
come up with a list of exemptions as long as your arm.
The Constitution empowers the federal government to
regulate trade and commerce and provide some capacity for the
federal government itself to act on internal barriers to trade.
Section 121 of the Constitution states: ``All articles of the
growth, produce, or manufacture of any one of the provinces
shall, from and after the union, be admitted free into each of the
other provinces''.
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this: What is the
federal government doing to exercise its current constitutional
powers, including the application of section 121, to facilitate
freer trade in Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a
good example of why he had better go back to the constitutional
drawing board.
This morning we heard the same member stand in the House
and complain that the federal government was too directive in a
number of areas. He wanted us to divest our responsibility to the
provinces. This afternoon he is telling us that we are not doing
enough.
In fact the Minister of Industry has a negotiated approach. He
has brought all the parties to the table. He expects to have a full
and comprehensive free trade agreement reached by the end of
June.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have one further supplementary question.
Internal barriers to trade are created by provincial
governments and inflict injury on businesses and consumers.
The federal government's approach to dealing with these
barriers has been to get the provinces, the creators of the
problem, together and ask them to solve it.
Has the government considered bringing together businesses
and consumers that are injured by internal barriers to trade and
giving them the tools to fight these barriers, for example
4947
providing a domestic trade dispute settling mechanism in
Canada like we have in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are
ongoing as we speak. Indeed one of the primary aims of the
Minister of Industry is to have a speedy dispute resolution
mechanism.
I guess the difference between the approach that the leader of
the Reform Party seems to be advocating and the approach that
we are seeking is that we would like to get consensus to work
with the provinces, not against them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the CRTC made a decision regarding the
French-language all-news channel. This new service was
awarded to Radio-Canada. However, the access of francophones
outside Quebec to this new service will be left to the discretion
of cable operators.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Does he
not consider quite inequitable the CRTC's decision, which does
not give Canada's francophone and Acadian communities
guaranteed access to the French-language all-news channel,
when they have been financially supporting the
English-language equivalent, Newsworld, for several years
through their subscriptions?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I took note of the CRTC's decisions and I understand
the disappointment felt by the francophone and Acadian
communities. I should point out, however, that there is an appeal
procedure and that this procedure involves the Government of
Canada since the appeal is filed with the government.
(1430)
I myself will be involved in the appeal and I cannot be both a
judge and a party at the same time. That is why I should not make
any more comments.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I would still like to get a very clear answer from the
Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Does this mean that the Minister of Canadian Heritage intends
to personally ask the Cabinet to review the CRTC's decision? Is
this what his somewhat diplomatic language means?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for referring to my former life.
I simply tried to explain the procedure that must be followed.
The initiative to appeal must come from the communities
concerned and not the government. As I explained, since the
government rules on the appeal, it cannot be both judge and
party at the outset.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
On Sunday, Burnaby RCMP officers found themselves in the
middle of a shootout with David Barlow. Fortunately no one was
killed in this incident. However, David Barlow is responsible for
the killing of two other persons.
In 1972 he was convicted for murdering a Florida police
officer and sentenced to death, which was later commuted to
life. In 1980, Barlow was returned to Canada where he was
convicted of manslaughter for a killing in New Brunswick in
1967.
Will the minister explain to the people of Canada how an
individual like Barlow can be considered a low risk and put back
on our streets?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
find this a troubling situation. I have asked for a full review and
a full report on how this case was handled. When I get the report
on this troubling situation, I will be happy to share the
information with my hon. friend.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, at the current rate of holding national inquiries into
problems with the justice system, the minister will have more
success in putting Canadians to work than the infrastructure
program.
Nevertheless, in response to the Barlow shooting incident
British Columbia Premier Mike Harcourt has stated that
Canada's justice system must have a zero tolerance for
dangerous offenders.
Is the minister equally prepared to call for zero tolerance of
dangerous offenders like Barlow?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
there is currently a federal-provincial task force on high risk
offenders which is expected to report to ministers in July. It is
working on measures to deal with high risk offenders. We are
anxiously awaiting the report so that we can take further action
to deal with this type of difficult situation.
In the meantime, it is open to the premier of British Columbia
to ask his crown attorneys to take more concrete action at the
beginning to ask people to be declared dangerous offenders at
the time they are first convicted.
4948
However, we treat this at the federal level as a very serious
situation. We intend to take action based on the
federal-provincial task force because the solutions lie in a
concerted effort at both the federal and provincial levels.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of the Environment kept insisting that,
last year, Canada had passed legislation on double hulling. She
referred to the Maritime Shipping Act, which simply does not
exist. She probably meant the Canada Shipping Act, which was
amended last year by Bill C-121, in which the government
merely announced its intention of legislating double hulled
ships.
How can the Minister of the Environment justify her answer,
when the legal services of the Department of Transport, her own
department and the Canadian Coast Guard maintain that there is
currently no legislation on double hulling?
(1435)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the so-called facts
mentioned today by the hon. member are just as valid as those of
yesterday, since my department does not even have jurisdiction
over the Coast Guard.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, I simply
ask the minister to give an answer.
An hon. member: It is because she does not know!
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that the
Canada Shipping Act, which was passed on December 31, 1993,
deals with the issue of double hulling for ships carrying oil, that
is the tankers.
I also said yesterday, and I repeat it today, that if the hon.
member is suggesting that all ships be double hulled in order to
ply Canadian waters in any part of the country, the ports of
Quebec City and Montreal will have to shut down. Somehow, I
do not think this is what the Bloc Quebecois wants.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Since the release of repeat sexual offender Larry Fisher, the
RCMP has issued an internal memo stating that he will probably
strike again. Over the weekend Fisher was reported sighted in
my riding in the city of Dawson Creek. Local residents are
deeply concerned about the sudden appearance of Fisher in their
community.
Which laws need to be changed so that dangerous offenders
like Larry Fisher are never turned loose again?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment
on the case of Mr. Fisher, but I will respond as best I can to the
question in general terms.
The place to start is with enforcing the laws that are already on
the books. Part 24 of the Criminal Code already provides in
express terms that at the time an offender is sentenced the crown
attorney in the appropriate circumstances can bring an
application to have the court declare that person a dangerous
offender. If that occurs that person can be detained indefinitely
and not released until they die.
Therefore the first thing is, as my hon. colleague the Solicitor
General has pointed out, that our counterparts in the provinces
must be alert to the application of that section in appropriate
cases. They should ask the court to designate persons dangerous
when the facts justify the application.
There can be cases which fall short of dangerousness as
defined in part 24 but still require continued detention in the
public interest. As the Solicitor General has said we are awaiting
the results of a report being prepared at the federal and
provincial levels to deal with those kinds of cases. It involves
the conjunction of the criminal system which is federal and the
health system which is provincial. It is our intention in
collaboration with the provinces to develop a system to deal
with those cases for the safety of the public in Canada.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the minister for his answer. I notice that once again we are
hearing about reports and studies. The last thing Canadians want
right now is another study into the causes of crime. This issue
has been studied to death. People are demanding action from
this minister.
With predators like Larry Fisher on the loose, how long does
the minister plan to examine the alternatives he referred to in
this House last week?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, it is easy to mock the process
of study. If I may say so, I think the last thing Canadians want is
ill-informed action by which government would rush to a
solution which may not be effective.
My colleagues and I know that this issue is important and
these cases must be provided for. We also respect the complexity
of the issue and we are going to go about it in the proper way.
The study will be thorough and our action will be effective. We
will have results to show after we work it through with our
provincial counterparts.
4949
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs.
Tension continues to mount in Oka, where gun shots and
machine gun fire have led residents to request an increase in
police presence. The Sûreté du Québec has even seized an
AK-47-type weapon with a laser scope, in addition to finding
evidence of an impressive arsenal.
(1440)
Considering the very serious situation in Oka, could the
Minister of Indian Affairs inform the House whether negotiator
Michel Robert was able to start negotiations with
representatives of the Kanesatake Band Council?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, negotiations have begun to the
extent that the mediator and negotiator have met. The agenda is
being done.
As to the specific question of the shooting, this is more within
the realm of the Sûreté du Québec. I received indirect reports
that it has the matter in hand and this will not detract from the
ongoing negotiations.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is directed to the Solicitor General. Does he
agree that the offensive weapons identified by the police are
evidence of the existence of large-scale arms smuggling,
something the Solicitor General has refused to admit?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is wrong. I never refused to admit that
large-scale arms smuggling existed. I said, as did the Prime
Minister a few months ago, that one of the reasons for our
national program against smuggling was the fact that arms
smuggling was also a problem. That is why we set up the
anti-smuggling program, which includes the smuggling of
firearms, and we will continue our efforts with the Sûreté du
Québec and other police forces.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
I have received many representations from concerned
constituents in my riding about the case of Alexandre Makar.
Mr. Makar is presently teaching in Edmonton. His employment
authorization expires on June 30, at which time he is expected to
return to Ukraine on the grounds that he is medically
inadmissible due to a rare kidney condition.
Could the minister of immigration please update the House on
this case?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question and for the concern he and other colleagues have shown
in the case.
First, as was mentioned, the individual in question is on a
work authorization. He has applied from within the country for
permanent status. As a result of the medical test he has been
found inadmissible.
It is the classic difficult case of the compassion which has
been shown to this individual by the Edmonton community and
the whole question of medical admissibility which is one of the
tests on which Canadians expect all applicants to be assessed. It
is not something we treat lightly. Last year of the over 325,000
cases assessed medically, some 2,000 were denied.
Second, while our health system is second to none in the
world, its resources are limited and involve the provinces.
Consequently I have opened a channel of official
communication with the premier of Alberta to ascertain the
position of Alberta vis-à-vis the health care and health
consequences of this individual, should he stay. Also, since the
premier of Saskatchewan has gone on the public record eliciting
support, I have also been in contact with his office to see if there
could be anything done vis-à-vis relocating this individual in
Saskatchewan should discussions fail with Alberta.
The effort is to try to balance compassion and the whole
question of being fiscally responsible in terms of a viable health
care system across the country when many exceptions to the
rules are being requested of my department.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
As I mentioned in the House last week, parolee Wayne Perkin
was recently found guilty of murdering Angela Richards in my
riding in 1992. When I asked the parole board for the details of
the decision to release Mr. Perkin in January 1990, I was
informed that information is classified since it happened before
the new law was passed for hearings taking place after
November 1992.
Is the Solicitor General prepared today to guarantee that he
will change the legislation to allow access to parole board
hearing reports that took place prior to November 1992?
4950
(1445)
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
will take note of my hon. friend's suggestion. It is very much
worth going into. I will work on it in connection with the
updating and tightening up of the parole and correctional system
that I am currently working on.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the Solicitor General for that response.
The parole board's decision in this case ultimately led to the
untimely death of 24-year old Angela Richards. I find that there
are other circumstances and that charges are being laid on Mr.
Perkin. Again the parole board should have known.
Will the Solicitor General initiate legislation to ensure that in
future members of the board are informed of ongoing
investigations so that convicts eligible for parole can be
detained until all such reasonable investigations are complete?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
my hon. friend has made another suggestion worthy of being
looked into but I am not sure it requires legislation.
I have been working to have better administrative procedures
leading to all necessary information going to the parole board
before it makes decisions on these matters. I am going to try to
get this accomplished through administrative change, but I will
look into it in terms of what may be required by legislation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
The government plans to massively privatize services offered by
Transport Canada. By doing so, the government will be released
from its commitment to support Canada's transportation
system.
Before he embarks on a substantial privatization of Transport
Canada's activities, does the minister have any guarantees as to
the impact privatization would have on economic development
and inflation, as a result of increased transportation costs?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I am sure the hon. member is aware that the speech
we made in Thunder Bay on Friday night was not really about
privatization. That is not the route the Department of Transport
intends to go.
We talked mainly about commercialization, which is an
entirely different approach.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, whatever the term, does the minister realize that a
substantial withdrawal of government financing from the
transportation sector would seriously affect all ports on the St.
Lawrence as a result of the commercialization of the Coast
Guard, and would affect all consumers through increases in the
price of goods, and all remote regions, which stand to suffer
most as a result of price increases?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member asks a question that has a lot of people in the
country concerned.
Obviously it is true everywhere in Canada that local
authorities are looking for more input into decisions that
directly affect their communities and their regions. I am quite
surprised that a member from Quebec would not be interested in
looking at a process that would provide for very significant local
input.
I might add to the hon. member that most user groups and
client groups in the country are absolutely convinced, in terms
that they have made very clear to me, that they believe that with
more input from those user and client groups we can have a
system that is far more efficient, far more effective, far more
affordable and I would think that is what the hon. member would
have in mind as well.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
On May 4, I asked the minister when he was going to make
appointments to the Canada Council of which 13 of the 21 seats
were vacant at that time. The minister responded that he was
committed to not making any appointments until the federal
agency review was completed, and that is expected some time
this fall.
Could the minister explain his inconsistency, his reversal yet
again of an earlier decision as he went ahead anyway and made
two recent appointments to the Canada Council?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, on the size of the Canada Council, the exercise has
been completed in my portfolio and we made appropriate
recommendations to the minister concerned. We now know,
from the heritage viewpoint, how many people will be on the
council. That was a proviso which I had raised before.
(1450)
The director who was appointed earlier this week or last week
is not a member of the board. We have been waiting for some
time to make this appointment. We felt it was high time to do it
4951
and we did it. The other person was the president who was also
an indispensable person to keep the Canada Council going.
This is what we have done. We have made the appointments
and now we know the number of members on the board of
directors. We shall make appointments in the future in a more
routine manner.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I
thought we knew how many seats were vacant and how many
were needed. I certainly do not question at all the talent and the
capacity of the individual who has been so appointed.
However I do question the minister's commitment to the
federal agency review process. I would like the minister to tell
the House what relevance that federal review process now has.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to say that I take this review very seriously.
We are the first department to have produced recommendations
to the minister concerned. I am surprised to have these questions
from members of the Reform Party because we are reducing
expenditures and making savings in taking this action. We
should be congratulated for what we are doing.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Many constituents who are responsible gun owners fear they
will lose freedom of gun ownership and enjoyment of game
hunting while irresponsible criminals continue their objective
of violence and illegal activities.
Will the minister give consideration and assurance to
Canadians today that in rewriting our gun control legislation he
will discern between the needs of responsible gun owners in
rural areas and the criminals who smuggle and purchase
firearms for the purpose of violence?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the overarching objective of
the government in terms of its strategy with respect to crime and
violence is the safety of Canadians. We recognize that the
regulation of firearms is only a part of that overall strategy.
In so far as firearms are regulated, I can assure the hon.
member that everything possible will be done to minimize
intrusion upon those who use rifles for lawful, hunting and
sporting purposes.
The House of Commons can expect the government to act
sternly with respect to the smuggling of illegal weapons and the
use of firearms in the commission of criminal offences. That
will be the focus of the work that we will undertake in the
months to come.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Health. Last week,
La Presse reported that
the majority of thalidomide victims had yet to receive any
compensation. Of the 424 who applied, more than 318 are still
waiting for the federal government to process their files.
Does the Minister of Health intend to intervene so that the
victims of this tragic incident for which the federal government
has already admitted responsibility can finally be compensated?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
certainly we are interested in making sure that all those who
took this drug are found and compensated. However, some cases
are less clear and that is where some problems have arisen.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister not realize that in most cases, the only possible proof
available is circumstantial and that it is precisely because the
federal government is demanding from victims this type of
proof that they are being denied justice?
(1455)
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Some proof is
always required from individuals before they can be
compensated. If this were not the case, we would leave
ourselves open to all kinds of requests. As you know, we are
grappling with debt and deficit problems. We have to scrutinize
matters very closely to see if there is some way of knowing if
these individuals are truly victims of this drug or not.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Last month's Liberal Party convention passed a resolution
from a Regina constituency association calling for the
privatization of CN Exploration and that the sale be to a
Saskatchewan company. There have been rumblings that this
sale may be conducted to benefit Liberal friends. Doug
Richardson, a former Liberal candidate and chief of staff under
Mr. Turner, has been lobbying for the sale of CN Exploration on
behalf of a Regina company whose board of directors reads like
a who's who of Liberals in Saskatchewan.
Could the minister assure the House that any privatization of
this crown corporation will be open and that the selling price
4952
will be the true market value estimated at at least $70 million,
perhaps as high as $150 million?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
obviously with the condition that we find railroads in Canada in,
with all the discussions and all the uncertainty that is out there
with respect to rail activity in Canada, any divestment by CN of
any of its assets would be reviewed meticulously and would
have to be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be in the best
interest of Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for that assurance. It is
invigorating to hear of Liberals moving to privatize crown
corporations.
Could the minister further assure the House by telling us what
steps, if any, are being taken to prevent the new Saskatchewan
owner if it is sold from flipping CN Exploration to new owners
outside of Saskatchewan to make a fast buck at the expense of
the taxpayer? Also, are the proceeds of a sale intended to go to
the federal treasury or to CN?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
there is nothing more amusing than to watch Reform acrobatics.
It is unfortunate that the question the hon. member just put was
written before he listened to the original question's answer.
What I said, and what I want to repeat, is that any deal that
would be made by CN with respect to the divestment of any of its
assets would be scrutinized. It would have to be in the best
interest of Canadian taxpayers.
To suggest that any transaction would be capable of being
reviewed to determine whether anyone in the future might make
a profit from it would be beyond even the scope of what
Reformers are capable of doing.
* * *
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
A report being prepared by the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development is predicting that the Canadian
economy is doing better than the minister predicted in his
budget.
Could the minister explain the difference between the OECD
prediction that our economy will grow by 3.9 per cent this year
and his own budget projection that the Canadian economy will
grow by 3 per cent, almost a full percentage point lower?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the
member for his question and express my surprise that none of
the members of the opposition sought to ask the very same
question.
As the member knows, when we brought forth the budget we
did so on the basis of prudent assumptions, knowing that some
of the variables would be up and others would be down.
Fortunately in this case our economic growth is substantially
better than what had been projected. Unfortunately, as the
member knows, interest rates are also worse and therefore there
is to a certain degree a levelling effect.
This, nonetheless, is very good news. It is very good news for
employment. It is very good news for the country. It is the result
of our exports, of domestic demand and of confidence in the
country. I would like to think that in some small way it is the
result of our budget and good government and the fact that we
did not adopt this short term policy-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
(1500)
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
I had occasion also to read the minister's speech in Thunder
Bay. I was concerned about a portion of the speech where the
minister talked about direct subsidies to the transportation
system. Almost all of the examples he uses of direct subsidies
are on the rail side.
It seems this perpetuates the myth that it is the rail sector of
this country which is subsidized while other sectors like air and
highways are not subsidized by the taxpayer, although it is
perhaps less direct and less explicit.
Will the minister assure the House that in whatever he intends
to do to our transportation system he will take into account the
fact that highways and airports and sectors other than rail are
heavily subsidized as well, only not explicitly? Will he keep that
in mind when he analyses the rail sector?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for his question. There is no doubt that
in the major changes that will have to take place in the
transportation system, if it is going to be affordable in Canada
we will have to maintain the notion of equity and fairness.
There is no question that the subsidies we refer to mainly deal
with rail but of course the freight subsidies in Atlantic Canada
that deal with a lot of truck transportation will have to be
reviewed.
As we go through this process the objective will be to have an
integrated affordable transportation system where all modes can
compete on an equal footing.
The Speaker: I have notice of a question of privilege from the
member for Vancouver South.
4953
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, the
hon. member for Simcoe has talked to me and I will defer until
Monday on this question.
_____________________________________________
4953
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the
amendment.
The Speaker: There is a question for the hon. member for
Beaver River.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make a few remarks to the hon. member for Beaver River, who
particularly mentioned the great generosity of Westerners to
Easterners.
I would like to remind her that no more than six or seven years
ago, some financial institutions in western Canada were in great
difficulty. Since her memory is so short, I would point out to her
that it cost the Canadian government almost $3 billion to save
the financial institutions in western Canada six or seven years
ago.
So, when it comes to her great generosity, I think that she
should remember some things and realize that Canada has
helped Westerners perhaps more than it is helping Easterners.
The other thing that I would also like to tell the hon. member
for Beaver River is that when we had problems with our credit
unions, small financial institutions in Quebec, the federal
government never helped them out. So you see that the principle
of equity is not necessarily always applied in this country. I want
to put things in their proper perspective and point out that
Canada has been very generous as well, with taxes from Quebec,
to boot.
So I would like the hon. member to retract and say that she
probably got more than she gave in the past.
(1505)
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Madam Speaker, after
my great efforts to hear the hon. member's comments, I would
respond briefly to him.
When we talk about generosity or balancing funds across the
country, let us remember the amount of money which each
province puts into Confederation. It has been made very clear to
the hon. member through various publications, and I refer
specifically to Robert Mansell, an economist from the
University of Calgary, that Alberta has been a net contributor to
Confederation. Quebec and some of the eastern Atlantic
provinces have been economic beneficiaries of national dollars.
Let us step wider and more broadly at this point to look at
some of the things which some hon. members may have
complaints about.
If we are going to try to balance out every dollar or every cent
that we gave or every cup of coffee that somebody bought for us,
we have to look at this more widely and ask what is this
Confederation that we are talking about.
It is important for all of us to note that this is something like
the family of which I spoke in my remarks and which many
others in the House have spoken of as well. In a family you
cannot balance dollars and cents. Some children require more
spending than others. We understand that. We appreciate that.
When talking about this whole situation let us not gripe about
money or one thing or another. Let us look at it as a unit, as a
family of 10 equal provinces in Confederation. I believe we are
stronger. I believe we are more likely to be able to work in the
international community as trading partners. As my leader
mentioned earlier the BQ and Quebec would be far better off
financially as part of a trading unit with Canada, a group of
people 28 million strong, in dealing and trading internationally
than trying to hunker off by itself as a market of eight million
people.
My friend is bright. I know that he understands the whole idea
of trading blocs and how we have seen blocs become much
larger.
If Quebec tries to go it on its own, it will be a much smaller
trading bloc. If the member thinks that his comments affect the
financial situation in the country, let him beware. I really do not
think going it on its own would be a viable situation. It would be
much better for it to accept the invitation of the rest of Canada
and say it will be part of this larger trading bloc than what it is
attempting to do.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker,
what you will be hearing in the next 10 minutes as I speak are the
visions and the aspirations of the people I represent. I speak for
them today as Canadians who are genuinely interested in Canada
as a whole nation.
Many Canadians wonder why their elected representatives are
spending so much time discussing national unity. In many cases
it is generally considered that politicians are the real problem,
not the good people of any province. Yes, there are differences
throughout this country but you cannot solve the problems
within a country by opting out of a country.
Because we have had many frustrating years in this country of
patronage and financial mismanagement does not mean our
nation is facing an unsolvable dilemma. The people of Atlantic
Canada have a special identifiable culture. So do Quebecers as
do people in Ontario and the west. That does not mean we do not
4954
have an identifiable Canadian culture. We do. We have a lot of
things that bind us together.
In the years to come Canadians will demand even more
equality, more of an identity and more accountability from the
federal government. I suspect we will do it together with the
same national hockey teams, the same national anthem, and the
same pride in our flag as we have today.
I firmly believe however we need a new vision, a new political
approach. The old line parties drove us to the crossroads we are
at today. We do need a change, do we not?
There is a significant frustration that exists in this 35th
Parliament, patronage, poor answers given to the opposition
parties' questions posed on behalf of their constituents,
ineffective legislation and disregard of the poor financial
conditions they got us into in the first place.
(1510 )
When that old approach is eliminated then Canada, that is all
provinces and territories together, will move ahead and lead the
world. What is it that will tie us all together? How can we share
Canada and yet respect the cultural differences of all of its parts?
We must return to the days of financial stability, of balanced
budgets and of optimism in a proud future and not a shadow of
doubt about interest payments going to foreign countries and
those kinds of issues.
It has been said that the only thing necessary for the success of
a separatist idea to prevail is for the people of this good nation to
do nothing. We must take it upon ourselves to balance this
budget with a firm, realistic approach. For instance, we cannot
reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of gross domestic product of
some $730 billion and neglect to tell the people that the
government will raise Canada's debt by $100 billion over the
next three years in doing so. That is called hocus-pocus politics.
We have seen it for 10 years. We saw it for five years before that
and we are seeing it again today.
The long range solution to the continual co-operative
coexistence of all Canadians is to increase the incentive for
ordinary Canadians to save, invest, work and employ others.
Today we make it costly to employ people and we subsidize
people to stay home. We have a system that increasingly taxes
work and subsidizes non-work.
If all provinces capture the vision of a country that lives
within its means, a country that saves for the future generations
and a country that spends on necessities, we will coexist with
respect for one another. Let me outline for members some of the
specific attributes that a united Canada will exhibit when we
finally remove the greatest impediment, the last of the
traditional party philosophies.
First, governments have no money on their own. It is not their
money. It is necessary to legislate a way by which the people can
control government spending.
Second, budgets must be balanced every three years both
provincially and federally.
Third, any borrowing by any government must be approved by
a national referendum, that is our national government, and a
provincial referendum for provincial governments.
Fourth, a vibrant private industry with little or no government
subsidization is an attribute that would lead Canada in the right
direction for the year 2000 and beyond. Finally, patronage
should be non-existent. Of course we need to have a real talk
with the folks across the way because we have seen more than
that already.
Let us for a moment review some recommendations relative
to the financial stability of our great country. If undertaken by
all Canadians, it would be motivation for all of us to work
together and to stay together.
First, all provinces should have as one of their highest
priorities the pursuit of national interests above the pursuit of
provincial interests.
Second, the system of transfer payments to the have not
provinces should be changed because it has made them less
economically viable. The provinces that receive transfers
vigorously debate why they should have more and the
transferring provinces ask why they are contributing the
amounts they do.
Third, the federal government has had access to tax revenues
well beyond those needed to discharge strictly federal
responsibilities. The patronage and the waste that is seen by the
taxpayer in all provinces must be seen to have stopped. It has not
stopped. It is continuing. Until this government gets it through
its thick regulation book that that has to stop, we are going to
have difficulties in all provinces.
If we can convince this government that strong fiscal
management and a commitment to balance the books should be a
priority, all provinces will be strongly motivated to continue
with the federation of Canada.
To ensure the financial independence of the provinces and to
place Confederation on a more firm financial footing, it is
proposed that the principle of a balanced budget be enshrined in
the Constitution. Put it there. Live by it. Live within one's
means and then watch all of the provinces feel like they are a
part of something that they can contribute to. This would require
that all government spending be financed from the current tax
revenue and that any shortfall be made up by a reduction in
expenditures.
4955
(1515)
Balancing the books also means balancing the common
market trade between provinces. We must give up this ``what's
in it for me'' attitude which is prominent among politicians. We
are at a crossroads here, a decision about the equality of
members, not who can get the most from a country that has
served us so well.
The old line political parties have a fossilized vision of
Canada. Fiscal mismanagement has led to a significant regional
difference between all provinces, not just one. It is time for a
new theme. It is time we moved out of Jurassic Park and into the
future.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Not clichés.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Yes, it is a cliché but if you
ever saw Jurassic Park, Madam Speaker, it is sitting across from
me.
I appeal to the people of Saskatchewan, Newfoundland,
Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick, Manitoba,
Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Yukon and the
Northwest Territories to set aside regional differences and work
toward a strong, financially secure nation.
Once again, a concern. Our generation of politicians are
excluding the millions of young people under the voting age in
this discussion. The future of these young Canadians is being
decided upon and they will be the ones responsible for this
decision and the mess we create. Does it sound familiar? That
very kind of philosophy was embedded in Liberalism when they
started increasing debt and borrowing year after year, as did the
Conservative Party as well. If our young could vote they would
not separate, they would build a stronger Canada.
We cannot make a strong nation by emphasizing the
differences through multicultural policies, differences through
bilingual policies, differences through special aboriginal
policies, patronage and other political toys. We are a federation
of 10 equal provinces. We are the true north strong and free. We
are our home and native land and we will always be a united
Canada.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Madam Speaker, I
would like to say that as surprising as it is coming from the
Reform Party, I am glad to hear this debate on national unity. For
20 years I have been trying to keep Canada together, doing what
I could from the other side of the country, from British
Columbia.
I would also like to remind my colleagues that we are a
democratic party. Our party is a democratic party so we vote by
consensus and majority rule.
During the Charlottetown hearings, and I attended several of
these hearings, there were several answers that came out. We
heard what Canadians wanted. The referendum was an
expensive one. Referenda are all expensive. I believe that an
election is the time for us to vote on whether the work that the
government has done is good or not.
I would also like to add that in all these discussions, and I have
been listening all morning, I never heard where the Reform
Party stands on inherent rights to aboriginal self-government.
In fact, during the Charlottetown accord hearings one of the
questions that came up constantly and one of the things that
people seemed to be agreeing more on was in fact the inherent
rights to self-government for the aboriginal people.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague where the Reform Party
stands on the inherent right of aboriginal self-government?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, I have
just two comments. It is ironic that one hears in the House, as
surprising as it is, the Reformers discussing national unity. I
would suggest that Reformers are as nationalist as the
government. The difference is how you run that government,
how you run a country and how you deal with it. I certainly do
not subscribe to its approach.
The inherent right of our aboriginal peoples has always been
of concern to Reformers. We believe in their inherent right. The
difference is that the government has yet to define what inherent
right is, what kind of management style it is, how much is it
going to cost, will the department of Indian affairs still exist and
so on.
(1520)
We believe in the inherent right of aboriginals to govern
themselves, but there are a lot of questions that have to be
answered before we would sign on the dotted line and that is
understandable.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Madam Speaker, I have
heard many motions on opposition days and I can say that this
one is flim-flam. It is phoney. It is political opportunism.
We have a six to seven-part motion. There is absolutely no
way I would support the leader of the Reform Party when he
spoke this morning of their vision of what a new Canada is.
There is absolutely no way.
I am going to refer to what the leader of the Reform Party said
on January 20. There are all sorts of other quotes in Hansard that
we can go to. This is the leader of the Reform Party speaking:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he does not want to reopen
constitutional issues at this time and that the priority of his government is jobs
and economic growth. Yet yesterday he and other members were repeatedly
drawn into heated exchanges with Bloc members on the constitutional future of
Quebec.
There are millions of Canadians, including Quebecers, who want Parliament
to focus on deficit reduction, jobs and preserving social services.
4956
Is the Prime Minister abandoning his commitment to stay out of the
constitutional swamp or is it still his resolve to stick to economic, fiscal and
social priorities?
That is exactly what the Liberal Party is doing. We are trying
to get the economy going and get the country back on track.
Madam Speaker, I can say to you, as a comment, that I have
found their position on this issue to be divisive for the country
and helpful to the Bloc. The only comparison I will make is that
the Bloc is at least honest and forthright about it. I cannot say the
same thing about the Reform Party in terms of what it is doing.
What it wants to do is divide the country and it is doing it for
crass political purposes.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, it is just
unbelievable the amount of emotion that gets into this process.
The government has moved an amendment today that wants to
eliminate such words as ``a country that is committed to
strengthening our economy''. We know that is a problem over
there, so it is taking that out. It wants to take out of the
amendment ``balancing the budgets of our government''. It also
wants to take out ``sustaining our social services, conserving our
environment, preserving our cultural heritage and diversity''.
What is wrong with a good debate on that? It is about time the
government started talking in the House about it.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Madam Speaker, the member who just
spoke was absolutely right when he said that this is a debate that
gets Canadians' emotions going. In that sense it is
uncharacteristic of how we usually approach political issues.
The government does not take one day of the year to debate
national unity. We make sure that every day of the year, every
act of government is about nation building, not tearing the
nation down.
The member spoke about how we have to cut the country into
little pieces. I heard him say a few moments ago, if we take the
power of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., British
Columbia and all the other provinces and divide it up into little
packets, that all of a sudden this is the new formula for the new
federalism.
The Government of Canada believes that we should be tested
and measured on our commitment to nation building in every
decision that we make. We cannot take a motion which by and
large is a series of platitudes. It is a series of motherhood
statements, but it is a thinly disguised attempt to once again
begin the counterproductive squabbling over the Constitution.
(1525)
I shook my head when I heard the leader of the Reform Party,
who only a few weeks ago stood in his place in the House and
pointed his finger at the Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who
for 30 years has epitomized balance, fairness, rightness and
nation building, and accused him of being involved in a family
feud because he was in his place defending the position of the
Government of Canada on a number of very important issues.
I will accede to the point that maybe the Reform Party does
not really know what its strategy is, because the approach taken
by leader of the Reform Party and his party today actually fuel
the cause of breaking up the nation. They fuel the cause of
separation. They reinforce, for anyone who cares to hear, the
fact that the nation is not being built, the nation is being cut into
little pieces.
[Translation]
With today's motion, the leader of the Reform Party tried to
do worse than simply launching futile debates. He tried to
position the Reform Party on both sides of the fence on basic
issues. He tried to play with his party's policies.
[English]
On this issue the leader of the Reform Party is trying to sit on
both sides of the fence, and that can be a very painful position.
What exactly does the leader of the Reform Party mean when
he talks about sustaining social programs? Does it mean that the
party has reversed its position against universal medicare? Does
that mean that its members now agree with the government that
we should vigorously oppose extra billing? Even more
confusing is the motion's reference to ``preserving our cultural
heritage and diversity''. What does that mean, from a party that
ran on a platform of abolishing multiculturalism? What does
that mean, from a party which introduced another motion to
oppose official bilingualism?
The Reform Party has a curiously confused policy. It wants to
preserve our cultural heritage and diversity in theory but it
wants to oppose it in practice. It is impossible to know what to
make of the wording of the Reform Party's motion.
When Reform Party members talk about diversity, are we now
to take it that they favour aboriginal self-government? When
they talk about equality, do they now favour employment
equity? Do they now favour access to decent child care for
working parents? When they talk about productive relations
with the peoples of the world, are they now in favour of
abolishing the cuts that they proposed to foreign aid? When they
talk about protecting our lives, are they now favouring the gun
control that they so vigorously opposed?
I am certain the answer to these questions is no. The Reform
Party hopes that it can get away with some fuzzy language to
mean whatever it wants it to mean.
4957
This is the message that I want to leave with the House. What
is most disturbing is that once again the Reform Party is playing
right into the hands of the separatist Bloc Quebecois. We do not
believe that the leader of the Reform Party is naive. We know
that his action is giving a platform to the Bloc to bash
federalism. As Liberals, as federalists, as Canadians, we deeply
regret that initiative.
[Translation]
This morning, Bloc members rose in the House to complain
about comments I made yesterday about their leader's presence
at the Citadel on the 50th anniversary of D-Day. What is
important, what I said yesterday and what I continue to say is
indeed very emotional. When a political party leader comes to
Canada's Parliament to try to break it up, it is indeed an
emotional issue, but I still defend with all my heart his right to
speak because what motivated the soldiers 50 years ago is the
absolute and total democracy we see with the presence of the
opposition spokespersons. What is worse, Madam Speaker, and
perhaps less generous is that the opposition leader sees nothing
wrong with travelling around the world to brag about a separate
country. He boasts about the fact that in Paris he was welcomed
like the leader of a new state but he denies the Canadian
government the same opportunity to travel to other countries to
find the economic solutions we are looking for here.
(1530)
The separatists, these so-called defenders of freedom, now
want to muzzle any financial or economic institution that does
not agree with them. We heard the comments made yesterday by
Mr. Parizeau. Today, it is the Bank of Montreal's turn.
Tomorrow it could be Wood Gundy. Tomorrow will it be
ordinary Quebecers who are denied the right to speak in a debate
so critical to our country's future?
[English]
The leader of the Bloc thinks he should be free to travel the
world promoting his view of separation in Canada and abroad,
but by God, should a minister of the crown dare to go to an
OECD meeting to exchange ideas on the economy? Deux poids,
deux mesures.
Conspiracy theories, Quebec bashing and Canada bashing
make for a few good political points, but they do nothing to
solve the country's basic economic problems.
Liberals want to take part in this debate today because we
want to concentrate on the fundamental reason we were elected
to this Parliament. That is to put Canadians back to work.
[Translation]
Last week, Shawinigan's police chief was in Hamilton,
Shawinigan's twin city. We spent the whole day together. You
know, Madam Speaker, what struck me and continues to strike
me is that, if you ask young people in Shawinigan, Chicoutimi,
the Lac-Saint-Jean region, Hamilton or Toronto what they are
looking for, they will tell you they share the same goals.
I am the godmother of a two-year-old girl in Montreal who
speaks French at home even though her father is an anglophone.
It may surprise some separatists who do not know how
Quebecers live but there are such people. Twenty-five
French-speaking Liberal members worked here in this House
and elsewhere in the country to defend minority rights across
this beautiful country of ours. Do you think that, on the day that
Canada ceases to exist, minorities will still have rights? Do you
think that the millions of francophones now living in Timmins,
Sudbury, Haileybury, New Brunswick, or Saint-Albert, will
have a say in the new political reality?
Madam Speaker, why not work here together on issues
affecting all our young people, work hard to try to renew our
social assets, our human resources, because one thing is
obvious: If you are about to get training in Montreal, Toronto or
Vancouver, the current system does not work. But instead of
letting both sides of the House work together, all the Bloc does is
put up roadblocks and whine; they refuse to accept anything
good just because it comes from the federal government.
[English]
The saddest thing is that if you scrape away all the politics, if
you scrape away the regional infighting, if you talk to a young
person in Lethbridge, Red Deer or Dawson Creek, they share the
same dreams. They share the same needs as the young people in
Chicoutimi or Chibougamau.
(1535)
The unfortunate tone and nature of this debate is that the
Reform Party and the Bloc seem to believe that by carving up the
country into linguistic pieces or geographic pieces, somehow we
will make the nation better. What they do not understand is that
any nation that wants to build for the future has to understand its
past. Look at the reality of Canada.
[Translation]
Why? Why are we recognized throughout the world as a
generous nation? It is because we decided, at the very beginning
of our history, in our Constitution, to create a country with the
two founding nations, and this is a fundamental element of who
we are today.
Why do we have laws on firearms which differ greatly from
those of our American neighbour? It is because we believed, at
the beginning of our history, that both the individual and the
community, not the individual alone, must define the priorities
for our society.
And the role of the community was enshrined in the
Constitution itself, in 1867. Yes, there were problems. We lived
and we continue to live difficult periods. But this is like a
marriage:
4958
either you communicate and achieve something great, or else
you shut the door.
Unfortunately, what is happening is that the hon. members
opposite are closing the door. They have no interest in helping
the Canadian economy. They have no interest in putting the
young unemployed from Roberval to work because if young
jobless in Roberval find work it will reflect favourably on the
economy and the Government of Canada.
[English]
If the Reform Party really wanted to advance the cause of
federalism and unity it would focus on the important task of
rebuilding the economy and meeting the real challenges of the
21st century.
Canadians voted last October for a message of hope. They
voted for honesty and integrity in government. We have made
mistakes and we will continue to make mistakes, but by and
large the hallmark of this government is honesty and integrity.
They voted for an end to jurisdictional wrangling and indeed the
Prime Minister is proud that he has promised to focus on a jobs
agenda and to stay off the eternal treadmill of constitutional
dissension. Ask ourselves the best question: Where else in the
world would we rather want to live?
[Translation]
Is it true or not that Canada, in spite of all the problems and
challenges, is the best place in the world to raise children?
[English]
It is the best place in the world to grow up. It is the best place
in the world to be sick. It is the best place in the world to build a
future.
We are moving to tear down those interprovincial barriers.
My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry, is working very hard on accomplishing real tasks to get
Canadians back to work.
A Reform Party member laughed earlier about what we were
doing with the infrastructure program. I can say that in the
Labourers' International Union hall in my riding when they get
called to go out to a job they are not laughing. They are thanking
God that a Liberal government had the good sense to put in place
a very specific and direct job action to get Canadians back to
work. That is a case of functional federalism: a country that puts
Canadians back to work.
In the space of five months the minister responsible for
infrastructure signed agreements with every single province to
deliver on specific programs, no mean task.
[Translation]
According to the OECD, this year our economy will grow by
3.9 per cent. That is almost 4 per cent. And next year, the
economic growth is expected to reach 4.5 per cent.
(1540)
Canadians were right when they elected our government.
They understood its message. Economic recovery is what will
make our country work. The best way to ensure Canadian unity
is to strengthen the things which unite us, not the things which
separate us.
If you had the opportunity to spend half an hour with my
seven-year old daughter, you would see that she shares the
dreams and hopes of every Canadian child. Sure, we can put the
emphasis on what does not work. Even if this was not Canada,
there would still be some bickering between the various levels
of government. If the federal government is not involved, then it
is a municipality against the province or the region. It is part of
human nature to think that things are not going well. It is an
obvious thing to do, it is normal and it is even desirable.
But to go so far as to say that the federal system is no longer
working, is finished, is not only to show a lack of logic but-
[English]
It is a denial. It is a denial of the real wishes of every single
citizen of this country to be given the opportunity to achieve to
the best of their ability.
[Translation]
They do not want us to come here to whine, to bicker and to
fiddle. They want us to come here to put our country back to
work.
You can always find excuses to make it not work, as
demonstrated by the motion tabled today.
[English]
Our objective is not to be dragged into the constitutional
morass but rather to work with Canadians as we have worked.
Last week we signed the first ever Atlantic environmental
accord which put Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick
and Prince Edward Island together to work with the federal
government for positive environmental change. That is about
government that works.
We do not need constitutional amendments and we do not
need the kind of negative rhetoric of the Reform Party. What we
need is a plan to put Canadians back to work to build a better
country.
We do not want one language group to succeed over another.
English only is not the solution. If one language group succeeds
at the expense of another, Canada is not working. When Canada
is working every language group has the right and the privilege
to be everything they want to be. That is what the Liberal vision
of Canada is all about. When I can stand in the House of
Commons with a Chinese immigrant who came to this country
and is now Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific and is proud to
4959
speak more than one language, that is about making Canada
work and using the talent of every citizen.
Our agenda is an economic agenda. Our agenda is a social
agenda. Our agenda is a healing agenda. If we stay on the
straight and narrow, the road the Prime Minister has set for us-
[Translation]
-if we put the emphasis on job creation and economic growth,
it is obvious that Canadians and Canada will work, which is our
goal in this whole debate on Canadian unity.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Madam Speaker,
several things which the hon. member for Hamilton East alluded
to talked about our playing into the hands of the BQ, that we
were bashing federalism, that we were engaging in negative
rhetoric and that we were on a constitutional treadmill.
Let me make it painfully clear so that every member in this
House understands. We are not talking about the Constitution as
such. We are talking about federalism and this is what needs to
be discussed in this House. Surely there is a difference between
wrangling about the Constitution and about federalism. There is
not one person in this House, I hope, who would talk about how
dreadful Canada is. That is simply not true.
(1545)
We heard those comments coming across. We believe this
country is worth fighting so hard for that we are here out of other
careers, not people who have made their living off politics for
years and years. We are asking for an open and frank discussion
about this, not getting into the tirades that we have heard about.
This is not right.
When we talk about such things as our position on
bilingualism let me remind the member again because of any
one else on the government side she probably has poured over
our blue sheet more than anyone else. The member well knows
the position of this party on official bilingualism. It is not what
she referred to as English only.
Let me give the hon. member a chance to say that there is
something positive about a debate on this. Perhaps it is
unfortunate that someone else came up with the idea before they
did.
I heard the member for Brant talking about how confused she
is about the election and how people did not talk about the
Constitution. Much has changed. I would like the hon. member
to comment on this. We did not talk about it at great lengths
because Charlottetown was so new and Meech Lake was so new
and painful. However, we discussed this in the election last fall.
May I ask the member to comment on the fact that things are
much different now. There were eight BQ in the House last time
around and there are now 54.
Quite frankly the Liberals got smoked in Quebec during the
election and she knows that. The provincial situation there is
much different now than it was last fall as an election is
imminent.
May she discuss with us very briefly why there is such an
obsession on the other side to defend status quo federalism, as
her comrade from Brant talked about earlier. Why is there is
such a partisan difficulty with a tirade in this? Why can we not
just discuss this so that we are building a new country together
and the BQ and others in Quebec would want to come to it?
Ms. Copps: Madam Speaker, I guess I get excited about the
issue because I care about the future of my country. I believe that
the motives of the member certainly are moving in the same
direction. She cares about the country. She wants to see the
country stay together. I appeal to her and to her colleagues that
the direction of their policies would have the unfortunate and
unexpected opposite effect.
When they introduced a motion, as they did only a few weeks
ago to basically carve up the country into linguistic categories
where there would be English in all the provinces except Quebec
and then French except on the west island of Montreal, they
were reinforcing the idea that somehow what is going to keep
this country together is a kind of linguistic ghettoization.
I believe the unexpected results of their policies are to feed
into the same kind of message that the Bloc is using to encourage
people in Quebec to follow the road of separation.
The simple message of the Bloc is that Quebec works without
Canada. The unfortunate message of the linguistic policies of
the Reform Party is that Canada would work better without
Quebec. That is the message that comes out. The distinction of
the policies of the Liberal Party and the policies of the
Government of Canada is that a fundamental tenant of our
party's belief is that this nation historically was built and in the
future will be built on the principle of two founding nations and
the importance of every other person who came to this country.
My great grandparents came from Ireland. Technically they
were neither anglophones nor francophones. They were on the
republican side of the Irish.
The reality is other individuals and groups have come
together to form an incredible strength, a real asset to this
country. In recognizing the fundamental rights of two founding
peoples we underline the importance of providing opportunities
and equality for every citizen of this country. I think it is
important to compare that with the route taken by the United
States that did not have a two founding nations principle. It
basically said to
4960
their minorities: ``Jump in with us, meld with us and we are
going to make it''.
The reality is that the framing of the Canadian Constitution
originally set the stage for a partage, a co-operative approach
that said every part of this country can speak different languages
and make the system work.
(1550 )
I think that is the fundamental difference between the one
language policy of their party and the two people policy of the
Liberal government.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Madam Speaker,
the minister spoke with a lot of emotion, but I say we have to
find a balance in passion and reason. Where were the minister's
emotions on Meech Lake and Charlottetown? I will look at this
in a reasonable way.
We have reached the point where, although we are all part of
the same country, we do not really live in the same house. We are
part of that country but we have to go in through the back door.
We simply want to be a people, to have our own house and leave
the other house to those who want to live in it. They say Canada
is wonderful. They are absolutely right. But Quebec is
wonderful too, and afterwards, we will be able to say that
Canadians and Quebecers are still the best of friends. We can
live as good neighbours, we can be happy and we can work
together.
Earlier, I heard Reform Party members say they wanted
another Canada. We have wanted another Canada for 15, 20 or
even 50 years, but it never happened. When I say that we want to
become sovereign, you say no, no, no. When an eighteen-year
old wants to leave home, will his father give him cookies and
candy to get him to stay? Why do they want to keep us from
leaving? That is my question.
Ms. Copps: Madam Speaker, I do not hand out cookies or
candy, and I think it is insulting for Quebecers to be told they can
have candy if they stay in Canada.
There are certain things that have to be discussed. First of all,
the hon. member talked about good friends, and of course we
have good friends across this beautiful country. When a husband
and wife who get along well, and are very good friends but
decide to separate and finally to divorce, I do not know whether
you saw the movie The War of the Roses, but you can have the
most logical people in the world, but when emotions surface,
that is the struggle between passion and reason.
Second, when the Leader of the Opposition went to
Washington, he mentioned the fact that we had the best social
security system in the world. He told Americans that he wanted a
U.S. passport for his son. He said his wife wanted a U.S.
passport for her son so he would have dual citizenship, because
she is a republican and proud of it. This was in an interview he
gave in Washington. He also confirmed the fact that despite
everything that was said about Quebecers in the past-the Prime
Minister and Leader of the Opposition are both Quebecers-
everything that was said in the course of Canadian history and
during the period before the quiet revolution, today, as
Quebecers within a united Canada, you are in a position to face
the real challenges of the twenty-first century, and you have a
level of entrepreneurship that is unique in this country. Use it.
You are also talented-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the minister. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Madam Speaker, without
a doubt, the presentation we have just heard paints a picture of
Canada that is nothing more than an illusion. The Deputy Prime
Minister is a master illusionist, skilled at relating facts in a very
interesting, entirely believable way, while concealing certain
realities that must be brought to light today. And we intend to do
just that.
(1555)
Let us not forget that as recently as yesterday, in her Canada,
the Deputy Prime Minister questioned the right of the Leader of
the Official Opposition in this House, and of a member whose
father fought in Europe, to lay a wreath in honour of the
Quebecers who died because they shared the same ideals as
soldiers from other nations.
In the Deputy Prime Minister's Canada, francophones outside
Quebec, in particular those living in Kingston, have to fight to
get adequate French-language schools with running water and
washrooms.
In 1994, in the Deputy Prime Minister's Canada,
francophones outside Quebec must fight to obtain which has
long been viewed as necessary in all civilized countries. In her
Canada, each citizen inherits a debt of $18,000 when he or she
comes into this world. This is reality, not an illusion.
In the Deputy Prime Minister's Canada, the job prospects of
citizens are the bleakest of all industrialized countries. The rate
of unemployment hovers anywhere between 12 per cent and 14
per cent, depending on the circumstances, and stands as high as
20 per cent in a region such as the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean to
which she referred several times in her speech.
Yes, we intend to talk about the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
region, about young people who want to work in this country and
about the Deputy Prime Minister's idealistic vision of Canada.
The Canada of which she spoke with such apparent sincerity a
while ago is the Canada which patriated the Constitution in 1982
without the consent of the country's only predominantly
francophone province. This is the country which imposed on an
extremely important minority which accounts for nearly the
entire population of a province, an unwanted Constitution
hatched behind Quebec's back. This Canada is the end result of
the odious work of numerous representatives of this govern-
4961
ment over the years. Exactly what kind of work are we talking
about?
Since you want to hear about it, let us set aside the traditional
legitimate demands of the French-speaking majority in Quebec;
let us set aside all these demands to take a closer look at the
sorry, obscure role that the leading lights in this government
played in our recent history. When did relations become most
embittered in Canada?
Remember the reign of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Remember that
period of very great centralization when the Prime Minister,
obviously, decided that his conception of Canada, which was
supported by his colleagues, was a country where power had to
be centralized and the provinces were only secondary.
Do you want to know one of the major problems which
explains our presence here in this House today debating a
motion in which it is clear that the Deputy Prime Minister's
great beautiful Canada is breaking up? One of the main reasons
is the odious centralizing attitude that ignores the French fact
which Prime Minister Trudeau had in a recent past.
(1600)
Madam Speaker, I will remind you that in other circumstances
it was possible to think that in this would-be ideal Canada there
would be room for Quebec, a proper decent place for Quebec.
But I tell you it always happened when the voters had gotten rid
of a Liberal government. Whenever Canada was governed by the
Liberal Party in our recent history, there has been no political
peace. The people who are crying today, trying to tell us what a
shame it is that the separatists are in this House-who were
democratically elected, we must say-what a pity it is that these
people offer a different political position from their own.
You must be blind not to see the frightful role played by
successive Liberal governments in this Parliament which denied
the very existence of the French fact in Quebec. These
governments always strove for centralization, which is no
longer acceptable in Quebec. Is that clear? Quebec no longer
accepts the centralizing attitude that those people believe in.
You remember the Meech Lake Accord; everyone does. This
was an extremely important political moment for Quebec. Yes,
Quebecers gave Canada a last chance for a face-lift. Yes,
Quebecers successfully negotiated minimum conditions with
the other provinces, the other regions of Canada and the federal
government. It cannot be denied that all Quebecers made a
tremendous effort to accept the five conditions behind the
Meech Lake Accord. Even the premiers, may I remind you,
undertook to convince their respective provinces that these
demands were acceptable.
What are these demands? Recognition of Quebec as a distinct
society and of Quebec's National Assembly's role in promoting
this distinctiveness. Was it surprising, outrageous, odious to ask
that Quebec francophones, who form a people, be recognized as
a distinct society? I think it is a basic requirement.
Recognition of the federal government's spending power but
with the right to opt out and full compensation for the provinces
because the central government's unfortunate tendency to
invade areas of provincial jurisdiction had to be contained to
prevent this society from expressing itself as it saw fit in the
future.
Quebec's participation in the appointment of three civil-law
judges to the Supreme Court; entrenchment of the
Cullen-Couture Agreement in the Constitution, that is,
Quebec's power to control its immigration and to protect the
very nature of the Quebec people; the provinces' unanimous
agreement to reform some federal institutions. Everyone in
Quebec as well as many people in English Canada thought these
demands were quite acceptable. They were very minimal but
they at least made a dialogue possible.
Do you know what made the premiers go back on their word?
Let us look at those mainly responsible for the failure of the last
great historic opportunity to achieve this wonderful Canada
described by the Deputy Prime Minister.
(1605)
Do you remember someone called Clyde Wells? He does not
belong to the Bloc, the Parti Quebecois or the Reform Party.
Clyde Wells is a Liberal, Madam Speaker, just like the Liberals
opposite.
Do you know Mr. McKenna? McKenna is neither a Bloquiste
nor a Reformer but a Liberal.
Do you remember Sharon Carstairs? She was not a member of
the government but what role did she play in making the Meech
Lake Accord impossible to accept? Ms. Carstairs was not a Tory,
a Bloquiste, a Pequiste or a Reformer; she was another Liberal.
Finally, Madam Speaker, we all remember the extraordinary
role played by the hon. member for Churchill, also a Liberal,
who resorted to technicalities to ensure that the Meech Lake
Accord would not be accepted in his province.
Those are the people who played a major role in the failure of
the Meech Lake Accord. Those are Liberals who, on the evening
of the Meech failure, the evening of the Liberal convention,
hugged the current leader of the party and Prime Minister. Those
are the ones to blame. Those people, who prevented the
ratification of the five conditions deemed acceptable by all the
parties involved for Canada to continue to be a viable option, are
the
4962
true responsibles for that failure and the situation in which we
find ourselves today.
Yet, these same people come here and try to teach a lesson to
Reform Party members, to Bloc Quebecois members, and to
everyone else, with their vision of Canada. These people are
fooling Canadians. I want to be clear. You are fooling
Canadians. Stop burying your head in the sand. Face reality as it
exists in Canada.
Surely, not everybody on the other side is disconnected from
reality. There must be people who are sensitive to the needs of
Francophones. There must be people who are still able to
understand that democracy has rendered its verdict in Quebec
and that the Bloc Quebecois is here for a very specific reason.
We campaigned by promoting sovereignty for Quebec, and I
have something to say to the Liberals opposite. Whether you
like it or not, we will promote Quebec sovereignty in every
possible way. We will use every argument to explain, not only to
Quebecers, but also to other nations, to people abroad, and to
others in Canada, how this eminently democratic project will be
based on a serious, responsible, democratic and proper process
which will be respectful of people and realities.
This process will be similar to our interventions here in this
House. It will reflect the spirit of co-operation which we have
always displayed to ensure that this Parliament operates the way
it should.
I will conclude by saying that we have no lessons in
democracy to receive from the other side. If there is a place in
Canada where a minority is treated with respect and is an
integral part of the community, it is the English-speaking
minority in Quebec.
Which other region of the country provides its minority with a
complete network of school boards, schools, hospitals, health
care facilities? These institutions are not only at the service of
the minority: They are also controlled by anglophones in
Quebec.
(1610)
Yes, we respect Quebec's anglophones. Yes, we intend to keep
building bridges with a community that is an integral part of
Quebec as it is today.
I suggest members opposite to do the same in their part of the
country. We do not need any advice on how to be democratic and
respect the rights of others. We are doing a very good job, thank
you very much, as far as democracy is concerned, and we intend
to finish what we have set out to do. I admit there were other
alternatives in the past, but we intend to go ahead with our plan
because across the way are the real perpetrators of the
constitutional mess Canada has been in since the eighties.
Two Liberal Prime Ministers in succession have created a
situation that has become intolerable in this country. They are
the real culprits, and they keep denying it. They even got
themselves an ineffable Prime Minister who, with 54
sovereigntist members elected to Parliament, went around
saying: ``There will be no debate on the Constitution during my
mandate. There are no constitutional problems in Canada''. That
takes some doing, Madam Speaker.
As long as we have people on that side of the House who will
not face the facts. As long as, day after day, we see
ever-increasing attempts at centralization, as has been the case
since we were elected to this House a few months ago. As long as
we see these shocking attempts at patriating powers to the
central government. As long as we see federal-provincial
conferences being postponed because not only Quebec but most
provincial governments can no longer tolerate federal intrusions
into their jurisdictions. As long as we have a political situation
in which people in Ottawa do not make the effort to understand
the different realities of Canada's regions, not just the
circumstances in Quebec but those in the other regions as well.
As long as we are governed by people who show so little interest
in what happens in Canada's regions, we will continue to see
centralist offensives and provinces, premiers and citizens who
protest, and they will have to deal with these problems in their
own Canada, because Quebec, I am positive, will have decided,
in a democratic way, to make its own choices.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Madam Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister had said that she was hurt to see the
Leader of the Opposition lay a wreath, but she defended his right
to do so because she believes in a democratic country. I shared
her hurt and pain when I went over to the war memorial on
Monday and the first group of MPs I saw were the Bloc, the
separatists.
Yes, separatists lost family during the war, but it was a war in
which Canada fought as one united nation to preserve one united
nation. While I have defended the right for the Bloc to be the
party of the opposition in my riding, it hurt me to see the people
who would destroy this country.
I would also like to suggest that the leader of the Reform Party
must feel very pleased with what he has wrought today. I wonder
what goes on in the lobby of the opposition side, the collusion,
the strategy, the working together, the flip side of the coin, the
Quebec without Canada, the Canada without Quebec. Madam
Speaker, I would suggest that when you watch the news tonight
you will see the member from the other side as he raises his
voice and his face turns red and he yells and screams ``more
rights, more rights for Quebec,'' and I tell you how difficult it
will be to defend his right to sit in this House in my riding.
4963
(1615)
We can thank the leader of the Reform for being irresponsible
in heating up the rhetoric in this debate. If the member on the
other side is respectful of people's rights then my question to
you is why do you ignore and why do you choose not to respect
the rights of the native people in Quebec in their path toward
sovereignty and self-government.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Madam Speaker, what is there to
say! The hon. member is attempting to give us a lesson in
democracy and while I am convinced that she is not acting in bad
faith, I feel she has neglected to consider the important role I
alluded to earlier that was played by these leaders, by the first
ministers and ministers.
The hon. member tells me that she was hurt to see the Leader
of the Opposition pay tribute to the soldiers who died. First of
all, the Canada which these soldiers defended was not the same
country that later was coerced, manipulated, despoiled, altered
and tormented without Quebec's consent. That is something the
hon. member should first understand. The Canada bequeathed to
us by Mr. Trudeau, her former leader and the former Prime
Minister, the Canada in which Quebecers no longer feel at home,
is not the same Canada that we knew back then. We must not lose
sight of this fact.
Regardless of our political option, are we to be denied the
right to pay homage to those who came before us and who fought
to preserve our democratic values? Are we to be denied this
right? Is this a country in which people will become indignant
because we are allowed to pay tribute to our own sons who
fought for democracy?
More than anyone, we hope that respect for democratic values
is deeply rooted in this Parliament because this principle will
one day help us to achieve the objective we hold so dear.
With respect to native rights, without delving into this subject
too deeply because of time constraints, I would just like to say to
the hon. member that if she was truly up on native issues, she
would realize that native people in Quebec far and away enjoy
the best standard of living of all native peoples. Far and away.
She would also realize that it was in Quebec that natives first
obtained some recognition from the government, something
which natives living elsewhere cannot even hope to secure.
She forgets that in Quebec, negotiations and discussion
involving more than two thirds of the territory have taken place.
An agreement was reached with the Cree of James Bay and with
the Inuit, an agreement signed by all parties. This was nothing
like the unilateral agreements of the past, but a genuine,
all-party agreement which resolved a slew of problems that
have yet to be settled anywhere else in Canada.
(1620)
Of all the provinces in Canada, Quebec more than anyone else
has engaged in the broadest, liveliest, most open and most
consensual dialogue with native peoples.
I would ask the hon. member to speak to the Minister of Indian
Affairs, to discuss this issue with him and to call upon the other
provinces to do for their native communities what Quebec has
done. This would be a major step forward.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Madam Speaker,
this member from the Bloc can huff and puff and shout and make
a lot of noise and it really will not matter-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, I am going to
interrupt. I would ask hon. members to recognize when the Chair
recognizes someone. I do not have to be told what side they are
on. I see them standing and I see who stands first. Continue
please.
Mr. Harvard: Madam Speaker, I think I will start over again.
This member from the Bloc can huff and puff and fume and
point his finger and get as red faced as he wants. However
Canadians will see him for what he is. He is a political
grandstander and there is not a shred of credibility in anything
he says.
Unfortunately the leader of the Reform Party has to take
major responsibility for the spectacle in the House this
afternoon. The leader of the Reform Party has built this trap, a
trap that only the Bloc Quebecois could build.
What does the Bloc want? The Bloc wants us squabbling over
the Constitution. The Bloc wants us squabbling over federalism.
The Bloc wants us squabbling over Canada and that is exactly
what we have had all afternoon. We have had this wrangle over
our country, the greatest country in the world. The leader of the
Reform Party has to take full responsibility for this spectacle.
I want to say this about the Bloc. It takes advantage of
Canada's democracy. It takes advantage of our generosity.
Where else in the world would we allow the Leader of the
Opposition to go around the country spreading separatism and
doing his level best to destroy the country?
I tell the member of the Bloc who just spoke that if he were a
citizen of another country he would be behind bars. He would be
in jail. However this is the kind of country that we have because
we allow through his democratic rights to spread this vile
separatism.
Do you know what, Madam Speaker, I will support his right to
say these things, but by golly we will fight him wherever we find
him. We are going to beat him at his own game because
ultimately this democracy is going to succeed. We are going to
defeat separatism. We are going to beat the Bloc. We are going
to beat all of them, all 54 of them because this is a great country
4964
and all Canadians realize that, as do Quebecers. So they can go
all they want. We are going to win this battle.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Point of order, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to make
something clear. The time allowed is 20 minutes plus 10 minutes
for questions or comments. There are questions or comments.
An hon. member: There are two minutes left.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There are not two
minutes left. I am sorry, but I kept track of the time very
carefully. The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie on a
point of order.
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, I would ask the House
whether there is unanimous consent, as we did this morning
when we agreed to let a member of the Liberal Party respond.
We did it this morning with great generosity.
(1625)
I imagine we in the House are feeling very generous, as the
hon. member opposite just said, and will give the last speaker 30
or 45 seconds, as you did this morning, I think, to respond to the
comments. I therefore ask for unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House heard the
motion. Does the hon. member for Roberval have the unanimous
consent of the House to respond?
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Madam
Speaker, after the fire and brimstone of recent minutes, which
reminded me of a Wagnerian opera performed by a travelling
company in a provincial town, I would like to return to the
subject of the debate, which is the motion moved by the leader of
the Reform Party and the amendment moved by the leader of the
government in the House. That concerns the issue of
constitution making in our times and this issue of federalism.
I will come back to a point raised by the Reform Party which
is a criticism of the government for a failure to define what the
leader of the Reform Party has said, a constitutional program for
the Quebec referendum.
There is a time when it is ripe for constitution making in any
society but in the majority of times, it is just not simply right.
The only successful ventures in constitution making occur in a
period of national euphoria, a national consensus usually
following on a great military victory or a great revolution. We
have not had those in Canada and therefore changes have had to
be made on a basis of pragmatic incremental adjustment on a
step by step basis. It has worked rather well.
A problem that is basic to the Reform Party leader's program
is that there are, as President Franklin Roosevelt used to say:
``Too many ifs there'': if a certain party should win a certain
election in a province, if it should then go on to a referendum, if
it should then win a referendum, if it should then decide the
majority is enough to ask for negotiations and if, finally, the
other party should itself decide the numbers are sufficient to
give credibility to the vote and to warrant negotiations in return.
It is a counsel of folly to suggest defining constitutional
conditions for an iffy situation of this sort. A Constitution is as
Mr. Justice Owen Roberts of the United States Supreme Court
once said: ``A constitution is not a railway excursion ticket good
for one particular journey at one particular time and one
particular place''. The ideas you put forward have to have a long
range currency.
One has the feeling that constitution making is being put
forward as it was in the Mulroney era as a substitute for serious
substantive thinking on economic matters. We want no more of
the travelling circuses of Meech and Charlottetown. They were a
failure and not the answer to the problems of the time.
If I may venture the critique of the Reform Party
constitutional agenda, it is that there is an absence of a coherent
overall vision. It seems to be a collection of ad hoc responses to
a particular problem in which the deemed political advantage
seems to be very high.
I noted and agreed with some of the criticisms made by the
Reform Party on Bill C-18 but I deplore the total absence of
substantive ideas on electoral reform which go to the core of the
constituent process and are more important than the
constitutional processes themselves.
I also wonder if the emphasis on the constitutionally acute
proposals; referendum, initiative and recall do not disguise the
absence of more fundamental thinking and depth on more
fundamental issues such as the relationship between executive
and legislative power and the need for a strong countervailing
power, whether legislative or judicial, to the imperial executive
that one is tended to have in Westminster derived constitutional
systems today.
Finally on native Indian self-government I find enormous
ambiguity that needs resolution and perhaps disguises political
divisions within a party.
Let us return to the issue. What is the approach of the Liberal
government on the Quebec issue? At this stage we can say there
are some limiting parameters and these need to be said. The
federal government has a totality of constitutional power to
4965
control and determine the holding of a referendum by a
provincial government on a subject such as leaving the federal
system.
(1630)
For political reasons which were no doubt right and proper in
1980 the decision was made not to exercise those. The
controlling parameters today would certainly include the ability
to scrutinize a question and make sure that it is clear and
unambiguous and not like the deliberately cloudy formula put
forward in October 1980.
Second, there is a necessary control of the timing and I think it
is clear that this will be the last referendum allowed. We cannot
have the country on roller skates going from one referendum to
another year after year; once more, no more after.
Third, there are to be no special deals, constitutional deals
made in preparation for referendum for any one province within
the country. Canada is not a supermarket offering a special one
day deal for one occasion at any time.
To come back to the approach of the Liberal government, is
there a Chrétien doctrine? The leader of the Reform Party has
suggested that there is not. I think the difference and the subtlety
of the approach are well rooted in common law
constitutionalism and common law constitution making. The
Chrétien doctrine is closer today to the pluralistic federalism of
the Pearson era, sometimes called co-operative federalism, than
it is to the neo-Keynesian imperatives of the Mulroney
government and to some extent perhaps the Trudeau government
at certain periods.
The approach is not the Sermon on the Mount, a set of abstract
a priori rules conceived in an ivory tower in the political vacuum
away from concrete problems. It is essentially a pragmatic,
empirical, problem oriented, step by step approach. I think this
is the only one proper and possible effectively in an era of
fundamental change such as we have in Canada and in the world
community as a whole.
Among the considerations, to examine that sovereignty is a
19th century concept is simply out of date in a era when
supernational legal engagements like the free trade agreement,
like NAFTA and NATO are entered into and, as we saw in our
debate on cruise missiles, are regarded as binding even if
governments may think in particular cases that they were wrong,
as I think our government felt in relation to the Mulroney
decision on cruise missiles. We accepted it as part of our
supernational obligations.
There is the passing of sovereignty even in a period of which
you notice the contradictions, the survival of the contradictions,
and the revival of ethnic particularism in a pathological sense as
we have had in Bosnia-Hercegovina and other areas of the
world.
What we really need is an operational philosophy of
federalism rigorously empirical and problem oriented. Among
the areas in which I think action has already been taken I will
commend the emergence of this operational pragmatism in the
approach to the infrastructure program which is designed to
produce the economic recovery. It involves continuing and
close co-operation with the provinces and with municipalities
in which abstract a priori structures of government that divide
power between federal and provincial governments are sensibly
modified by the parties. It also involves the removal of
interprovincial trade barriers and that rests on negotiation and
discussion.
In my own constituency my assistants are now arguing before
the electoral boundaries commissions, presenting a case. It
involves a commitment to plural ethnic constituencies and not
the mono-ethnic constituencies of yesteryear which are very
close to 19th century approaches to multiculturalism or
multinational societies.
In the area of native Indians I commend the House to Bill
C-33 and Bill C-34 whose debate was rudely stopped a week
ago just as it was beginning.
(1635 )
There you do have a species of consensual pragmatism
between the main parties, the native Indian leaders in the Yukon
and the government in which a highly pragmatic, step by step
approach to self-government within Canadian federalism and
subject to the bill of rights has been worked out. I think this is a
model of intelligent constitution making for the 21st century.
We have arrived at it well before the 21st century.
The reform of Parliament is something to which the Prime
Minister is personally committed. I think he realizes, because
his approach is closer to the gentler pragmatism of Prime
Minister Pearson, that Parliament has a function, that it is a
necessary countervailing power to the executive. The changes
that can be made here are wholly within federal power.
At the end of the day you do have a continuing, coherent
constitutional process yielding precise, empirically based
principles. They are problem oriented and therefore likely to
stand the test of challenge of changing events.
The problem with the Sermon on the Mount is that it is an
illusion created for people who want simple panaceas, divorce
from concrete problem situations.
There, as I see it, is the Chrétien doctrine. It is a constitutional
philosophy. As was said in Molière's Le bougeois gentilhomme,
you can speak prose all your life, even though you do not
recognize it. The essence of operational pragmatism is at the
heart of the received common law constitutionalism we have
had in Canada and which has been enriched by civil law
components as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Madam
Speaker, my hon. colleague, who is a specialist on constitutional
issues, made some remarks which I think should be pointed out.
As to whether the question in Quebec will be clear, we told you
4966
long ago what it would be: ``Do Quebecers want Quebec to
become a sovereign country?'' I think that is very clear.
I will say that when it comes to clear political positions and
democracy, Quebec does not have much to learn. I think of the
law on party financing; in Quebec, only voters can contribute to
political parties, which is not the case here, where unions and
big companies can finance parties, like the Liberal Party. So it
will be done very democratically, as usual.
Will there be more than one referendum? Look at history.
Newfoundland joined Canada after more than one referendum.
All Canadians were never asked to vote on whether they would
welcome Newfoundland into the federation or not. They
recognized Newfoundland's choice and Newfoundlanders made
their own decision, just as Quebecers' right to do the same
should be recognized.
We are also told that sovereignty is a thing of the past, a
nineteenth-century concept. Does that mean for my colleague
and for the Liberal Party that Canada's sovereignty is a thing of
the past? If having a large unit is important, why not join the
United States? Either a line of reasoning is valid or it is not.
Personally, I think that Canadian sovereignty is important and
that Canada should exist as an independent country, a neighbour
of the United States; similarly, if it is important for Canada, I do
not see why it could not be so for Quebec, which also has the
right to sovereignty, just as Canada has the right to sovereignty.
I am coming to the issue of the right to self-determination. It
was recognized by the NDP in the 1960s, by the Conservative
Party in 1991 in Toronto and its leader, the Prime Minister,
wrote in a book around 1985 that his participation in the 1980
referendum was de facto recognition of Quebec's right to
self-determination.
I end with a question. The other day, my colleague and I heard
Professor Jackson of Carleton tell a House committee that, the
way he sees things, Quebec is a nation, even though he is for
Canadian unity; he thinks that Diefenbaker was wrong to speak
of ``one nation'' when he should have spoken of ``one country''.
(1640)
So, his colleague, who is also a constitutionalist, spoke of the
existence of the Quebec nation. I want to ask the hon. member if,
as a member of the Liberal Party, which recognizes the First
Nations, he recognizes that, like the First Nations, Quebec is a
nation too.
This is a question which his colleague for Outremont did not
deign answer the other day, for obvious reasons. However,
knowing that the member is an honest constitutionalist, I want to
know if he indeed considers that Quebec is a nation.
Mr. McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question on the referendum question. My comments only
applied to the question worded in 1980. There was then a
calculated ambiguity which, in my opinion, would not be
acceptable today.
On the issue of political party financing, I am in favour of a
comprehensive reform of the system.
As regards self-determination, there are many opportunities
to exercise that right. Such a right can be exercised within a
federal system, as the Yukon natives chose to do.
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I
ask for the unanimous consent of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I understand that you
rise on a point of order, but we cannot go on and on after each
speaker.
Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra to conclude?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mr. McWhinney: Regarding the last question on
sovereignty-
Mr. Duceppe: The nation. Quebec as a nation.
Mr. McWhinney: According to the international law, the
right to self-determination is limited to peoples, not to nations.
Consequently, as regards peoples, international law does not
require any answer for a separation.
Mr. Duceppe: Is Quebec a nation?
Mr. McWhinney: A nation is a group of people, there is no
doubt about that. However the term ``nation'' is not a word-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order, please.
Resuming debate.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Madam Speaker, I would just
like to reiterate that today we have been listening to 19th century
nationalism almost continuously all day, and I apologize to
some of our viewers. It is another round of constitutional
negotiation which I am sure we could do without.
I would also like to mention that we are now dealing with
things like the information highway. It is not important whether
we connect states, member states of a country together, but we
are going to connect households throughout this nation together.
French speakers in Quebec and French speakers in the maritimes
will be talking to each other. What is the logic of a nation state?
It gives me great pleasure to rise in my place today to discuss
the future of Canada. Like so many others here this is why I
came to the capital, to try to shape the direction of our great
country as we enter the 21st century.
4967
I have travelled in many parts of the world and I have taken
the time not only to study these countries but also to observe my
own country from their perspectives. I have recently returned
from China where a party of parliamentarians went to support
small and medium sized businesses there seeking new trading
opportunities. In this rapidly evolving country over $250
million of new business occurred.
I note that the Reform Party which is sponsoring this motion
elected not to send any representatives. I find this unfortunate
because many western businesses could have benefited from its
involvement. At any rate, this is part of the future for Canada,
establishing new trading relationships and new friends
throughout the world.
I got into a rather interesting discussion when I was there with
one of its economists in the agricultural department. I have not
the time to discuss the whole process, but the bottom line was
that this country, one of the last remaining communist countries
in the world, in pursuit of new social safety nets with respect to
demographic shifts in its agrarian population elected not to
study those of Canada. Why? Because it thought we were too
socialistic.
I believe that Canada must enter into a new age of what I
would like to call entrepreneurialism. This is not necessarily the
pursuit of profit, but more the pursuit of measurable objectives
for our society.
We must also redefine government's role in society. To quote
the recent best selling book ``Reinventing Government'', I
believe that it should be the purpose of government to steer and
not to row. By this I mean that government should not have
direct involvement in the economy, but rather state its
objectives which are democratically arrived at and then create
the economic climate in which these goals can be realized.
(1645)
I believe that the public at large as well as government in
specific need to rethink their general attitude. I do not have to
mention all of the global challenges that we have witnessed in
the short six months that this House has been in session. GATT,
NAFTA, the information highway, to name only a few, all
challenge Canada and Canadians to be better, to evolve a
different spirit, to meet head on the challenges of the 21st
century.
We must give government back to the people. We must change
our civil service so it regards the public as its customers rather
than something simply to be tolerated. Public Service 2000 and
total quality management are starts but they are taking way too
long to get out into the real world, that is to say to make a
difference to the people in the street.
We must empower a new generation of civil servants who can
take responsibility for making new changes, who are not
governed by regulations and orders but rather who will be
judged, remunerated and promoted based on their success in
achieving goals rather than simply years of tenure.
We are talking about different facets of government that will
compete for the most efficient delivery systems, where the
inefficient systems are uprooted and adapt or disappear.
We are talking about a government that values investment
where investment means education, training and skill
development, increasing our grey matter if you will, but shuns
income maintenance systems for other than those who are
retired or have genuine need.
While talking about changes in attitude we must put a stop to
the petty parochial nature of many of our provincial legislators.
We must end barriers to interprovincial trade in the new Canada.
We must realize that there are strengths in both centralization
and decentralization.
The new Canada will allow that national education standards
be established. At the same time local school boards will be
freed to compete to see which can meet the objectives most
effectively. Children and their parents should have the right to
decide on their school which will add to the competitive nature
of education.
Business will take a constructive role in educating students
while in school. They will recognize that this is their major
competitive edge in dealing in the global economy.
In the new Canada the medicare system will focus on
preventive medicine rather than sickness. It will have
physicians paid to keep people healthy rather than treating
illness. At the same time it will be a society which recognizes
the difference between need and want, where symptoms such as
the common cold are not insurable coverage. Physicians will be
paid not for the number of patients they see but rather
remunerated based on the number of patients they do not see,
that is to say on the wellness of the population.
We are talking about a justice system that will focus on the
causes of crime rather than on incarceration and the support of
penal institutions, a system that realizes that crime prevention is
far less costly to administer than long term incarceration.
We are talking about a country that will realize that
unemployment is a success of our system rather than a failure. It
will reduce the hours of required employment, a shorter work
week, a method of spreading unemployment equally throughout
the country.
It will empower our native communities to take control of
their own economic future and restore the pride of their once
great nations.
It will realize that single mothers living in poverty is a
disgrace of our system. It will create more day care to allow
these people to re-educate and find employment in the new
economy, empowering both themselves and their children. Even
4968
day care centres will compete for the most efficient delivery of
educational skills for our youth.
In agriculture we will develop more competitive marketing
systems. We will adjust to changes in international trade. We
will become more efficient in areas in which Canada has an
advantage.
Mostly this will deal with the technology of feed additives,
selective breeding and artificial insemination and the use of
environmentally friendly farming practices. Most important,
the new Canada will realize that to empower people is the
ultimate tool, to allow people to control their own economy and
destiny. This is the strength of a new entrepreneurial country.
(1650)
May I interject to note that this is not the narrow hierarchical
nationalism espoused by those in the Bloc Quebecois, a
nationalism that wants to take our fellow Canadians down the
pathway to the 19th century, where we keep the rural population
sequestered as a source of cheap labour and food due to their
inability to reach out and participate in the world.
I am not talking about the dominance of one society over
another. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can remember
when Toronto was a bastion of English elite. No more. The
original English stock is a minority in the city and its society is
better for it. There are signs in Greek, Italian and yes, French.
These are some of the new pathways which Quebec and the rest
of Canada must follow together. These are the pathways to a
healthier standard of living and a content society.
I am not talking about dollars and cents. I believe that this new
spirit of entrepreneurial government will also recognize the new
emerging family values and place greater importance on well
adjusted children.
In conclusion, I want to say that the current economic
restructuring has forced us to rethink who we are and where we
want to go, a new entrepreneurialism where everyone shares in
the success and participation of a new society and a new Canada
in the 21st century. This is our challenge to the way we do
government and the way we deal with one another. This is the
future for Canada and all Canadians from sea to sea to sea.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to
talk on this unity debate. The comments that I have heard from
members across the floor do cause me some concern. They seem
to feel that if we hide from the problem, if we do not recognize
that this debate is taking place across the country, if we ignore it,
it will go away. It will not go away. It is very important that this
debate take place in this House so that we can be in step with
Canadians across this land.
I would like to focus my speech this afternoon on that in
which all Canadians hold a great deal of pride. That is the law
and order issue.
Law and order has always been important to all Canadians.
What other country has a national symbol that is a police force?
An example of the importance of law and order can be
demonstrated by the contrast between Canada and the United
States and how these two countries developed and opened the
western frontiers over 100 years ago.
With a few notable exceptions the Canadian west grew up in a
very orderly fashion due in large part to the Northwest Mounted
Police arriving in the west before large scale European
settlement.
The success of the Mounties can best be illustrated by the
story of the American cavalry escorting the Sioux back to
Canada after the Battle of the Little Big Horn. A large, heavily
armed U.S. cavalry escorted thousands of members of the Sioux
tribes where they were met at the border by two Mounties. When
the officer in charge of the cavalry force asked the Mounties
where the rest of their force was, the answer was: ``He's behind
the hill cooking our breakfast''.
This little story is an example of how the two countries
developed different attitudes toward law and order. With
Canadians there has been an expectation of law and order, a
respect for it. We frequently compare ourselves with the United
States to show that we are not really a violent country.
Unfortunately compared to other developed countries we seem
to have become one.
All Canadians are not happy about it. We are not satisfied that
this is where we want to be. Citizens across this country have
that same expectation of law and order that we had 100 years
ago. We want respect for law and order to once again be an
integral part of our society.
(1655)
We want the feeling of security in our homes and on our
streets. We would like to be able to leave our doors unlocked
without having to worry about being robbed. We would like to be
able to stroll through parks of our communities in the evenings
without the threat of being mugged.
We would like to be able to offer assistance to strangers in
need without the fear of being assaulted. We would like to be
able to let our children play in neighbourhood parks alone
without the fear of abduction. Students would like to be able to
go to school without worrying about their fellow classmates
carrying guns and knives.
Canadians would like to be able to do all of these things, but
we are afraid. For the past 20 years the country not only seems to
have got more violent but it has. I could use a whole litany of
statistics but I am only going to use one.
4969
In 1971, 203.9 violent crimes were recorded per 100,000
population. In 1991, 20 years later, 1,099 violent crimes were
recorded for every 100,000 population, an increase of 500 per
cent. That is a 500 per cent increase in 20 years. Why this
increase? There does not seem to be any definitive explanation
for it.
Some try to minimize this trend. Some try to suggest that the
crime statistics show that there has not been an increase in
crime. I would suggest that this figure shows that there has been
an increase in crime and it is time that we recognized it.
We can talk about some suggested root causes like poverty,
the lack of education and all sorts of other things. These things
do not explain why crime crosses all social economic
boundaries. If we knew what the real root causes of crime were,
we could go after them but since we do not know we have to deal
with the symptoms.
My party is here with a clear mandate from its constituents to
do something about the crime problem, not to ignore it, not to
rationalize it, but to do something to turn it around. As the
Liberals heard from their chief pollster at their policy
convention last month, in major urban centres crime is the
number one issue.
It is not the Reform Party that is leading the call for change. It
is the people of Canada. There are very few issues where the
people in this country are united but I would suggest to this
House that the concern about safety in our communities and
safety in our streets is a concern that is shared from sea to sea to
sea without exception.
In my last householder, I included a question about changing
the age limit in the Young Offenders Act to 10 to 15-year olds. I
received almost 3,500 responses. That is an 8 per cent return.
Over 90 per cent agreed with this change. In addition, many of
those who disagreed stated that the act should be abolished
entirely.
How can any politician ignore the will of such an
overwhelming majority of the population? Those who will not
listen, who refuse to accept the fact that we have a problem with
crime in our streets do so at their own peril. If they really think
that Canadians are going to wait a good deal longer for action,
for a government to start showing some concern, they are dearly
mistaken.
Our job is very simple in this House of Commons. As a
member of Parliament, I think we can start doing something and
do it quickly. What we have to do in this Chamber is that in every
aspect of criminal legislation we need to follow one principle.
That principle is that the protection of society has a greater
priority than the rights of the criminal. We have to send a strong
message to all Canadians that violence against other Canadians
is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
In my community, a husband murdered his wife. He pleaded
guilty to manslaughter and got five years. That is five years for
murdering a Canadian.
(1700 )
Let us remove the dangerous offenders from society until such
time as society can be assured they are no longer dangerous. Let
us get the Fishers and the Barlows off our streets so people can
feel safer. Let us get the non-violent offenders out of our prisons
and have them repay their debts to society in a more constructive
manner, for example by restitution, community work service, or
the like. Let us make sure our criminal justice system is swift,
fair and consistent. Let us return the control of the streets in our
communities back to the average citizens.
Canadians across this great country are demanding change.
We have the legislative tools to help accomplish this. It will be a
great disservice to this country if we fail to fulfil this demand
and to react and deliver back to Canadians their communities
and their streets.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Madam Speaker,
I think the hon. member would like us to believe that only
Reform Party members are concerned about safety in this
country, that only they are concerned about crime. That is not
true. We on this side are just as concerned and sometimes just as
befuddled by crime as they are.
I am concerned about how in her remarks she glosses over the
causes of crime. In fact she said that we do not know the causes
of crime, which I do not think is true. If she were to ask herself
that again she would have to answer that we know most of the
causes. They relate to family dysfunction, substance abuse,
poverty, lack of opportunity, lack of education, lack of hope,
racism. Those are many of the sources of crime.
If the member does not think those are the sources of crime, if
she really thinks we should treat only the symptoms, I would ask
her about the problems facing the aboriginal community. Why
do so many aboriginals fill our jails? For example, why in my
province is well over half of the jail and penitentiary population
made up of aboriginals?
It is self-evident. It is because aboriginals unfortunately
share more family dysfunction than anyone else. They suffer
more racism than anyone else. They suffer from poverty more
than anyone else. They suffer from the lack of hope more than
anyone else, and so it goes. That is the reason aboriginals fill our
jails.
It is nonsensical for the member to suggest we can ignore the
sources of crime, that we can ignore the causes of crime and
treat only the symptoms. We will never get to the solutions if we
do not focus on the sources of crime. We can build all the jails in
the world. We can have all the punishments and all the
deterrents, but as long as the mills keep grinding and turning out
young criminals, it will be an endless process.
4970
Ms. Meredith: Madam Speaker, nobody is suggesting to
ignore some of the causes of crime. However to suggest that all
poor people are potential criminals, to suggest that all single
parent families are creating criminals is totally unfair. These
groups are getting very tired of taking the blame for producing
the criminals.
As I mentioned in my speech, crime crosses all
socioeconomic boundaries. One man who killed his wife was an
engineer. Many of the people in our jails have very well
established professions and have crossed the bounds. Yes, drug
and alcohol abuse is a cause of crime. We should be treating that
not by locking people up in a prison but by treating the illness
from which they suffer. Yes, poverty does put people in a
vulnerable position but it is not the only cause of crime. To
pretend that it is and to hide by saying: ``Let us attack the root
causes of crime and ignore the symptoms'', is foolhardy. We
need to do both and one cannot be done at the exclusion of the
other. We can address the symptoms of crime now and we can
deal with the more long term problem starting now. The results
of crime prevention will not be seen in the next year or two. It
will take five or ten years for the results of crime prevention to
have any kind of impact.
(1705)
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Madam Speaker,
unfortunately the way the Reform Party would handle the
Constitution is the same way it would handle crime, rather
simplistically.
A point needs to be made to the Bloc which has been making a
great day of this. The Meech Lake accord did not receive
popular support, but it did receive the support of three Canadian
Prime Ministers from the province of Quebec: Pierre Elliott
Trudeau, Brian Mulroney and certainly the present Prime
Minister. That is important. The Charlottetown accord unified
this country. It was unified in turning it down.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster):
Madam Speaker, today I have the honour and privilege to speak
in favour of the Reform motion which states:
That this House strongly affirm and support the desire of Canadians to remain
federally united as one people, committed to strengthening our economy,
balancing the budgets of our governments, sustaining our social services,
conserving our environment, preserving our cultural heritage and diversity,
protecting our lives and property, further democratizing our institutions and
decision making processes, affirming the equality and uniqueness of all our
citizens and provinces and building peaceful and productive relations with
other peoples of the world.
What a wonderful vision of Canada. I am happy to join with
my leader, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, and my
colleagues who have shown leadership and vision in beginning
to define a new federalism that can create a revitalized or a new
Canada to which 10 or more provinces can look with pride and
accomplishment.
I am disappointed in the government's amendment. It calls for
a cake with no recipe. It is a continuation of the irresponsible
role played by this Liberal government where it insists on
Canadian unity but has no blueprint to achieve the goods. It has
no way of accomplishing what it has set out to do and it is
compromising federalism in the process.
In January the leader of my party described the 35th
Parliament as one without precedent and it surely is. A few years
ago not very many prognosticators would have predicted a
House of Commons where the Official Opposition, the Bloc
Quebecois, would sit in this House happily accepting the title of
Official Opposition, would swear allegiance to the Queen and
would collect a salary from the federal treasury all the while on a
mission to break up Canada by taking Quebec out of
Confederation.
Even fewer forecasters would have guessed that a federal
Liberal government would sit idly by and pretend it was not so.
Who could have guessed the Liberal government would sit on its
hands and play politics as usual while separatists were chipping
away at the very foundation of the country?
This sad state of affairs explains the need for Reformers to
bridge the gap and start pouring a new brand of unity concrete to
provide some cement to which Canadians with a commitment to
federalism might attach themselves, including those who live in
Quebec, perhaps especially those who live in Quebec.
I will take a few moments to speak to the motion and
particularly the phrase ``preserving our cultural heritage and
diversity''. There are many myths and misconceptions
associated with culture and heritage. One tends to associate
myths with the ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Babylonians, but
we have fostered a few in Canada too. Some of the myths most
commonly perpetuated include:
Myth No. 1: Canada is composed of two founding nations.
Some have gone so far as to call the English and the French the
founding races. While the myth may describe a contract between
upper and lower Canada it is exposed when you consider the fact
that aboriginal people have always been a factor in Canada and
that for all of our 128 years as a nation, people have come from
every corner of the globe to help build this country.
(1710 )
Myth No. 2: Canada will become more unified if we enact
language legislation. The Official Languages Act has not made
Canadians feel more unified. It has been a bone of contention in
our land. It has put a black mark on bilingualism in Canada,
rather than permitting it to be a prestigious step of
accomplishment like knowledge of languages should be.
Myth No. 3: Canada will only be able to sustain its
multicultural heritage if the government bundles up tax dollars
and earmarks them for song and dance across our land to
preserve our diverse cultural heritage.
Reformers have done an excellent job of debunking the myth
that Canada can still be described as a nation of two founding
cultures. Clearly we have moved far beyond this narrow view of
our country. A few weeks ago Reformers spoke at length about
the failure of official bilingualism in this House and put forth a
4971
realistic and constructive alternative which would prove much
less divisive and less costly than the status quo.
I will deal briefly with the third myth, that having an official
multiculturalism secretariat that gives grants and makes lofty
pronouncements is not the best means of preserving our
multicultural heritage in a harmonious manner. Government
should get out of the multicultural business. Let me explain
what I mean by the multicultural business.
The Secretary of State for Multiculturalism spent over $3.8
billion in 1992-93. Much of this budget we would transfer to
other more suitable departments and ministries. The $2.9 billion
transferred to the provinces for post-secondary education is a
good example of a program that would be protected from cuts
under the Reform plan. The $500 million in student loan
guarantees is another good example, as is all federal funding to
fight racism and human rights protection.
However, the funding to universities, private individuals and
associations promoting cultural development, totalling over $26
million, could be eliminated. Furthermore, $47 million in
taxpayers' hard earned money could be saved by cutting funding
to language-based special interest groups in all parts of the
country.
If, as we have argued, the federal government is not the
appropriate body for funding and running multiculturalism, then
who should be responsible for preserving, conserving,
encouraging and paying for our cultural heritage? That is a fair
question. The Reform Party supports the principle that
individuals and groups are free to preserve their cultural
heritage using their own resources and we shall uphold their
right to do so.
We would focus federal government activities on enhancing
the citizenship of all Canadians, regardless of race, language or
culture. We oppose the current concept of hyphenated
Canadianism as pursued by this and previous governments.
If you reject the idea that culture can be designed or
engineered by the state, then it only stands to reason that the
development, preservation and promotion of our multicultural
heritage should be left to individuals, private associations, or in
some cases lower levels of government.
The focus of the federal government should be the prevention
of discrimination on the basis of race, language or culture. How
would this approach affect Quebec? I think this is the focus of
what we are discussing in this House today. Reformers believe
this approach to linguistic and cultural issues may hold the key
to Quebecers' aspirations to feeling culturally and linguistically
secure. It would allow Canadians in Quebec to promote and
preserve their language and culture through their provincial
government. Therefore, the federal government should transfer
its efforts at protecting and promoting language and culture to
individuals and lower levels of government.
In the case of Quebec, the provincial government would likely
accept the challenge. Other provinces may not choose to do so,
but we believe the prerogative should lie with the provinces as to
whether they want to promote language and culture within their
jurisdiction.
The federal government would maintain and even revitalize
its role in preventing discrimination of minorities wherever in
Canada they may be. We believe the federal government should
provide the glue that helps hold us all together, no matter where
we are from, no matter what our cultural heritage, no matter
whether we are first generation Canadians or 10th generation
Canadians.
By allowing people the freedom to pursue their linguistic and
cultural interests independent of federal government
interference we would create a more unified country. It is far
more productive to stress those things which all Canadian
citizens share in common rather than to emphasize differences
that threaten to tear us apart. If the government would work to
bring Canadians together we would all be a lot happier.
Therefore I strongly support our motion. I believe it is a
blueprint to prepare Canada for another 128 successful years as
a Confederation of 10 equal provinces, perhaps more if the
northern territories are brought into Confederation. It is a
country in which we can all feel secure, whether our heritage is
Asian or European, whether it be French ancestry, English
ancestry or whether it be First Nations, the aboriginal people of
Canada. That is the kind of Canada in which I want to live in the
future and that is the kind of country I believe most Canadians
would be quite excited about, working for and preserving.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.15 p.m., it is
my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(16), to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose
of the supply proceedings now before the House.
[English]
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
4972
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to
on the following division:)
(Division No. 50)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-140
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-87
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Collenette
Guimond
Jacob
Manley
Ménard
(1745 )
The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried. The next
question is on the main motion, as amended. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
4973
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: 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. 51)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-179
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-49
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Collenette
Guimond
Jacob
Manley
Ménard
The Speaker: I declare the motion, as amended, carried.
It being 5.55 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
4974
4974
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North) moved that Bill C-233,
an act to provide for the limitation of interest rates, of the
application of interest and of fees in relation to credit card
accounts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to sponsor this bill entitled
an act to provide for the limitation of interest rates, of the
application of interest and of fees in relation to credit card
accounts.
Since their introduction in 1968 credit cards have been a
major source of convenience for thousands of Canadians. Last
year there were over 55 million credit cards in circulation which
accounted for over 10 per cent of all consumer spending in
Canada. They have become more than just another means of
payment. Renting an automobile or reserving a hotel room for
example can be impossible without a credit card.
Hardly a day goes by when I do not use my cards as
identification or for a purchase. However, sometimes
convenience has its costs and in the case of banks and retail
cards it can be very costly indeed.
I decided to address the more contentious issues surrounding
credit cards through legislation because I believe there is a great
need to regulate what I and many people consider to be unfair
practices for Canadian consumers.
I am fully aware that important players in the financial
markets cringe at the mere thought of any legislation affecting
their sector. They will be quick on their feet claiming the market
should be left alone and in the end everything will be fine.
I will nonetheless try to demonstrate to the House that there is
ample evidence to warrant regulation.
[Translation]
This is not the first time Parliament has considered the
question of credit cards. During the past eight years, three
parliamentary committees have examined the credit card
industry in Canada. The Standing Committee on Finance
published a report in 1987, and the Standing Committee on
Consumer and Corporate Affairs did so in 1989 and 1992. Each
study approached the issue from a somewhat different
perspective.
(1800)
The concerns addressed included the size of the competition,
obstacles encountered by consumers attempting to obtain
information on rates, and the question of how interest is
calculated, but the main contention was always the fact that
interest rates were high and tended to remain so, despite the
level of other types of rates.
The banks repeatedly told the committees that their rates were
reasonable, since they did not produce a very high yield. That is
hard to believe, especially when we see banks making record
profits. Every time committee members asked what their rate of
profit was, the banks refused to give the information, arguing
that it would make them vulnerable to the competition. Despite
this lack of co-operation, committee members found that the
banks were collecting interest fees from between 70 and 80 per
cent of their customers.
[English]
Bankers also argued that because the financial institutions
take a high risk on many card holders they need a higher return
on the cards than any other kind of loans to cover losses.
However the evidence before the Standing Committee on
Consumer and Corporate Affairs showed that there were fewer
defaults on credit card loans than on corporate loans and on
other kinds of consumer loans.
When the issue of capping rates was raised, the bankers
threatened they would be forced to deny cards to lower income
people. This did not sit well with the committee members since
the banks' own figures suggested that lower income Canadians
were more likely to pay off their monthly balance than their
higher income counterparts.
The 1987 finance committee report states that 83.3 per cent of
those they considered low income people would discharge their
monthly balances, whereas 41 per cent of the card holders with
incomes of over $60,000 or more routinely did not pay off their
monthly balances.
Ann Finlayson and Sandra Martin, two investigative
journalists, summed up these tactics very accurately in their
book entitled Card Tricks. I quote: ``The bankers' insistence that
they would have to cut off lower income card holders proved
nothing more than that they would cut off lower income earners,
a stance that was strikingly similar to their extremely hard line
on small business loans at the time''.
[Translation]
Finally, as a result of this exercise in futility, members
realized how difficult it was to obtain from the banks the
information they needed to make intelligent recommendations.
The banks did try to smooth ruffled feathers with a slight
reduction in credit card rates. In 1989, the Standing Committee
on Consumer and Corporate Affairs revealed that when the
Standing Committee on Finance was revising the first draft of its
report in 1987, the spread between the Bank of Canada rate and
the interest on Visa cards was 11.46 percentage points, while
shortly after the report was tabled, the spread dropped to 7.31
points.
4975
[English]
I would like to explain what Bill C-233 would do if enacted.
The bill has two purposes: it limits the amount of interest that
financial institutions and retailers could charge, and it creates a
standardized method of calculating interest charges and a
mandatory grace period for partial payments on all types of
credit cards.
We are told that we should not regulate interest rates in our
free market society. There is a federal law dealing with credit
card interest rates, section 305.1 of the Criminal Code.
However, its applicability to loans advanced under credit cards
is remote, given that the definition of criminal interest rate is an
effective annual rate of interest that exceeds 60 per cent of the
credit advanced under an agreement or arrangement.
Bill C-233 would regulate credit card interest rates in a
realistic manner. The ceiling on rates would float with the
average of the weekly Bank of Canada discount rate from the
previous month. The spread between the card rate ceiling and
the average bank rate would depend on the type of credit card.
The finance committee's 1987 report concluded that among the
different types of ceilings that could be used, a floating limit
seems more sophisticated and more practical.
Credit cards issued by financial institutions, which include
credit unions, caisses populaires and other co-operative credit
societies could not carry interest at a rate exceeding the Bank of
Canada discount rate by 6.5 or 8.5 per cent, depending on
whether the institution charges entry fees, renewal fees or user
fees.
Credit cards issued by petroleum companies could not carry
interest at a rate exceeding the Bank of Canada discount rate by
9.5 per cent. Those issued by retail stores could not carry
interest at a rate exceeding the Bank of Canada discount rate by
11.5 per cent on any unpaid monthly balance exceeding $400.
(1805)
Retail cards would use a tiered system instead of a floating
limit. The rationale for a tiered system in this instance is that
retailers do not have the same leverage that financial institutions
enjoy. This system would recognize that operation costs on
credit cards is higher for retailers than it is for financial
institutions.
I must point out that the retailers have nonetheless abused
their credit card practices. Their rates have remained virtually
unchanged at 28.8 per cent throughout the 1990s when consumer
interest rates were falling to record lows.
The Minister of Industry has already written to the president
of the Retail Council of Canada urging council members to cut
their rates.
[Translation]
I suggest capping credit card rates, because many people have
the impression that credit card issuers are making exorbitant
profits.
As I said earlier, the facts appear to confirm this impression.
The capping concept is not new or radical. In fact, more than 35
American States have introduced this measure. Once again, this
is a precedent for the regulation of financial markets.
In its 1989 report, the Standing Committee on Consumer and
Corporate Affairs recommended that the spread between credit
card rates and the bank rate should never exceed 8 per cent for
bank cards and 16.5 per cent for retail cards.
The 1992 minority report said that when the Bank of Montreal
introduced a credit card with a floating ceiling of 5.5 per cent
plus prime, it proved that banks have other ways of making
money. It also confirmed that floating credit card rates did not
fly in the face of the laws of finance and were not a financial
disaster for the banks.
The rates I used are based on information provided in the bill
tabled during the last Parliament, which was reproduced in the
1989 report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and
Corporate Affairs.
[English]
As already mentioned, the second component of Bill C-233
would make interest calculation on all types of credit cards
uniform and would enact a mandatory grace period for partial
payments.
This proposal has been long sought by various advocacy
groups such as the Consumers Association of Canada.
Furthermore, recommendations to this effect are contained in
both the 1987 finance committee report and the 1989 consumer
and corporate affairs report as well as a minority report struck in
1992. Clearly there is a great deal of support for the changes Bill
C-233 espouses.
I will use an example to illustrate my case. Let us say that you
make a single purchase of $1,000 on your credit card and this is
the only item on your monthly statement. Once you receive your
statement you usually have a 21-day grace period to pay the full
amount interest free. However, if you make a partial payment of
$700 you will be charged interest in two ways. First you will pay
interest on the $1,000 from the date of purchase to the date of the
$700 payment. Second, you will be charged interest on the
remaining $300 from the partial payment date to the next
statement date. In other words, issuers of financial institution
credit cards are making their money off the backs of people who,
for whatever reason, do not pay their full amount in order to
compensate for the grace period they offer people who do pay
the full amount.
4976
This is what I refer to as the reverse Robin Hood theory,
robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. In effect, the grace
period is a marketing device to get people to hold and use credit
cards.
Under Bill C-233 the simple distinction between the charge
and credit functions of a card would be altered. Hence, the part
of a purchase that is paid on the due date, the so-called partial
payment, would be treated as a delayed cash payment while the
remaining balance would be treated as a loan and would be the
only part to bear interest.
The card holder would in effect have a grace period from the
date of purchase to the date of partial payment. For example,
you make a $1,000 purchase on your credit card and after
receiving your statement you pay $700.
(1810 )
Your next statement would show interest charges on the
remaining $300 from the first statement date to the second
statement date. You would not be charged interest on the $700
payment as is currently done by financial institutions.
[Translation]
We are talking about responsibility and fairness here. It is
clear that people who accumulate debts on their credit card must
take their responsibilities. However, we should not forget that it
is not in the interest of credit-card companies that monthly bills
be paid in full. They only take advantage of people who, for one
reason or another, can make only partial payments.
As we have seen in the case of banks' cards, partial payments
do not reduce the amount on which interest is calculated and, in
the case of retailers' cards, interest rates are outrageous.
Organizations such as the Association coopérative
d'économie familiale and the Service d'aide au consommateur
in Shawinigan deal with hundreds of people who are heavily in
debt. They find that it is too simple to obtain a card or to have the
credit limit increased and that credit-card companies do not
care about the social effects of credit that is too easily
obtainable.
In March, the Service d'aide au consommateur in Shawinigan
released a study entitled: ``Credit cards-Problems for
consumers, profits for credit-card companies'' which stated,
and I quote: ``Credit-card companies, being mostly concerned
about their profits, have often overlooked the serious effects
that credit cards could have on the consumer's life''.
[English]
Some people feel that Parliament should not legislate the
credit card industry if people freely choose to enter into this type
of contract. The problem is that this is not a free contract where
you can negotiate the terms of the agreement such as a regular
bank loan. You either accept the terms offered by the credit card
issuer or you do not get a card. For people who are well off,
opting not to play by the rules imposed by the credit card issuer
is an option. Unfortunately there are many consumers who
depend on short term credit to conduct their daily lives in an
orderly and efficient way.
The work force is changing and more and more people are
becoming self-employed. They do not always have the
advantage of receiving a pay cheque every two weeks. In this
situation, a credit card becomes essential.
I am always quickly reminded that Canadian banks are not
public institutions even though they fulfil a public purpose. The
fact remains that Canadian banks are in a very privileged and an
enormously powerful situation in Canada. True competition in
an oligopolistic market is questionable.
The minority report in 1992 accurately described our peculiar
free market arrangement: ``Evidence has amply proven that the
credit card interest rates and bank service charges in Canada do
not respond to the market system but to oligopolistic forces and
that oligopolistic forces are by their very own nature, political
and therefore only respond to public pressure''.
Many people feel that Canadian banks do have a
responsibility to be more responsive on issues such as credit
card rates, farm loans and small business loans precisely
because for the special status they hold in our marketplace.
[Translation]
We must realize that credit-card companies have absolutely
not taken into account the many aspects that I have just
mentioned. Therefore, I think that the time has come to put some
order in the credit-card industry. Bill C-233 is undoubtedly a
step in the right direction.
[English]
I have in my possession a legal opinion from the legislative
counsel of the House of Commons stating that the Government
of Canada has jurisdiction to enact the regulations sought in this
bill.
In conclusion I would like to thank the many organizations
that have assisted me in this very complicated matter. A special
thanks to my colleagues in the House and to my constituents
who have supported this bill. I hope that our concerns will be
addressed soon.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Madam Speaker, as
industry critic, I am pleased to address this bill. First, I would
like to congratulate the hon. member for Simcoe North for
introducing Bill C-233, an act to provide for the limitation of
interest rates, of the application of interest and of fees in relation
to credit card accounts.
4977
(1815 )
The main purpose of this bill is to limit interest rates on credit
cards. According to this bill, an oil company or a retail store
could not charge annual interest rates exceeding by more than
9.5 and 11.5 per cent respectively the Bank of Canada discount
rate. A card issued by a financial institution could not bear
interest rates exceeding by more than 6.5 or 8.5 per cent the
Bank of Canada discount rate, depending on whether the
institution charges a fee for getting, renewing or using one.
At this point, I would like to commend, as the member for
Simcoe North briefly did before me, the Service d'aide au
consommateur in Shawinigan, which has been brilliantly
managed for many years by Mrs. Madeleine Plamondon of the
Saint-Maurice riding. That organisation has been defending
consumers for many years. Last March, it published a document
on credit cards and it just published another one on life
insurance. For many years now, it has been quite successful in
it's advocacy of consumers' interests.
To give you an idea of the importance of this phenomenon,
which is increasingly present in our lives and our economy, let
me mention some statistical data which depict it very well.
The number of credit cards in circulation in Canada is
estimated at 55 million according to an Industry Canada study
published in December 1993, so it is recent enough. This means
2.7 cards for each adult aged 18 or more. Of this number, 25
million are Visa or MasterCard, compared to only 12 million in
1981. The number has therefore doubled in a little over 10 years.
Then, there are 17 million cards issued by department stores and
3.3 million by gas companies.
Between 1992 and 1993, the number of Visa and MasterCard
credit cards increased to 25 million from 24.4 million. This is
600,000 cards more in circulation in a single year.
Visa and MasterCard generated more than 695 million
transactions in 1993. The volume of sales reached $47.9 billion
compared to $43.1 billion in 1992.
Finally, at the end of October 1993, the total outstanding
balance on Visa and MasterCard accounts was $13.2 billion, a
very large and very distressing amount. This is an increase
compared to 1992, with $11.4 billion dollars. This outstanding
balance is three times higher than in 1981.
To have a better idea of the problem, you have to know that,
according to the same document, in 1993, interest rates paid by
consumers using a MasterCard or Visa credit card were around
15 per cent. Those who had a credit card from a petroleum
company, such as Petro Canada, Imperial Oil and Irving Oil,
paid 24 per cent. Big department stores always want consumers,
and we can understand why when we know they charged 28 per
cent, again according to the Industry Canada document. I want
to name each one, it is worth it: Canadian Tire, Eaton, Home
Card, The Bay, Sears, Simpsons and Zellers. These stores
charged 28.8 per cent interest on outstanding balances. Now we
can understand the whole problem.
As for our evolution as a nation-again I want to thank the
member for Simcoe North for giving us this opportunity-we
should also note how consumer credit evolved over the last
thirty years or so. In 1960, the consumer credit was at $3.5
billion. In 1981, it was at $46.6 billion and in 1992, it was up to
$99.5 billion.
It is interesting to compare these figures to personal
bankruptcy statistics. You do not have to be a genius to see the
relationship between consumer credit, or indebtedness, and a
potential personal bankruptcy. The number of personal
bankruptcies in Canada went from 2,700 in 1970 to 23,000 in
1981 to 61,882 in 1992.
(1820)
Between 1986 to 1992, the ratio of debt to disposable personal
income rose from 48.4 per cent to 66.2 per cent. What we must
remember is that credit cards went from being a method of
payment to facilitate transactions to a credit mechanism. That is
how serious the situation has become.
Credit equals debt. Credit cards enabled consumers to make
major purchases easily and quickly-these are the key
words-to travel, buy presents for themselves and others, cover
unexpected expenditures and spread out payments over the rest
of the year by paying a lot of money in interest.
This overconsumption-because we live in a society of mass
consumption-often became synonymous with debt. This
excessive debt results in large part-when we look at the
consumers' assistance service like the people in Shawinigan
did-from the large number of credit cards on the market and the
vast amount of credit extended to consumers. Each credit card
has a credit limit but for multiple card holders, the credit limits
add up. That is, as the studies show, where consumers get all
tangled up and lose control of their personal finances.
The situation is quite serious-as is pointed out-as only 50
per cent of credit card holders pay the full amount by the due
date. Analyses show that of the 50 per cent who, statistics tell us,
pay by the due date, 20 per cent settle their bills by borrowing on
their personal line of credit. That is when debts start piling up as
consumers use different credit cards and borrow from their
personal line of credit to pay off their credit card debts. They get
deeper and deeper into debt and end up having to declare
bankruptcy, which becomes a kind of vicious circle.
According to the analyses, this phenomenon is due to three
major causes. First, consumers' lack of information and
education concerning methods of payment. People do not have
enough information. Lenders make credit too easy and too
accessible without exercising sufficient control or caution,
which leads to excessive debt. There are also the factors on
which people have
4978
no control, serious events in life such as job losses, separations,
divorces, accidents and health problems.
Certain stakeholders have a responsibility to correct the
situation starting, of course, with the consumers themselves
who are responsible for their own actions. Consumers'
associations must pursue their commendable education efforts.
It is, of course, very important that the institutions that issue
credit cards be better monitored. Finally, governments must
continue to encourage education and information efforts but
they must also regulate, and one way to regulate is to limit
interest rates, as proposed in the bill before us today, and that is
why we support it.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Madam Speaker, I did not realize that the
opposition party was not going to speak on this bill.
I wish to congratulate the member for Simcoe North for his
efforts in trying to ensure fair prices for his consumers. This is a
very important issue because it is not only central to the care and
concern that we must have for consumers, it is right in line with
our government's policy to make sure that we look at ways
access to capital for small and medium size business is also dealt
with. This is very much in that same sort of philosophical
direction.
(1825)
We are trying very hard to make sure that consumers begin
getting a fair shake from the financial institutions in this
country. I believe that the member for Simcoe North has
identified an issue of concern to each and every Canadian.
A great deal of parliamentary attention has been paid to this
issue over the last seven years. Three parliamentary committee
inquiries were held on this subject between 1987 and 1992. In
the course of those inquiries a good deal of the evidence brought
to light did not support the concept of regulating interest rates at
that time.
First, there was evidence suggesting that if rates had been
capped between 1973 and 1991 the real savings for the average
card holder would have been small. For example, a consumer
carrying a balance of $1,000 would have saved only about 50
cents per month. Also, it appeared likely that the caps would
cause lenders to restrict access to credit for groups of people
deemed to be higher credit risks. This could include people with
low incomes and those with below average levels of education
together with young adults and recent immigrants. Thus it is
possible that the very people the bills were designed to help
could be adversely affected by this bill.
Moreover, it was suggested that if interest rate ceilings were
legislated they would likely in practice become floor prices. To
maintain their revenue levels lenders could simply vary other
cost factors such as annual fees and grace periods.
While sections of this bill dealing with service charge limits
and interest calculations would address this last consideration I
am concerned that the comprehensive controls proposed by the
hon. member could act to diminish competition at a time when
credit card markets offer more consumer choice than they have
ever had in the past.
I would once again like to congratulate the member for this
initiative. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to move the
following motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that''
and substituting the following:
That Bill C-233, an act to provide for the limitation of interest rates, of the
application of interest rates and of fees in relation to credit card accounts, be
not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn
and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the
House to move the amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Madam Speaker, we would like to have some
explanation, please. Could you tell us what will happen to the
member's bill if second reading is refused now and the whole
thing is referred to the Standing Committee right away? I would
like some explanation of the step that is being skipped over.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Instead of remaining a
non-votable bill, it disappears and the subject matter is referred
to committee for a full study.
(1830)
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Speaker, just to clarify the situation,
what is the alternative?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The alternative is that
the time provided for consideration of this bill will expire and
the bill will disappear.
[English]
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous
consent of the House to move the amendment?
Mr. Adams: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If we
proceed by unanimous consent, would members who are
interested in speaking not only to the motion but the substance
of it have an opportunity to speak?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The bill would be sent to
committee where I would assume members are allowed to
speak, but for this evening the law would disappear.
4979
What we can do, since several members have indicated an
interest, is to put the motion and also agree unanimously to
terminate debate, if you wish.
In any event, you have heard the terms of the amendment. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Accordingly, the order
is discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof
referred to a committee.
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Do we now have the
unanimous agreement to terminate the debate tonight, or for the
speakers who were on the list to continue the debate until the
hour is over?
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could assist the
chair and propose that for the time remaining for debate that we
proceed by unanimous consent to continue debating the issue
that was on the Order Paper until we removed it a moment ago,
thereby enabling colleagues to address the topic,
notwithstanding the fact that it technically disappeared from the
Order Paper as of a moment ago.
I would like to seek unanimous consent to achieve that.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): That is what I was
asking and I thank you. Do we have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon. member
for Broadview-Greenwood wish to speak?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): I will pass, Madam
Speaker.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Madam Speaker, it is with great
delight that I stand to speak to this motion. I am one who has
long felt that the banks are very important to our society, not
only for financing business but also for financing short term
interim money people need in order to keep our economy
rolling.
As has already been mentioned, many people pay their credit
card balances off monthly and in most instances incur no costs at
all. Then there are some who do not pay and that is where the
problem comes in.
We must first ask ourselves what the object is of having this
type of legislation. Probably a very loose term would be that we
want fairness. We want those people who use this bank service
not to be unjustly charged, not to be charged exorbitant rates. At
the same time the banks should have sufficient reason to stay in
that business thereby providing the economy with the necessary
little oiling to keep it going.
Once the purpose is decided the next question is how to
achieve it and this is where we would come to a parting of the
ways. A lot of members on the other side are given to that first
hypothesis that unless the government taxes it, subsidizes it,
controls it, funds it, regulates it, unless all that is done, it will
not happen. I humbly submit that is not true.
The opening of this country was done quite magically before
there was any substantial government involvement with respect
to the operation of individual businesses and the financing of
homeowners.
(1835 )
I reject the idea that we need to regulate this. I really believe
that the marketplace can determine a good balance. If we allow
the free enterprise system and fair competition to take place,
then the rates will be kept down. If there is a lot of money to be
made there will be new organizations entering the field. They
will compete and bring their service in at a little better rate.
Consequently the other ones, those that are in there higher,
would have to come down. However it would reach a lower level
where it could not go any further because they would no longer
be making any money.
The best solution would be for us to not have legislation that
would cap the rates, cap the fees, but rather that we would
observe. We should have laws that simply monitor the fair
disclosure of what the charges are.
This is one of the greatest areas of error in this whole scene.
There are irregular ways of reporting interest rates. There is not
a good comparison. We must recognize, and I have this on good
authority since I have been in the mathematics field for years,
that approximately 85 per cent of our population does not feel
comfortable with mathematical calculations. It is surprising
how many people have trouble with simple things like
conversion to metric. When we talk about interest rates and their
implications most of them are lost.
If financial institutions will not voluntarily adopt a method of
uniform reporting of rates and charges, then there would be a
role for legislation.
I would like to briefly indicate three areas where we need to
have truth in advertising. First we need some sort of uniformity
in declaring the cost of fees. Fees for different cards range all the
way from zero dollars per year to the highest one I saw at $30 per
year. Depending on the balance that is carried this can either be a
negligible portion of the interest or it can be a fairly high
portion and it would be incumbent on the financial institutions
to indicate the actual costs very clearly up front.
Second is the use of nominal versus effective interest rates.
This is an area a lot of consumers do not understand. We ought to
4980
be requiring financial institutions to declare their interest rates
as effective annual rates. The use of nominal rates is widely used
and is very misleading.
It does not make too great a difference at lower interest rates. I
did not find any banks that charged these rates but there are some
retailers' cards that charge, they say, 2.4 per cent per month.
Then in brackets they say 28.8 per cent per annum. Of course
that is simply not true. The interest calculations are always done
monthly. Hence this is compounded monthly and the effective
rate of 28.8 per cent per annum compounded monthly in fact
turns out to be 32.9 per cent per annum.
If they were required to actually express the rate as the
effective rate, then they could not play these games with the
consumers where there is a lack of understanding when it comes
to effective versus nominal rates.
The third area that I would like to address is a bit of a
bombshell because I have never heard anybody talk about it.
Several financial institutions that I am aware of which I have
checked personally actually land up computing their interest on
a time error as well as a rate error. Most of us know that interest
equals principal times rate times time as a simple formula. I
have talked about the rate and the way they fudge that and now
they fudge on the time.
They do something that is very intriguing. Whenever there is
a transaction, whether it is the computation of the interest to
date based on the statement date or whether there was a payment
made, they compute the interest up to and including that day.
(1840 )
If I borrowed from my credit card a thousand dollars in the
morning and paid it in the afternoon I think there would be a case
that said I should pay for one day's interest.
However, if I borrow a thousand dollars at noon today and
repay it tomorrow at noon I do not believe they are justified in
charging me two days of interest and yet they do if you check
this out. I think if this goes to the committee I would really like
to see the committee address that question because that is a very
costly one to Canadian consumers and as far as I know it is not
widely known.
I did an actual experiment on this and found that if I made a
payment and my interest was calculated from the previous
statement to the payment date including that date and then at the
next statement it was made again including that date, in essence
my financial agency got from me 24 extra days of interest in the
year. I did not carry on the experiment that long. I did it long
enough to ascertain that in fact that is what they were doing.
Using 18 per cent per annum and with the $11 billion I used as
the amount that these institutions have outstanding, this yields
to them an additional $141 million per year which I think is a
substantial amount of money to be taking from the consumers.
I have other things to say but my time has expired and so I
really congratulate the member on this bill. I look forward to
seeing it go into committee for real study, including these issues
I have raised.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Madam Speaker, I want to
congratulate my hon. colleague for Simcoe North for bringing
forward this bill which has now become a motion and giving me
the opportunity to second it. It has been needed for much too
long.
In response to the previous speaker it is quite obvious to me
that allowing the market out there to set interest rates just has
not worked. The financial institutions have been shown for years
to have been gouging the public in terms of interest rates on
credit cards.
I believe it is the responsibility of the government to ensure
that the Canadian consumer is protected against unfair and at
times out of control profiteering by large financial institutions. I
know from business experience how heavy those interest costs
can be and how great a burden they can be and how quickly they
can get out of control and cause extreme financial difficulty.
Of course there will be criticism from the affected financial
institutions but the government should not be interfering with
setting interest rates for the banks. That is to be expected. In
fact, that makes for healthy debate.
The facts and terms of this debate are on this side of the
argument that interest rates should be restricted.
We as members of Parliament do have a right and a
responsibility to ensure that the people of Canada are protected
from unfair banking practices, and excessive credit card interest
rates are in fact unfair.
This bill, or this motion now, should not be seen as an attack
on the banks. I think it is an attempt to have fair play on the part
of the relationship between the banks and the consumer. We
know it is the government's responsibility to make sure there is
stability in the financial market for the banking and lending
institutions to flourish.
We do this under the Canadian bank act and through the use of
the Bank of Canada. The same financial institutions charging
Canadians an exorbitant amount of interest as well as
calculating interest charges in very creative ways have the
ability to borrow money from the federal government's Bank of
Canada's discount rate at very low rates for the banks when they
are borrowing.
Yet these same institutions do not pass on that advantage to
the Canadian consumer. They instead use the difference between
their borrowing rate and the rate they charged credit card users
for huge profits.
Those who carry this burden of excessive bank profits in the
end are the Canadian consumers. They pay the bills. It is they
that we as a government hope through consumer spending will
spur economic growth. That, my colleagues, is what the hon.
member for Simcoe North is putting forward today. It is a bill to
4981
help economic growth by creating greater spending at the
consumer level through fair credit card interest rate practices.
(1845)
What this proposed legislation does is create fair and
reasonable regulations for those lending and credit institutions
to follow while at the same time making reasonable profits from
those services.
I should also point out the positive effects this legislation will
have on our economy. It will create a more positive atmosphere
for the general public who use credit for purchasing
merchandise and services to increase spending since they wil
not be allocating a large part of their cash flow to the bank's
interest charges.
No hon. member should argue against more capital being
injected into our retail sector. It has been mentioned that the
credit card institutions have shown stability in that they have not
raised their rates with the fluctuation of the Bank of Canada rate
over the past few months.
No wonder. This country has been enjoying its lowest interest
rates in 30 years and the financial institutions have not reacted
to the massive drop at any point by lowering the interest rates
charged to these clients in recent days. That is the reality in
times of nationally high interest rates. Banks keep credit rates
higher and in times of low interest rates they keep the same rates
in order to reap from users even more cash.
This is no small potato. In today's retail market credit cards
account for some $50 billion in purchases in Canada. There is
little wonder why banks and other financial institutions are so
reluctant to control and lower their interest rates for the
Canadian consumer.
When the average interest rate is anywhere between 11.5 per
cent and 19 per cent, there is a lot of profit to be gained from
interest rates by the banks.
I know some will argue: ``What's wrong with profits''.
However, we must ask ourselves what is reasonable in terms of
profit. If the credit card suppliers, the banks, are not carrying on
their responsibilities in a reasonable way then Parliament has a
responsibility to act in the people's interest. That is what I
believe we are trying to do with this bill today.
I have watched previous governments and previous
administrations show concern over credit card interest rates,
indeed at times even on lending rates themselves in the past, but
when the pressure came to bear and push came to shove those
previous administrations failed to act.
This bill gives us as a government the opportunity to act.
Action speaks louder than words. We were elected as a
government of action. Let us show we are true to form and act
on the intent of this bill when it gets to the industry committee.
That is why I am asking all my fellow members of Parliament
to consider the intent of the member's bill, to put in place fair
regulations to control banks and other financial institutions, to
prevent massive profiteering at the expense of the average
Canadian consumer. After all, it is the consumer that is very
much affected by recessions which stats show is then passed on
to the retail sector.
The banking industry has not felt the same impact in hard
times. It is time that legislation was passed to protect the
average Canadian from the excessive interest rate charges by the
big financial institutions.
As I stated earlier, we do everything we can to ensure stability
and security for the lending institutions under the Canadian
Bank Act and special measures through the Bank of Canada in
terms of borrowing rates for those lending institutions.
(1850 )
We can do no less for Canadian consumers than ensure that
there is fair play and a reasonable spread in interest rates. I
encourage the industry committee to ensure that the intent of
this bill is acted upon and that we as a government show that we
mean action and we mean business.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Madam Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity this evening to add my comments to
those made by my colleagues on Bill C-233.
Since we already know this bill will be referred to committee,
I will not dwell on its merits which would otherwise have been
ample reason for me to warmly recommend this legislation.
Nevertheless, I would like to add to the remarks of the previous
speaker by providing some further emphasis, to be absolutely
sure the committee realizes that this bill enjoys strong support in
this House.
I may recall that since the early eighties, three parliamentary
committees have examined the credit card industry in Canada.
In 1989, the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate
Affairs focused on the importance of disclosure, while in 1992,
the committee considered the possibility of restricting entry
fees. In 1987, the Standing Committee on Finance looked at the
size of the competition.
Although the themes were different, the three studies all
focused on the high rates of interest applied to credit cards and
the fact that these levels were maintained while all other types of
interest went down.
In 1989, the committee recommended that the maximum rate
for cards issued by financial institutions should be set at 8
percentage points above the bank rate, while in 1992, the
committee recommended against setting limits.
4982
During the last Parliament, three members, including two
Conservative members, Don Blenkarn and Louise Feltham and
one NDP member, John Rodriguez, tabled private members'
bills on credit cards, which shows that the issue is not new to
Parliament and that there has been a constant expression of
concerns which today has finally found its way to committee
through this motion.
I would like to add that not long ago, on March 21, I myself
tabled two bills on this subject. I am referring to Bill C-227 and
C-228, which deal substantially with the same concerns, in
more or less the same terms, as Bill C-233.
I am therefore delighted to express my support this evening
for what was said by the hon. member for Simcoe North. It must
be recognized that the interest rates charged to consumers using
a credit card do not at all reflect the actual cost of credit to these
consumers. These consumers are simply being exploited.
To some extent, Bill C-233 differs from the legislation which
I tabled in this House, in first reading. For the benefit of the
committee which will review this issue, I would like to point out
a number of differences and explain why I am inclined to
support the changes which I proposed.
The French version of clause 9(1) of Bill C-233 says that
interest is calculated on a monthly basis, whereas the English
version makes no mention of that. In Bill C-227, which I tabled,
clause 5.1(1) specifies that interest shall be calculated monthly.
In Bill C-233, cash advances are excluded from clause 9,
whereas Bill C-227 does not exclude such advances.
Clause 10(1) in Bill C-233 excludes-although I do not know
if this was intended-those who contravene clause 3. As you
know, clause 3 refers to financial institutions which charge or
stipulate entry fees, renewal fees, etc., in relation to the use of a
credit card. So, those who contravene this provision are not
included in the clause on fines. Bill C-228, which I tabled,
imposes for fines to any offender, including those who charge or
stipulate entry fees or renewal fees.
In Bill C-233, clauses 10(1) (a) and (b) provide for maximum
fines of $75,000 and $50,000 respectively. In Bill C-228, we
propose the same fines; I guess we consulted with the same
researchers. However, unlike Bill C-233, our bill also proposes
minimum fines.
The hon. members for Simcoe North and Trois-Rivières both
referred to the study on credit cards conducted by the Service
d'aide aux consommateurs, and more specifically by Mrs.
Madeleine Plamondon, and Messrs. Henri-Paul Labonté and
Marc Pépin. I should point out for the benefit of this House and
the committee which will look at this issue, that the study was
made possible through a grant from the Department of Industry.
This not only gives it credibility, since it is already credible
considering who conducted it, but also makes it very appropriate
since it was financed by public funds.
Already on page 2 of the study, the substance of the message is
delivered. The authors say that their conclusions deal with the
accountability of credit card issuers and the urgent need for the
government to review this issue, which is obviously what we are
doing here this evening. I will conclude by saying that there is
real support among the public for such a measure. For example,
the Borrowers Action Society wrote to me about my bills, but I
want to share the benefit with the hon. member for Simcoe
North. This organization wrote:
[English]
``We are very pleased to see the initiative you and the BQ are
taking in this area and I wish to offer my full support as well as
the support of the Borrowers Action Society. We have 7,000
identified supporters from all parts of Canada. If you think we
can help in any way, please let us know''.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.56 p.m. and
no member having risen to taken part in the proceedings on the
adjournment motion, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.
tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.55 p.m.)