CONTENTS
Thursday, January 27, 1994
Debate on Address in Reply Resumed 452
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 454
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 455
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 460
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 461
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 462
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 465
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 468
Consideration resumed 476
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 478
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 480
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 483
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 484
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 487
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 487
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 490
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 490
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 490
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 491
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 491
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 492
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 492
Consideration resumed 496
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 501
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 538
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 551
451
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, January 27, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Mr.
Speaker, there having been discussions among the parties, I
think that the House will unanimously consent to the following
motion:
(1005)
[English]
That the ordinary hour of daily adjournment be extended to 10 p.m. this day
and that, during the extended sitting, no quorum calls or dilatory motions shall
be received by the Chair; and
that if, on Friday, January 28, 1994, at the conclusion of the debate on the
motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, a division is
demanded and required, such division shall be deferred until 6 p.m. on Tuesday,
February 1, 1994, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 45(6).
The Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have the
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr. Speaker,
our party has indeed granted consent, and I would like to point
out that we may have created a precedent in holding the vote in
the evening of Tuesday. I hope that we will have an opportunity
to discuss, within the framework of parliamentary reform, the
issue of concentrating votes on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and
Thursdays so as to allow hon. members of this House the
opportunity to work in their respective ridings on Mondays and
Fridays, which would make it a whole lot easier for all of them to
do their job.
[English]
The Speaker: Is it agreed that we have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me this morning to present a petition signed by
residents of my riding of Leeds-Grenville; residents from
places such as North Augusta, Addison, and Spencerville.
The petitioners are expressing their abhorrence at the crimes
of violence which, as we all know, are on the increase in Canada.
These petitioners are asking for amendments to be made to our
laws to prohibit the importation and the distribution and sale of
what is known as killer cards.
The petitioners would like to have the manufacturers of these
killer cards informed that they will be stopped at the border and
destroyed. The manufacturers should be so informed before they
try to export these things into Canada.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I have
one petition to present this morning. The petitioners point out
that single income families with special needs children should
be eligible to claim child care expenses on their income tax.
They feel these families are discriminated against for their
decision to remain at home with their children.
They point out that there is often a significant cost incurred by
families advised by physicians to place their children in day care
centres catering to special needs children and these costs remain
the same whether the family has a single or double income.
The petitioners believe this policy is unfair and
discriminatory. They ask that it be reviewed and if possible that
something be done in the forthcoming budget.
452
452
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1010)
[Translation]
The House resumed from January 24 consideration of the
motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in
reply to his Speech at the opening of the session.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, the Throne Speech contains a paragraph that is devoted
to culture, heritage and the Canadian identity. The paragraph
states that the Government will announce measures to promote
these essential national values.
One might wonder how such a short paragraph can respond to
the challenges facing a department that is as wide-ranging as the
one I am honoured to head. So a few words of explanation seem
to be appropriate at the beginning of this parliamentary session.
Straight away, the very name of the Department of Canadian
Heritage poses a problem. What do we mean by ``Canadian
heritage''? How can we justify grouping together in a single
department elements as diverse as communications, the status
of women, cultural industries, official and heritage languages,
multiculturalism, national parks and sites, State protocol and
amateur sport?
If we take the term ``heritage'' in its widest sense as meaning
all of the combined property that enables each of us to see
ourselves as an individual who belongs to a group or country, we
can see that the department's name is fitting.
[English]
Today we can no longer restrict the meaning of heritage to the
legacy of the past. Far more than a simple collection of traces
left by history, the country's heritage is first and foremost the
manifestation of the connection among members of a
community and of its distinctiveness inside the global
environment. Thus it is closely associated with the question of a
country's identity.
In this perspective the seemingly vast range of activities
supervised by the Department of Canadian Heritage is justified.
[Translation]
I can see three broad structures that will lead us to the same
goal. First, the management of our natural and physical
heritage: our national parks, our historic monuments, and our
heritage canals.
Second, the management of programs that protect official
languages, that promote the status of women and amateur sport,
and that enhance our society's culture in other ways.
Third, the management of cultural development in Canada,
and of means of communication which are of the utmost
importance, not only in ensuring that we remain independent,
but also as potent tools for economic development.
I would like to describe each of these three structures in
greater detail. Our heritage appears at first glance to be a
collection of historic sites, composed of 36 national parks, 750
historic sites and nine canals, located in all parts of the country.
This sector is of enormous economic importance as it generates
annual revenues of more than a billion dollars and provides jobs
for around 30,000 people.
This sector lies at the very heart of our tourism industry and it
is the envy of the international community, as we are at the
forefront of what is known as ``eco-tourism''. One single
statistic illustrates the popularity of these sites among tourists:
in 1992, some 27 million people visited Canada's national parks
and sites.
(1015)
They are, of course, associated in our collective psyche with
the beauty of our country. But they are also benefitting from the
growing emphasis that western societies are placing on
environmental quality. I feel, therefore, that they must follow
the principles set out in the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act.
[English]
Choices will have to be made and all parties, including the
federal, provincial, municipal and territorial governments, will
have to work together to make these choices. For instance, we
want to make progress toward our goal of establishing land and
marine base parks in all our distinct ecological zones. We also
want to increase the number of historic sites which must serve as
witness to all facets of our history.
In this respect I will encourage the unveiling of new areas of
our collective history such as those related to women and native
people, but we are facing as well severe financial constraints.
[Translation]
Some degree of self-financing might well open up some
interesting avenues, but we must avoid the indirect
consequences of over-commercialization. My role in this will
be to safeguard the ecological and commemorative integrity of
this important component of our heritage, as well as to make
judicious decisions about its development.
453
[English]
I wish to share a few thoughts regarding the benefits that lie
with a diverse society such as ours.
The history of our country is closely linked with successive
waves of immigrants and the interaction between newcomers
and the existing society. How immigrants adapt to the Canadian
way of life will always be a major factor in the development of
the Canadian identity.
The challenge is how to integrate diverse cultures with our
existing cultures without melting them down into a single
mould, thereby assimilating them out of existence. We must
promote the development of a wholly Canadian identity as a
rallying point for diverse cultures in support of a blueprint for a
society based on consensus and continuity with our history.
Let us face the facts. The coexistence of cultures throughout
the world is one of humanity's greatest challenges as this
century draws to a close. Every day we hear people talk about
racism or ostracism, both of which are exacerbated by hard
times. This is a global phenomenon from which Canada is not
exempt. We must consider the dangers inherent in self-centred
attitudes. We must keep in mind the benefit Canada can derive
from the diverse cultural makeup of our society.
In a world increasingly focused on economic and cultural
globalism, our diversity could be to our great advantage as we
strive to maintain our place in the community of nations.
[Translation]
We have to respond to this wave of intolerance that has swept
western countries with better information about the advantages
of cultural diversity. Perhaps we should begin with the very
young and, together with the provincial governments, as they
have jurisdiction over education, explore new ways of
responding to the irrational violence that a fear of someone from
a different culture may engender.
A foundation on race relations will be established precisely in
order to throw new light on productive exchanges between the
numerous ethnic groups that make up our population, the old
and the new, and to unite the forces of multiculturalism around a
cultural identity that is specifically Canadian. It might also be
worthwhile to make more effective use of gatherings like the
Canada Games and transform them into an authentic illustration
of Canadian diversity by incorporating a cultural component.
(1020)
I take this opportunity to remind the House that athletes from
coast to coast are getting ready for the Lillehammer Winter
Olympic Games. We all know how exciting it must be for them
to represent their country at such an outstanding event. I am sure
the House will join me in wishing them all the success in the
world.
I might add that, in my opinion, the preservation and the
promotion of our official languages does not turn Canada into a
tower of Babel. Let us keep the individual freedom to use the
language of our choice, but recognize that the English and the
French languages give us access to two of the greatest sources of
world culture. They are part of our national heritage that the
government must maintain and develop.
Allow me finally to express a few thoughts on cultural policy.
Culture is neither an abstraction nor a decoration. It is above all
a viewpoint on the world and a manifestation of our civilization.
There can be no identity without culture and this is recognized in
the Liberal Party's plan of action: ``Culture is at the very core of
our national identity. It is the basis of our sovereignty and the
pride of our nation''.
In an era of trade globalization and fantastic breakthroughs in
information technology, our cultural resources have become
powerful tools of economic development. In 1992, the cultural
sector contributed about 22 billion dollars to the gross domestic
product. It employed nearly half a million people, which
represents an employment growth rate of about 21 per cent
between 1987 and 1992.
[English]
As impressive as it may be such growth must not mask the
problems facing our cultural industries. These industries do not
have access to the capital and market they need to compete on
their home turf with the major producers of mass culture, mostly
our neighbour to the south, the United States. This is why I think
it is of paramount importance for Canada to maintain its
freedom of action under the international agreements linking us
with the United States, Mexico and our GATT partners. We
achieved success in this respect and we can now bring new
policies to the forefront.
In the past we have set policies in place to stimulate
production, strike a better balance with foreign products and
pave the way for greater creative expression from our artists. We
made great progress. Nevertheless I do not think our traditional
policies alone will be enough to surmount the challenges
presented by the globalization of cultures, by financial
constraints and by the revolution of the communications field.
We will still be called upon to adapt our policies and to be
innovative.
[Translation]
Our new policies will always seek to stimulate the production,
the marketing and the distribution of our cultural products at
home and abroad. We are preparing legislation which should
allow our authors, producers and performers to earn a decent
living.
454
I hope to update the Copyright Act so as to take into account
new technologies that have changed the way cultural products
are distributed and to recognize the rights of creators. We must
also diversify the funding sources of our cultural industries. We
absolutely need a better marketing plan for our cultural
production at the international level.
In addition to being composed of two linguistic groups, the
Canadian market is too small to ensure that our producers and
creators survive and thrive. A global cultural market is coming
into existence and Canada must promote in that market its
unique production whose international reputation is well
established.
(1025)
I wish to remind the House that the department of heritage
also has the mandate to ensure Canadian participation in
international exhibitions. I was thrilled to learn that the last
Canadian manifestation of this kind, which took place last year
in Taejon, South Korea, has proven to be most profitable
because for the first time Canada relied on the economic
partnership.
Furthermore, the evolution of our society prompts us to
review the operation and the mandate of our great cultural
institutions. Among them, broadcasting is without doubt the
most popular and most powerful cultural tool. More than 99 per
cent of Canadians own a radio, 99 per cent a television set and
more than 75 per cent a VCR. That shows the immense power
which these media have at their disposal.
In this perspective, it is important that the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation find its proper place as a public
broadcaster and that a funding mechanism better suited to the
present situation be put in place.
The government will announce shortly the appointment of the
new president of the CBC.
[English]
The government's commitment to Canadian strategy for an
information superhighway is a good sign for our cultural
industries. The information superhighway will be more than a
technological infrastructure. It will be a powerful vehicle for
Canadian content. It will enable us to distribute our cultural
products more effectively and make them accessible to all
Canadians.
This initiative will naturally be in keeping with our Canadian
cultural policy. I will soon begin working on this project with
my colleague, the Minister of Industry.
[Translation]
Just as important for our creative industry is the Canada
Council. Cultural products are not just consumable and
exportable goods. They are, first and foremost, the works of
artists, creative men and women without whom the cultural
industry could not survive.
The Canada Council's function is to support those artists
when they start on a project or do experimental work. It also
provides a fund that offers financial stability to the performing
arts, theatre, ballet and orchestras. It is therefore vital that we
ensure maximum efficiency on the part of this institution which
is essential to the promotion of the creative spirit in Canada.
Given the shift toward globalism which marks the end of this
millennium, we must rely more than ever on our creative men
and women to provide us with a feeling of identity and a sense of
belonging.
[English]
It is clear that the mandate of the Department of Heritage is a
challenging one lying at the very heart of the major issues facing
our country today.
Now more than ever Canada's cultural complexity must be
seen not as a problem but as an asset at a time when opening up
to the rest of the world is just as important as preserving our own
identity.
Whether it is our historic sites, our national parks, the
achievements of our athletes, the influence of our artists, the
diversity of our population or the success of our cultural
industries and institutions, all these things highlight our
willingness to excel as a people.
[Translation]
I intend to bank on this huge wealth and particularly on the
younger generation to ensure our country holds an enviable
position at the dawn of the third millennium.
It is no doubt clear by now that the Department of Canadian
Heritage, far from being obsessed with the past, is instead
looking toward the future. It is resolutely concerned with the
important challenges which face the societies of today.
I have faith in Canadian men and women, and I call upon them
to take up these challenges and help our country to advance in
the world of tomorrow.
(1030)
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, first of all I must
congratulate the member and minister on his election in
Laval-Ouest. This time he was luckier than in 1988, when he
was my opponent in Longueuil. I am pleased to ask him some
questions in accordance with his responsibilities as Minister of
Canadian Heritage.
First, as he spoke about multiculturalism, it would seem that
multiculturalism has not necessarily been a success, because we
seem to have created ghettos between cultures instead of
promoting the integration of citizens. We know that it takes
about twice as long to integrate new arrivals in Canada as it does
in the United States.
There is definitely a major problem with multiculturalism. I
know that in Montréal at the moment there are conflicts between
different cultures and it is my impression, and also the opinion
of some experts, that multiculturalism is something that has
created ghettos instead of promoting integration.
455
Second, he also spoke about creators and copyright. I think
that Canadian legislation may not protect creators' copyright
adequately. If we want to make it possible for our creators to do
more, we must First protect what they create. We must promote
what they create; that is how we are going to improve
productivity and create new products from both the cultural and
economic points of view.
My third question has to do with the national parks. We know
that for a long time Quebec has been calling for equity where
national parks are concerned. We do not have our fair share of
parks, and each time Quebec asks for new parks, there always
seem to be a lot of problems. However, we have great open
spaces in which excellent parks could be created, but it never
happens.
What is the problem, and will the minister make the necessary
efforts to ensure that we in Quebec can have our fair share of
national parks?
Mr. Dupuy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Longueuil for his congratulations. I am delighted that we can
continue a dialogue.
About multiculturalism, basically I agree with him. I feel that
multiculturalism, the government's policy, must not create
ghettos. It must not fragment our country. Basically, it must try
to use its extremely rich and extremely valuable contributions to
forge a grand Canadian culture. This Canadian culture will not
be uniform. If we look at what is happening in the world, it is the
countries that are managing to reconcile diversity whose
progress is the most successful.
About copyright, I also agree with the member for Longueuil.
I feel that the existing legislation is a bit outdated. It has not kept
up with changes in technology, and that is exactly why I
announced this morning that we intend to amend our copyright
legislation.
Last, about the national parks. Quebec has remarkable natural
and ecological areas and we want to develop national parks in
Quebec. What may have slowed down the development of these
parks is the fact that there is legislation in Quebec that does not
allow the Government of Quebec to assign parcels of land to
federal jurisdiction. That means that everything we do in
Quebec, we do in co-operation with the Quebec government. As
you know, when there are two governments that have to
negotiate to get something done, things usually take a little
longer.
(1035)
That, then, is the main reason why plans for parks in Quebec
may not have advanced as quickly as the MP for Longueuil
would like.
However, I can tell him, for example, that there is a marine
park we are developing at the mouth of the Saguenay that will be
a model, not only of this co-operation between the two levels of
government, but also of environmental protection.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the hon. minister on his speech.
There are areas in Canada today that feel the government's
policy on official bilingualism is expensive and unnecessary. In
light of the comments of the hon. minister I would like to ask
him whether he is aware of the real costs of the official
bilingualism program. I would also like him to comment on
whether another form of regional bilingualism would be more
effective than universal bilingualism.
Mr. Dupuy: Mr. Speaker, I am of course aware of the cost.
There will be opportunities later in the course of the year to look
at estimates, discuss the figures and give them a close look.
I believe the Canadian model, if I may call it that, is a
worthwhile model. In another career I lived in Belgium. I have
seen there how the division, the linguistic border between two
linguistic groups, has created many problems.
My vision of bilingualism in Canada is not to force every
Canadian to be bilingual. It is a matter of personal choice. Those
who want to be able to use their language in Canada should be
given a chance to do so.
If we accept this as a principle, the issue which my friend is
raising is really a matter of how you reconcile this with a decent
control of expenditure. I shall be pleased to discuss this with
him in the context of the estimates.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question for the minister is with regard to the definition of a
multicultural Canada. It appears to me to be somewhat
contradictory to state that immigrants under the present system
are being integrated into Canadian society.
My understanding of what integration means is that an
immigrant embraces the Canadian way of life and Canadian
culture, while having the freedom to preserve his own culture,
but if he chooses to do so he should have to do at his own
expense, on his own time without government assistance.
Multiculturalism as it is now practised, emphasizes
differences and tends to separate the different ethnic
communities, while being funded by the federal government. I
would like some clarification from the minister as to what he
means by integration. There seems to be a problem with the
definition. Multiculturalism and integration should mean two
different things.
456
Mr. Dupuy: Mr. Speaker, we must of course be clear in our
minds on the distinction between integration and assimilation.
The comments I made earlier in my speech were very much
addressed to assimilation.
In my view integration means that you enable the people who
are newly arrived to become fully operational in our society.
This is what they want and this is what is probably best for the
existing community because they become active and productive
members of that society. If we do not want to achieve that result
through assimilation, we have to find ways of enabling them to
contribute to our society while at the same time preserving their
inner values.
(1040)
This is not easily done. However, I think it is a public
responsibility. We cannot leave every one of these people to
fend for themselves.
We have been able to see how the attitudes of other
governments create difficulties and ghettos as we were talking
about earlier. If we can see it that way, integration is a desirable
goal. It needs some government support. I doubt that
assimilation will be achievable in our society today. We enjoy
too many personal liberties and freedom to be totally
assimilated and moulded.
There is a public responsibility. At the same time we are being
humane toward people who want to retain some cultural values
of their own.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, first of all,
I would like to congratulate you on your appointment to the
Chair and wish you every success in your new duties. The very
fact that you were elected shows the admiration and esteem in
which you are held by members of this House.
I would not want to miss the opportunity, during this reply to
the speech from the throne, to thank the men and women of
Sherbrooke who, for a third time, placed their confidence in me
under circumstances in which the outcome was rather uncertain.
I was elected for the first time in 1984, carried by a Conservative
wave. This time, I was re-elected on the undertow, with the wind
blowing in the opposite direction.
To new members of this House, I have to say, and my
colleague from Beauséjour knows exactly what I mean, one has
to go through both experiences to fully appreciate the privileges,
the rights accorded to members of Parliament.
To the people of Sherbrooke of whom I am so fond and for
whom I work relentlessly, I say thank you.
[English]
I am speaking also on behalf of a political party that occupied
a different place in this House before October 25. Some
members may have noticed our circumstances were quite
different.
I want to speak very frankly and honestly about that because it
is important for us to recognize and acknowledge the magnitude
of that defeat. On October 25 a lot of Canadians went to the polls
with a very clear determination to put aside the government and
a political party that had been there for the last nine years.
I do not need to expand on the fact that they did it with a great
deal of determination and with very little equivocation on
October 25. That being the case it puts us now in a position is
which even though we had 16 per cent of the vote, we have only
two members in this House.
I do not quarrel with that. Those were the rules before the
campaign. We did not complain about them then and I am not
going to complain about them now. It also means that we have
found a level of freedom that we had not anticipated.
I am the first to recognize that how we deal with that as a
political force in this country and as the political force that
founded Canada will determine our own future.
It is now up to us as Progressive Conservatives throughout
Canada to live up to the high expectations that Canadians have
set for us in the past and into the future. It is up to us to rebuild
our party and to present ourselves as a national-I want to stress
national-alternative to the governing party by the time the next
election campaign comes around.
What I do know, having spoken to Canadians across this
country, is that a lot of them, whether they are Progressive
Conservatives or not, do feel it is very important that there be a
national alternative to the governing party. They are concerned
about the way Canadians view their country and that is
something I feel very strongly about.
(1045)
It means that our party will continue to stand on the principles
it has always lived by. One is fiscal conservatism. We are a party
that will promote fiscal conservatism because we do want a
country that is able to afford social programs and continues to
have a strong social conscience and also a flexible view of
federalism. We think it is critically important in this country. We
proved in our last nine years that we were able to practise a
method of governing in the area of federalism that responded to
the different needs of the regions of this country.
It was far from being perfect. I want to be clear on that.
Anyone who would pretend that certainly would not meet with
the approval of most Canadians, but there are real accomplish-
457
ments there and this new government will build upon many of
them.
As I looked at the speech from the throne, and in responding to
it today, I have to admit I had mixed feelings, very much so. I
was a bit surprised.
I want to start by congratulating the members on the other side
for their election and their success, in particular the Prime
Minister. I do not share his views on a lot of issues, but beyond
that I think a lot of Canadians have gained a certain admiration
and respect for the fact that in difficult times he held tough. He
made it through and won the confidence of Canadians. I want to
congratulate him sincerely for that success. From a personal
point of view I think that is quite an accomplishment.
As I read the speech from the throne I had mixed feelings for
the following reasons. There are a lot of things in it that were left
over by our government and were taken up by this new
government, things that quite frankly the Liberals were not very
enthusiastic to support when they were on this side of the House.
I went through the speech from the throne and had mixed
feelings as I read the things the government was putting
forward. In the seventh paragraph the speech reads: ``In order to
achieve this agenda integrity and public trust in the institutions
of governments are essential''. In the next paragraph the speech
goes on to say: ``My ministers will insist upon integrity, honesty
and openness on the part of those who exercise power on behalf
of Canadians''.
This House has not sat for very long and already this
commitment has been put to a very strong test. We have heard
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has been using
government flight services and it has met with some
controversy. We find today that the Minister for International
Trade is in some difficulty over a fund raiser and the way it was
presented. We also know that another member of that caucus has
run into some difficulty regarding things he had done in the past.
I am not passing judgment on any of them, but is it not unusual
that after only about 10 days I can stand in this place and recite
three different areas in which the government has run into
difficulty and with this in the seventh and eighth paragraphs of
the speech from the throne?
I am not passing judgment but let us be very clear. Is it not
very different sitting on that side of the House dealing with these
matters from what it was sitting on this side? I see members on
the other side nodding, admitting that is the case. Well, it is.
I hope that Canadians who are now going to look at this
government will maybe see the previous government in a
different light. I am not in any rush for that. I just know that the
passing of time will deal with a lot of those issues.
Let me rapidly go over the things proposed in the speech. The
second page refers to lobbying. On August 9 the then Prime
Minister, the Right Hon. Kim Campbell, made a speech and in it
promised a lobbyist registration act. How could I disagree with
any action in that area?
The paragraph that follows talks about the credibility of
Parliament and how we have to reform Parliament. In the same
speech the same Prime Minister also made a commitment to
parliamentary reform and the things we had to change. She gave
a very detailed list of things we had to do. We have yet to see
what the details of this government will be in this area, but I look
forward to hearing what this government has to say, so I cannot
disagree with that.
The third measure was about reform of MPs' pensions. Would
we not know that on August 9 the previous Prime Minister also
made the same commitment? However, she went a little further
and said that we would change the pension system not only
double-dipping but also pensions being taken before the age of
55. Therefore, we will wait to see what the new government
proposes in this regard.
(1050)
On the same page of the speech from the throne there is some
allusion to small business and the Canada investment fund. In a
speech given on August 27 by the then Prime Minister there was
also an announcement made of the venture capital fund.
[Translation]
A venture capital fund was announced by the previous
government on August 27 and later established. The Small
Business Loans Act was also changed at that time.
[English]
There is a paragraph in the speech from the throne that really
made me feel good, the paragraph relating to trade. I know my
colleague from the NDP will appreciate this one because he has
his views on trade and I do not think he has changed them. The
hon. member has indicated he has not changed his views. Has he
changed his view on NAFTA?
Mr. Riis: Not at all.
Mr. Charest: The NDP has not changed its view on NAFTA.
The paragraph reads: ``Job creation and economic growth also
require Canadian firms, especially small and medium sized
businesses, to adopt an aggressive trading mentality to take
advantage of export markets''. I know my colleague does not
agree with that. Mike Wilson has said that very often, in fact.
Then it goes on to say: ``With the successful conclusion of the
Uruguay round and the implementation of NAFTA, the
government will assist Canadian companies to translate
improved market access into greater export sales''. Well those
were stock Tory speeches for the nine years I was in government
and now they are taken on lock, stock and barrel by the new
government.
458
To all those people who during the election campaign were
told by their Liberal and NDP candidates that they were opposed
to NAFTA, that they would renegotiate NAFTA and would
change NAFTA, ladies and gentlemen, they were just kidding.
They adopted NAFTA lock, stock and barrel. Not a paragraph,
not a word, not one single dot was changed in the law that was
passed in this place. The new Liberal government adopted the
whole thing.
Do I disagree with that? No, I do not disagree. I support the
government members in their change, in their transformation on
the road to Damascus. What I find extraordinary is how little
time it took them to do it. What a feat to be able to fight this in
the House of Commons for years. Some members were not here
at the time but I can tell them because I was on that side. They
fought this. There were screams in the House. It was
extraordinary. How many days did it take them? Was it 10 days,
20 days? Twenty days after being sworn in, NAFTA was the
greatest thing since sliced bread. The conversion was
extraordinary.
I want to be honest about this. Our colleagues from the NDP,
although I disagree with them, did not change their minds. They
have been consistent. I am sorry, I cannot say the same for the
government side.
The same speech talks about internal trade. Internal trade is an
important issue. I wish the government well because quite
frankly it really points to the fact that this country is doing better
at trade with other countries than it is within its own borders. In
the end it does not make sense because Canadians are paying the
price for unfair and unreasonable trade barriers in this country.
The new government proposes to deal with that issue in its
speech from the throne. It meets exactly with the commitment
we made during the campaign. It builds on what the previous
government had done to complete negotiations of a committee
of ministers of internal trade to eliminate trade barriers, to free
the movement of goods, services, people and capital within
Canada by June 30, 1994.
Last week I was delighted to hear the Minister of Industry,
after meeting with his colleagues, reiterate and take up that
commitment. It is a good idea. I agreed with it when we were the
government. I still think it is a good idea.
To get back to trade, there is allusion to the Pacific Rim and
Latin America. We had announced we were going to establish a
foundation for the Pacific Rim and Latin America. It is the same
thing.
It just goes on. We had also announced changes to the Young
Offenders Act.
There is another very interesting paragraph: ``A centre of
excellence for women's health will be established to ensure that
women's health issues receive the attention they deserve''. I am
sure many members from the Reform Party agree with that.
Probably totally.
Mr. Riis: Who wrote this throne speech?
(1055 )
Mr. Charest: I suspect the same public servants who wrote
our speeches from the throne with us probably shared their notes
with the new government because on August 23, 1993 would you
not know it, the previous minister of health announced that she
would put forward a new bureau for the health of women. This
was before the campaign and there is exactly the same
commitment. I cannot disagree with that.
The last one I want to point to is the overlap in government.
On September 2, 1993 the same commitment and type of
initiative was put forward.
I am not going to quarrel with the government on those issues.
I will support the government. On NAFTA, GATT, Latin
America, Pacific Rim, all those issues, let us go right ahead. I
will be happy to support the government in any way I can.
An hon. member: How does it differ from you?
Mr. Charest: The government differs in key areas. How jobs
should be created in this country is one example. That is an issue
that the government campaigned on but that is where there are a
few disappointments in the speech from the throne. The best
question is where is the meat?
Where this government seems to have made a commitment is
for the infrastructure program. It was going to build sewers and
roads. What we are finding out is that the money is now going to
convention centres. I do not have any problems with that but the
municipalities wanted the money for roads and sewers.
Who exactly is going to make the decisions and how will that
happen? Is there going to be an infrastructure program or not?
Or is it going to be a slush fund, as seems to be alluded to in this
secret memo I made public two days ago? The ministers of
public works and human resources were fighting not only for
direct control over the program as stated in the memo written to
the Prime Minister by the Clerk of the Privy Council, but they
also wanted federal control over all projects.
There was a question on this in the House yesterday and the
Prime Minister did not answer. We know they are responsible
for ACOA and western diversification. The Clerk of the Privy
Council does not have to write to the Prime Minister to ask him
whether they were responsible for ACOA and western
diversification. They know that. We know that. He felt this issue
was so important that he had to write to the Prime Minister to
find out whether their mandate was to have control over all
federal
459
projects. We have yet to know whether it is the minister from
Nova Scotia who will decide whether New Brunswick gets this
money there or elsewhere, not just for infrastructure but for
other programs as well.
I have to admit I may agree on some things but there is a
discrepancy between what was said during the campaign and
what seems to have happened behind closed doors since this
government was sworn in.
I was disappointed about a few things in the speech. There was
no mention of agriculture or very little. I have concerns also
about natural resources. I am very concerned this government
may be considering taxes on petroleum products or a carbon tax.
It may be tempted to go that route, but it would have to think
very carefully because we already tax our resources in this area.
We do that now. Any thought about such an initiative has to be
very closely looked at.
On the deficit and debt there is a general statement but I guess
we will have to wait until the budget comes forward to really
find out where the government's mind is on this. What I do know
and what I can say is that the government up until now has not
been very forthcoming in the way it has masqueraded or
camouflaged the numbers. There is quite evidently a deliberate
move to increase the amount of the deficit for this year, to pump
it up, to make the previous government look bad and make itself
look better. That move is quite obvious.
I ask hon. members to take a second and think about one thing.
Let us assume the situation is as the government says it is. We
have had these situations before. I remember when we were in
that same position as a government. What did we do? We froze
spending for the rest of the fiscal year. That is what we did. Why
is it that this government has not frozen spending, if not because
it wants to pump that number up for political reasons?
Where does the Canadian interest lie in all of this? Where is
the interest of the taxpayers?
[Translation]
I see the member for Chicoutimi. Let us ask him where lies the
interest of Chicoutimi voters in all this if the government,
instead of freezing expenditures, lets the deficit run unchecked
as is the case right now. This is nothing new, I am not imagining
it.
(1100)
There is no need to worry that I will spring some new theory
on him. The concept is simple enough. All the government needs
to do is declare an immediate freeze on expenditures for the rest
of the fiscal year, instead of letting the deficit grow to
astronomical heights. This, however, it has chosen not to do.
Why, do you ask? For political reasons.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that I only have one minute
left. With your permission and leave of this House, I will end my
comments promptly so as not to omit anything important, after
which I will be pleased to answer questions and respond to
comments. With your consent, I will then take five more
minutes to discuss other subjects.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I must ask for unanimous
consent. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Charest: Our friends in the Bloc and the Reform Party
are consistent in their refusal. I will therefore use up the minute
that is left to finish my comments, to tell briefly how worried I
am by the new turn taken in this House, by the accent that is
being put on regional views as a result of the elections when
Canadians democratically made their choices.
We end up with, on one part, an official opposition party
dedicated to breaking up Canada-it has the right to represent
this view, I do not object-and on the other part, a Reform Party
which just as legitimately represents a view, but a view that is
not national. It did not field candidates in all ridings in the last
election.
Facing them, we find a government seemingly determined to
let events run their own course. I am worried. This country and
this Parliament must squarely face this challenge to our future.
Our duty requires that we better stress what unites us as a
people. That is what a country is all about, not this expression of
narrow viewpoints which tends to blame others for everything
that goes wrong.
I do not agree with this type of nationalism, this rather narrow
and simplistic view which has nothing in common with my own
vision of our country. Canada is badly in need of a sense of its
future and of a shared project.
In the next few years, I will be fighting to preserve this
country's integrity and to bring out what exactly we have in
common.
[English]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the stand-up comic from
Sherbrooke on such an entertaining presentation. Members of
the Progressive Conservative Party really missed out last June
by electing someone else as their leader. They certainly made
the most monumental mistake of their lives because history has
proven that our gentleman from Sherbrooke is now a leader in
opposition, a leader of the former Progressive Conservative
Party.
I said ``opposition'' because he sees himself as the official
opposition. The hon. member should recognize in his usual
jovial manner that he is leader of absolutely nothing, but he is
obviously a very good entertainer.
460
[Translation]
He talks of Canadian citizens. For five years straight I have
heard the member for Sherbrooke, previously minister of this
and that, talking about Canadian big business without ever
mentioning Canadians. Today he remembers them.
I know the member is a grassroots politician. All of a sudden,
he is forced to start all over again, to go from door to door. I
congratulate him on his door-to-door campaign. It is a good
start. Maybe, 25 or 30 years from now, the Progressive
Conservative Party will become the official opposition.
I am not particularly attempting to reply to the member for
Sherbrooke who seems suddenly to have taken it upon himself to
change the rules of the game. I have always thought, during the
five years that I was here, that one was not to address other
members directly in the House, that one had to address the
Speaker. The rules seem to have changed. I would like to
comment on the House rules. Following the speech by the
minister for Heritage Canada, opposition members were
allowed to speak.
(1105)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) I would just like to remind
the member for Carleton-Gloucester that when a point of order
has been raised the Speaker deals with it after questions and
comments.
The member for Sherbrooke's speech seems to have aroused a
lot of interest. In order to allow members on both sides of the
House to comment or ask questions, I would ask the member for
Carleton-Gloucester to confine himself to the speech. Later,
we could certainly discuss any other matter which he might want
to raise.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, agreed. I give notice that I
would like to raise a point of order as soon as questions and
comments are over.
I wish to go back to our comedian from Sherbrooke and tell
him that the difference between the new government and the old
governement he was part of is that: there are glib talkers and
then there are people of little action. The member for
Sherbrooke has become one of those glib talkers.
The member for Sherbrooke for whom I have much affection
and admiration, has made great progress. I would like to have
heard him use the same tone to defend the public good over the
course of the last five years. I must then congratulate him on his
speech. He has finally seen the light. At long last, he is talking
about people from Sherbrooke, from Chicoutimi. He has not
mentioned the citizens of the national capital region but he has
spoken of the westerners and the Reform Party. He referred to
the Bloc Quebecois and to Canadians in general. He did forget to
ask for absolution for the great sin he committed while in
``another world'' during nine years; that is, being spokesperson
for big business rather than for Canadian citizens.
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, allow me to return the compliment
to my friend from Carleton-Gloucester. I know him well and
have great affection for him, but I hope the showering of my
affections on him will not be quite so painful as his on me.
I can accept the member's reproaches. I do believe the
Canadian people passed judgment on October 25, as I recall, and
that judgment was quite harsh. I do not know how long the hon.
member intends to rehash the fact and harp upon it. There are
two members left in the House representing the Progressive
Conservative Party. My colleague still feels the need today to
rise and strike another blow. What can I do? Such is human
nature.
All I can say is that I have also seen that feeling. The
member's comments, when he says that I am the leader of
nothing, border on scorn. I heard him clearly. That is his point of
view. About 16 per cent of the Canadian population would
disagree with him. I do not need any advice from my colleague
about going door to door or about winning people's faith. I wish
to remind him where he is. He is in a Parliament in which each
person present has been elected by his or her riding. I was thus
elected and I defer to the good judgment of the citizens of my
riding. I leave it to them to decide if my presence here has any
less value than his own, as he seems to think.
If this is an example of his feelings and attitude to come
during his tenure in government, I can only wish him luck. I
have seen it before, and I have also seen the results over time.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I have listened
with keen interest to the speech by the former Deputy Prime
Minister of Canada. Obviously he has told us that in this House
or in this Parliament, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
(1110)
During the last election, Canadians elected a new government
and Ontario has majority representation in this government,
luckily for Canada and for its regions. In Quebec, we had
another choice and the majority voted for the Bloc québécois.
The same thing happened in the West where voters elected a
majority of Reform Party candidates.
I think we must give the government a chance to prove itself.
Obviously, it will soon have to tackle job creation and deficit
reduction. It is true that the former government showed us
clearly that it was incapable of solving the serious problems
confronting Canada and Canadians let them know clearly what it
thought of them.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
461
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I think we must be
serious in this House, and even if my honourable colleague from
Sherbrooke rose to speak to this House, as he has the right to do,
his speech reminded me of the death of a swan or, should I say,
the agony of a swan. As far as we are concerned, in Quebec we
had a choice and the majority prevailed.
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, it is always comforting to see that
in our democracy people have choices to make and that they can
make them freely, albeit for different reasons. There are some in
the hon. members ranks who claim that he was elected to
achieve the independence of Quebec. Others will say that maybe
his mandate was a bit wider and that many people who voted for
the member from Shefford also wanted a change of government.
It is hard to judge after the fact, but time will tell.
I want to say to the member from Shefford, while thanking
him for his advice, which is always useful, that he has just
arrived here. I too know what it is to be elected with the wind at
my back and on a wave. When you arrive here in those
circumstances, you are always full of confidence and very
happy. Here is what I have to say to the member from Shefford
for what it is worth, since I do not seem to have the benefit of his
vast experience. If he is forecasting our demise, the swan's song,
he surely knows things that I do not. I do not know him very
well, but he must have a lot of parliamentary experience to be
able to say that.
In any case, I can say to the member from Shefford in all
humility that like him the member from Sherbrooke was once
elected with the wind at his back and that the member from
Sherbrooke has also been elected with the wave running in the
opposite direction. When he has lived both experiences, maybe
he will share with us his thoughts and his great wisdom.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is a short time left
and I would ask for the co-operation of members.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I will be very quick indeed. As the
member knows, I have deep affection for the member for
Sherbrooke.
When he was going through the litany of policy initiatives he
agreed to in terms of supporting the government, I wondered if it
was some type of early olive branch and that he might like to
consider coming over here and joining us.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Just as short an answer
from the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by the
comment. I have a lot of friendship for my friend from
Broadview-Greenwood, but I think it would be the reverse. We
could form the government pretty fast and continue the agenda. I
look forward to sitting with the member for
Broadview-Greenwood and forming a new Progressive
Conservative government who knows?
I know the member for Broadview-Greenwood will
acknowledge that I sat on that side of the House for a period of
time. I would be curious to know whether he shares the view that
things are a little different, the perspective on fund raisers and
other things.
I heard the Prime Minister yesterday make a very good
explanation on using government aircraft. Why did he not give
that explanation when he was on this side of House? I look
forward to working with him in this Parliament.
* * *
(1115)
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was extremely disappointed
a short while ago when you did not recognize me after the
Minister of Canadian Heritage spoke. It has been my experience
in the House and my observation of years before that when
someone spoke in the House the Speaker would recognize
people from different parties.
I understand full well that if someone from the government
makes a speech, especially a minister, it would be good
parliamentary manners to accept comments or questions
immediately from opposition members of Parliament.
However, when members of the government wanted to make a
comment or question to the minister I believe in the past they
have always been recognized. A member may agree or disagree
with his own minister. A member like myself may want to make
a comment. I may want to make a comment about something that
affects my riding. I may want to question the minister.
Are we changing the way we have been operating in the House
whereby after someone's speech there is an alternance between
parties so that backbenchers, members of Parliament, can have
their say in the highest court of the land?
I beg you, Mr. Speaker, not to change that good practice.
There should be an alternance among the five parties. We on the
government side should not be muzzled as ordinary members of
Parliament because of possibly a new practice of which I have
not been made aware to date.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member
for Carleton-Gloucester for raising his point of order,
particularly at this early stage in this 35th Parliament. I will
quote for him two precedents that will enlighten us all, certainly
including myself in the chair at this moment.
In the first instance I will refer to the Annotated Standing
Orders of the House at page 144:
-preference in this period is to be given to Members of parties other than
that of the original speaker, but not to the exclusion of Members of other
parties-amendments to a bill cannot be moved-
462
And so on. In effect I largely founded my decision in the
selection of members for questions and comments following the
intervention of the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage on the
basis of my limited knowledge according to that annotated text.
On the same point of order raised by the hon. member, I have
learned that there is also a greater latitude given to members
from both sides-in this instance from the government
side-when a minister of the government speaks.
I will refer him to the January 17, 1983 edition of Hansard as
follows:
-the Chair will try, as much as possible, to give priority to Members
representinga party other than that of the Member who made the speech. However,
backbenchers on the Government side will also be entitled to ask questions
following a speech by a Minister.
The point raised by the member for Carleton-Gloucester is
an important one, as I said earlier, at the beginning of the 35th
Parliament. I thank him for raising the issue at this time and
making us in the chair even more sensitive to this procedure so
that in effect we will address the matter with even greater justice
in the days ahead.
I thank the member for Carleton-Gloucester for raising this
point.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I understand your reading from
former Debates. When you mentioned that preference would be
given to MPs of other parties and so on, I did not hear the word
exclusive or must. I heard what I interpret as words like may and
good practice and good custom.
(1120)
I appreciate very much your diligence in checking to see what
the proper practice should be. I also say that I do respect that you
are new on the job, as it were, and I respect your position.
However you have just informed me, Mr. Speaker, that I was
right but too bad, member of Parliament for
Carleton-Gloucester, you could have had your day in court;
you were right but sit down and we are going to go on with
whatever we are supposed to go on with today.
Since I have not been hanged, as capital punishment does not
exist any more, and I am still alive and standing, perhaps the
Chair, as a gesture of penance or whatever it might be called,
would allow me to have 60 seconds to comment on whatever I
would like to say to the minister.
I think it would be fair to allow me as a backbench member of
Parliament to make comments that would affect my riding after
a minister has spoken.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We have heard the request
of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester. I do in the first
instance as the Speaker at this time humbly submit to the
member that I erred in my judgment, not being fully aware of all
of the rules and procedures of the House.
I would ask the House for unanimous consent so that the
member for Carleton-Gloucester might at this time make those
comments.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I have no
difficulty giving my friend 60 seconds to make a comment. If he
is simply reflecting the frustration he feels about not having
ample opportunity to make interventions, I am sure it is
something that we all feel.
The Standing Orders restrict us to 10 minutes for questions
and comments and yet you will notice, Mr. Speaker, that at the
end of that period there are still, almost inevitably, four or five
members standing.
I simply want to say I respect the frustration my hon.
colleague feels, but I remind him that it is probably a frustration
that we all feel a good part of the time. We are restricted by the
Standing Orders. However, if he has a comment which he feels
compelled to make now and requires 60 seconds, I certainly
would give him unanimous consent to do so.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Unanimous consent
having been denied, the debate resumes.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address
to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at
the opening of the session.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I am a new member
of this House. I have had the good fortune to listen to the
remarks of the member for Sherbrooke. I admit that I am
perhaps a less experienced orator than he, but I have just as
much fire in my belly. A Latin tag comes to mind, although I am
not big on Latin, which sums up what I have heard Asinus
asinum fricat means that as a junior MP I have to expect verbal
sparring matches, quite virulent ones sometimes, in the House.
Since I am speaking after the member for Sherbrooke and he
talked about riding in on a wave and being elected with the wave
463
running in the opposite direction, I shall start my remarks in the
same vein, coming as I do from a maritime riding, by pointing
out that the member for Gaspé has continued, unlike his party, to
ride the wave that the people of Quebec directed toward that
party in 1984. In 1984 we talked about le beau risque, the gallant
gamble. In 1988 they talked about returning with honour and
enthusiasm. The riding of Gaspé has taken the same wave, and
perhaps the Conservative Party was not listening to it.
(1125)
As a member of the Bloc Québécois I intend to continue to
repeat what the people of the riding of Gaspé and of Quebec said
in the recent federal election.
The House of Commons is for me a place to speak out for the
residents of the great riding of Gaspé. It is one of the most
beautiful parts of Quebec. Whether my fellow members from
Quebec agree or not, I would say it is the most beautiful part of
Quebec. It is such a jewel that in the early 1970s the Liberal
Party decided to create Forillon National Park on the tip of the
Gaspé Peninsula.
It was in the Forillon National Park affair that the man who is
now Prime Minister of Canada first took up arms against
Quebec. In 1972, the member for Shawinigan expressed his
delight at having gone over the head of the Bourassa government
to create Forillon Park, and I quote his remarks at the time: ``I
used the Park to break the Quebec government and I'm proud of
it!'' Our new Prime Minister started his career fittingly.
We have a saying where I come from: you can take the
Gaspésien out of Gaspé, but you can't take the Gaspé out of the
Gaspésien. To a Gaspésien, having land expropriated forges
character. As the motto of Quebec has it, we remember.
This maritime riding developed to a great extent thanks to
cod. Centralizing federal management of this marine resource
leaves a bitter taste in our mouths, just as the Forillon Park affair
did. Management imposed from outside dismisses local
attempts to solve the industry's problems. This is not the first
time the fishery has undergone a crisis.
In the early 1970s, the cod stock was in about the same state as
it is today, but the resourcefulness of the fishing folk of the time
turned them toward other species. When in the early 1970s they
could catch no more cod, they went after crab. Crab fishing was
no gold mine then, but it is now.
A little later, around 1976, it was the turn of the ocean perch
fishery in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to decline. The people who
had been catching ocean perch started harvesting shrimp
instead, because shrimp was not so well known. Their
resourcefulness enabled them to get through a crisis.
I would conclude that these maritime communities have the
ability to adapt as long as they have the freedom to work
together. They can let each other know when there are other
species around that are undervalued and could be marketed. For
that to work there have to be channels of rapid communication
between the decision makers and the ordinary people, the
fishermen on the front line. The ability to make rapid feedback
possible was lost by Quebec under its Liberal government in
1982 when jurisdiction over fisheries was returned.
It is high time the federal government opened its eyes. In
1986, rapid feedback would have enabled the people who fished
for cod inshore and saw the stocks were declining to adapt.
While cod stocks were declining, other species, wrongly
thought to be undesirable, should have been promoted.
The problem goes a lot further than the exhausted stocks the
department has proclaimed. It is the whole structure of the
industry that has to be rethought. Instead of getting on with the
structural changes needed to react to cyclical variations in cod
stocks, the throne speech is still looking for someone to blame
for their disappearance.
(1130)
In order to get the economy going again, the government must
set directions for the future of the fishing industry. I will address
two important aspects of this issue; harvesting the resource and
protecting workers.
Cod fishing is older than Canada. Since the fishery began, fish
have been harvested using the preservation methods we knew. In
the beginning, we salted and dried cod. With the arrival of
electricity and freezers, we made blocks of frozen cod. That is
what we are still doing, or were until the minister turned off the
tap.
These types of harvesting resulted in the setting of an implicit
standard on the length of fish caught. In order to meet these
standards, which were set for a specialized industry, fishermen
had to throw back undesirable fish solely on the basis of length.
The restructuring of the fishing industry, or rather, the
revolution of the fishing industry, was not addressed in the
speech from the throne.
Despite decades of intervention by the federal government,
the structure of the fishing industry is still at the elementary
school level. What does the government intend to do in order to
upgrade it to the university level?
University is the top of the line. We must no longer limit our
efforts to the traditional mass market. Instead we must seek out
new market niches, such as those for fresh fish and
under-utilized species. This means that we must support the
fishing communities so that they are able to meet these new
standards. We must enable them to make more money while
catching fewer fish.
464
In order to reach this objective, the government should apply
business methods to the fishing industry; in other words, it
should bring the sales operation closer to the harvesting
operation.
If all the steps or all the links in the industrial chain are
respected, fishermen will be able to sell everything they catch.
At present, they depend on overspecialized plants and as a result
what they harvest is overspecialized.
In the past, the government pinned all its hopes on harvesting
the natural resource. Today, we must rely on human resources,
the grey matter of the people in the communities, to make more
money while being more respectful of the marine resource.
These people are familiar with the problems, they have
solutions. Is the government prepared to support their efforts?
These communities need concrete measures like those put
forward by the Bloc during the election campaign, which I will
list. One such measure was the creation of landing warehouses,
in order to group together underutilized species and promote the
sale of fish turned down by traditional plants.
The second measure put forward by the Bloc was the creation
of a provincial clearinghouse to implement the logistics of
transportation to the various markets because they will be new.
The third measure, which I will mention but about which I
will be speaking again later, was returning the management of
fishing licences to the provinces.
What I mean to say is that the government, instead of looking
to the future, set up short focus programs that did not address
existing problems. Meanwhile, the situation has deteriorated
and workers have found themselves without work.
(1135)
The government is proposing pointless training programs.
Rather than forcing workers to bend over backwards to meet the
requirements of these programs, we should be listening to them
and taking their tastes and their skills into consideration. We
have to rely on people's experience and help them to put their
ideas into practice. It is up to Ottawa to understand how people
think, not the other way around. As I said during my election
campaign, there is a local solution to a local problem. Real
solutions will not come from Ottawa.
However, a transition period is necessary in order to revitalize
industry. Since it was the government that allowed the situation
to get worse over the years, it is up to the government, if it wants
to be a responsible government, to support the people who are
now unemployed. The current minister of fisheries has already
made an attempt to simplify access to assistance programs for
workers in the industry. It is a step in the right direction.
However, a great deal remains to be done. Words are wasted
on a starving man. Throughout this transition period, the
government must make sure that the people affected have bread
and butter on the table. It is not the fault of the people in the
coastal communities if the previous federal government
preferred to waste public funds rather than investing in projects
that would create jobs. Coastal communities are in shock. Now
is not the time to let them down and force the residents to find a
job that does not correspond to either their inclinations or their
skills.
Those who live in coastal communities have passed on their
fishing practices from father to son, from mother to daughter,
and have never had to change their way of doing things.
The Gaspé poet, Maurice Joncas, described their lives in the
song ``Les expropriés de Forillon'':
Their universe was filled with these: Fishing boats upon the seas, Trees to fell
in winter snow, Pleasures that were theirs to know.
I think these lines are a fitting description of past life in the
communities which now, because of the federal government's
management mistakes, have been turned upside down. For them,
life will never be the same. They have to reinvent a way of life.
All this cannot be done by waving a magic wand, and the
government must respect the rate at which the communities are
able to adapt. This revolution requires that the various levels of
government give the coastal communities new development
tools.
These tools will have to enable coastal communities to take
stock of the human and natural resources in their surrounding
area, because all too often the government has acted
unilaterally.
Now is not the time to boast and brag about the merits of
federalism. We really have to work together and ensure that the
coastal communities feel they are full partners in the enormous
changes to come, changes that affect them. It would be
irresponsible to act otherwise.
The appalling collapse of the Atlantic fish stocks is the direct
result of federal intervention in the fishery. The Liberal
government does not have a spotless record in this area. Early in
the 1980s, the Liberals gave out a large number of subsidies for
shipbuilding that sometimes reached to 60 per cent of the price
of the boat. They contributed to the current situation of
overcapacity. Instead of diversifying the industry, the federal
government of the day-we will see what the new one plans to
do-made the problem worse.
465
(1140)
For their part the provincial governments had no choice but to
assist the processing sector to adapt to the higher volume of
catches. They invested money while the resource itself, the
cornerstone of the industry, slipped away.
There cannot be a valid and coherent fisheries policy unless
the provinces share in managing the resource. The vulnerability
of Quebec and the other provinces regarding fisheries arises
from the fact that the final decision making power rests with the
federal government.
Quebec and Newfoundland are perhaps closer on the issue of
managing the fishery than we might think. In Quebec, we say
Newfoundland is more separatist than we are. In the context of
fisheries and oceans' reform-the research carried out last
year-Newfoundland has asked for exclusive management of
the resource and exclusive authority to issue licences for fishing
in its waters.
I would be in favour of returning licensing management to the
provinces. However, because fish stocks are migratory, the
provinces cannot claim exclusive jurisdiction. If Newfoundland
believes that the federal government is managing the resource
inadequately, we hope it will support us in working to achieve
joint management among the provinces. With joint management
the resource would be managed more efficiently and we would
have a better chance of preserving it.
However, a sovereign Quebec, with a seat on the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries Organization, could achieve a degree of
rational management more rapidly. A sovereign Quebec would
determine total levels of allowable catches just like any other
sovereign state. It would distribute its share by issuing Quebec
fishing licences.
This approach would enable Quebec to voice its opinions, as a
people, at the international level and to manage its biomass
jointly as it saw fit, without the federal government acting as an
intermediary.
I want these remarks to be a plea for common sense, plea for
respect for the maritime communities and their respective
provinces. I have always tried to be fair. My remarks are not
inspired by short-term interests but by a desire to counter the
trend toward centralization in Canada that is responsible for the
collapse of our fish stocks.
It is thus with a profound respect for the parties concerned
that I submit my vision to the House. This is my reply to the
speech from the throne, which in my opinion showed no
understanding at all of the problems endured by maritime
communities in Canada and Quebec.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent so that the
House can continue with its business during the lunch break,
between one o'clock and two o'clock.
I would also like to ask that the ministerial statement
scheduled for this morning be delivered between speeches, after
one member has finished speaking and before another begins, so
that neither need interrupt his or her remarks.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will start with the
request for unanimous consent to continue over the lunch break.
Have I the consent of the House for the proceedings to continue
over the lunch break?
[English]
Is there unanimous consent to continue through the lunch
break between one o'clock and two o'clock?
(1145 )
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As to the hon. member's
second point, I will check with the Clerks to make sure it is in
order and let him know.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
congratulate and pay my respects to the great member for Gaspé,
a devoted member who has proven his interest in the citizens of
the Gaspé Peninsula.
He did not have only negative criticism to give in his speech. I
notice he also suggested several solutions to improve the
welfare of the citizens of that area, particularly regarding
fishing. He also said that if Quebec had full jurisdiction over
fishing, the people of the Gaspé Peninsula would not be in the
terrible slump they are presently experiencing. As he put it so
well, the Gaspé Peninsula is probably the most beautiful region
of Quebec. It might be a bit cold, but it is still a most beautiful
area which I had the opportunity to visit as recently as last year.
To the hon. member for Gaspé, I want to say that listened to
his speech with great interest. I congratulate him and urge him to
keep up the good work.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
Longueuil for his remarks. I will often take the floor in this
House to defend the interests of fishermen, Quebec fishermen
certainly, but also fishermen in general. I have a motto, and
when we want to be impartial and show fair play, as we used to
say in my former business, to be able to defend our own, we must
determine what is our fair share of the resources and be
respectful of our colleagues on the other side so as to agree on
regulations and achieve administrative agreements that will
ensure long-term harmony for the good of the communities as
well as of the resources.
466
It is in that frame of mind that I extend my hand today to the
members opposite and ask them to work with me, to take me
seriously and not dismiss my remarks on the pretext that I am a
sovereignist. I may be a sovereignist but I am not a racist. I want
to work for the good of the fishermen. In my speech I
endeavoured to show the government that if it intends to make
communities which have nothing to do with it carry the can for a
situation they have not chosen, the members and ministers will
find that I will stand in their way and they will come to know me
and learn what it is to deal with a quick-tempered son of the
Gaspé Peninsula.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the member for Gaspé on his first speech in the
House. I noted his concerns about his constituents, especially
with regard to fish and the fact they derive their livelihood from
the sea.
In his speech he mentioned that if the province of Quebec
were more involved in the determination of the potential
solutions to the lack of fish and lack of cod in the Atlantic
region, somehow that would alleviate the problem for his
constituents.
I do not think having the province of Quebec become involved
in the negotiations for the allocation of fish quotas will create
any more fish to be harvested. Is he suggesting that the province
of Quebec be given a larger share of the quotas available, or is he
suggesting some other alternative that we are not aware of,
whereby more fish could be harvested and in that way improve
the prosperity and the livelihood of all the fishermen on the
Atlantic coast?
(1150)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon.
member for St. Albert for his question. When I spoke a moment
ago, I did not mean to say that Quebec could make fish appear
out of nowhere at this moment. What I meant was that in the
past, because we had the right to jointly manage the stocks, we
were entitled to manage them in Quebec. The process for
feedback, as it occurred in a field as complex as that of the
fisheries, was implemented much faster.
In that sense, I understand that all Canadians, including
Quebecers, must tighten their belts and participate in
reconstituting the stocks. When I spoke a moment ago, I meant
to invite the government not to make the mistakes of the past all
over again. Since a man grows when he learns from his mistakes,
I believe we all have a great opportunity to grow, because the
federal government has made a lot of mistakes in the past, and I
wish we could learn from them.
If we jointly managed the stocks, it would be so much easier
to harmonize the industrial policies of the provinces in the field
of fisheries. At the present time, we take advantage of the fact
that the decision will be made at the federal level, and that
everyone will pull uncle Prime Minister's sleeve to get a little
piece of the pie, whereas if we all sat around the same table as
equals in mutual respect, we would achieve harmony, but it
would be for the better of the resource. We must never forget
that people depend on that resource. Their survival is linked to
that of the stock, they need it to eat, to earn their living, to
maintain their lifestyle because the Canadian fisheries industry,
including that of Quebec, is an export-oriented industry. We
therefore owe it to ourselves to take good care of the stocks.
They are a gold mine and I wish we could all work together to
that end.
I am 5 feet, 10 inches tall and I am a sovereignist but that is
not all there is. The most important thing is that we come to
agree on the management of the fish stocks, and I would be
extremely happy if we could achieve that.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the member for Gaspé on the positive tone of his
speech. I suggest to him there is no doubt the federal
government has mismanaged the east coast fisheries.
The member seems to suggest that the solution to what ails the
east coast fishery lies in turning jurisdiction of the fisheries over
to the provinces. Would this not just exacerbate the problem and
simply lead to endless bickering between the provinces rather
than a real solution?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, when someone wants to
find solutions to a problem, should he be afraid to say what he
really thinks? Should he be concerned that it could start a
squabble? I certainly did not speak with the intention to cause an
argument. I simply invited the members collectively to improve
the condition of the industry and the sharing of resources so we
could perpetuate these resources.
I do not expect to start a constitutional squabble. If that were
the case, I would face the music. With all my colleagues sitting
here, I think I am strong enough to do that. Nevertheless, that
was not my intention this morning.
I understand that the riding of Delta is in British Columbia. I
would like to give my regards to the people of British Columbia
and to apologize for not having mentioned their province when I
talked about fisheries.
(1155)
This morning I wanted to take a stand and respond to the
speech from the throne. This speech overlooks many serious
points. Two things were mentioned: find the reason for the
467
depletion of stocks and create an emergency program for
Atlantic fishermen who are at the moment greatly affected.
I would like to tell my hon. colleague from British Columbia
that I intend to visit the fishermen from his province once my
English has improved somewhat.
[English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and
a privilege for me to rise in my place as a new member for the
riding of Brant and participate in this throne speech debate.
Before I make my comments in that regard, I would like to
thank the people from the riding of Brant for electing me as their
representative to this House. As well, I would like to recognize
the contribution made to this House and to my riding by my
predecessor, Mr. Derek Blackburn. I wish him well on his
appointment to the Immigration Board and thank him for
accepting that appointment prior to the call of the 1993 federal
election. Certainly that is one political appointment that I will
not argue with the previous government.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize you and congratulate
you on your appointment to the Chair and on behalf of the people
of Brant congratulate the Speaker for being elected as our
presiding officer. I have every confidence in his ability to keep
our House in order and I offer all my support and my
co-operation in that regard.
There are a couple of things I would like to share with the
House this morning. First of all, I would like everyone to know
why I so strongly support the speech from the throne as it was
presented to us by the Governor General on the opening of this
historic 35th Parliament.
Second, I would like to offer to the government an idea. It is
not a new idea, but it is one which, if implemented more broadly,
would help us effect real change in government.
Why do I support so strongly the agenda that has been
presented to us in the speech from the throne? In a word, it is
because it is practical. The people of Brant are tired of smoke
and mirrors. They want no nonsense. They want a common sense
approach to the challenges that face us. What we find in the
speech from the throne is just that.
Take, for example, the infrastructure program. It is a program
that can be used by municipalities all across the country. My
riding of Brant is a wonderful mix of rural and urban. Brantford
and South Dumfries townships boast some of the most fertile
and productive farm land in Ontario and they are dotted with
beautiful historical villages like Glen Morris, Mount Pleasant,
Harrisburg and the community in which my family has been for
over six generations, the village of St. George.
We need road improvements to connect our rural residents
with these villages and with our urban centres, the town of Paris
and the city of Brantford. Paris is a wonderful town, located
between the rivers Nith and Grand. It needs new sewers for their
residential areas. On the other hand, the city of Brantford needs
support to improve its landfill site, its water treatment facilities
and its roads if it is going to compete for the economic
development that we so sorely need. The infrastructure program
makes sense. It is practical for the people in my riding and I
believe members will find it is practical for the people in theirs.
When we look at the government's approach to small and
medium sized business we see yet another set of practical
strategies. In my riding we have historically depended on the
manufacture of farm implements and farm equipment.
Companies like Cockshutt, then White, Massey-Harris, then
Massey-Ferguson, are the companies that employed the people
of Brant.
Not very long ago the city of Brant boasted having 5,000 of
the highest paying manufacturing jobs in North America.
However, those jobs are all gone. Those companies are all
closed and we, like many communities, are now trying to rebuild
our economy. We know that it is small and medium sized
businesses that are going to do that for us. My employers are
very supportive of this government's understanding that they
need better access to capital and less government red tape. They
need support if we are to build local economic, industrial
clusters.
(1200)
As a final example of our government's practicality let us
look at the approach to youth and youth employment. Again, two
very practical programs have been suggested. The national
apprenticeship program is one example. It is a very important
strategy for us because we need to transfer our young people
more effectively from school to the work place.
It might interest members to know that the city of Brantford,
despite a population of over 100,000 people, does not have its
own post-secondary educational institution. This is a real
liability for us. It means that we do not have a history of lifelong
learning. It means it is very difficult for us to attract new high
tech investment.
When we think of the apprenticeship program we see some
possibilities for partnerships to be forged between the private
sector and government, perhaps in starting technological
institutes that can help with apprenticeship training. Of course,
we believe Brantford is a perfect place for such an institute.
We talk about the national youth services corps, an idea that
received great support in my riding over the course of the
campaign. There are a number of organizations in my riding that
could provide opportunities for our young people. One of our
great natural resources is the Grand River. It is a wide, slow
moving river that comes right through the centre of my riding.
468
The Brant Waterways Committee, I am sure, has
environmentally related jobs that would help our young people
get that very important first work experience.
There is also a vibrant seniors community in my riding and the
opportunity for inter-generational work, training and
experiences exist. Our schools need young people to help
younger people learn to read, write, do math and improve their
computer skills.
When I read the speech from the throne I saw all kinds of
opportunities for me as a member to go back to my riding and
work with the people to make things better and to improve our
local economy.
However, there is one idea that is not included in the speech
from the throne and I would like to suggest it to the government
for consideration. It is the idea of government decentralization;
of taking certain government agencies, ministries and
departments and moving them out of large urban centres like
Ottawa and Toronto into smaller centres like those in my
community.
The people of my riding are very supportive of this notion. In
fact, we had been promised the relocation of the computer and
telecommunications services department of the provincial
government into our riding early in 1993. This made a lot of
sense to us because Brantford is the telephone city. It is where
Alexander Graham Bell made the first long distance phone call
between Brantford and Paris.
We were very excited about the possibility and expected this
relocation to occur. Unfortunately, with the change in
government, there was a decision made to cancel that program.
With that cancellation came depression, not only economic but
social, to my community.
Decentralization is an interesting idea. It is not new. However,
it can help us meet a number of our priorities. It can help
improve economic equality across the country. It can help
improve the physical and social well-being of Canadians. It is a
strategy that we can use as we look to streamline the public
service and increase participatory democracy. It certainly would
require us to make quantum leaps in the development and use of
the electronic highway.
Whether the federal government chooses to utilize the
strategy of decentralization by itself or in concert with the
provincial governments, as we try to affect reduction in
duplications of government servicing or in new and innovative
ways by working with the private sector in out-sourcing models
and concepts, I believe that government decentralization is an
idea whose time has come. I would encourage all our ministers
as they look at their departmental management to consider this
strategy. If they find that they have opportunities, particularly in
the area of telecommunications, agriculture, the environment
and others, I hope they would think of the riding of Brant.
(1205)
I have enjoyed the opportunity to share with the members of
this House a little bit about the riding that I represent. I also
appreciate the opportunity to share with them the reasons why I
so strongly support the agenda that has been put before us in the
speech from the throne.
I would ask them all to vote in favour of the motion that is on
the floor, put there by my colleague, the member for
Bruce-Grey, and seconded by my colleague, the member for
Madawaska-Victoria.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the hon. member from Brantford. I
was in that community numerous times and it is indeed a
beautiful community.
I am interested in asking the hon. member about the
infrastructure program which she so adamantly supports. The
question I have is, what does the hon. member see as the longest
term effect on her community for infrastructure? Is it the bill
that the taxpayer picks up from the municipal, federal and
provincial portion or the short-term job that may be arranged as
a result of the program itself?
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question.
I do not see these projects as only being of value in the short
term. We are very anxious of course to get the shovels in the
ground in my community because we do need job creation.
Certainly in the discussions that I have had with all my
municipalities there is a true expectation that this work will
provide longer term opportunities. It will provide economic
benefits to Brantford, Paris, South Dumfries and Brantford
township.
I have been extremely excited by the energy that all the
municipal councils have shown toward the project. They feel
they do have the moneys and can reallocate moneys collected for
these projects.
I have no hesitation in supporting the program and
encouraging it to other municipalities.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I
too want to congratulate the hon. member on an excellent
presentation to the House. I was extremely impressed.
I want to follow up on one area that she touched on toward the
end of her presentation concerning government offices moving
out to, I assume she was suggesting, various parts of the country.
In that light, I would ask the hon. member if it was her thought
to do this only after investigation might take place as to the
economics of making that transition and the economics of where
they were going compared to where they are at the present time.
469
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, absolutely. There is no
question that not everything can be moved. There is no question
that we have to look at the economics. However, I think we have
to look at the longer term.
While there may be costs associated with the physical move
and with restructuring and organizing particular agencies or
departments selected to move, in the longer term there is a
tremendous advantage to be held. It would be a very broad
advantage for the country. I mentioned several reasons why that
is important.
I do not want the hon. member to get me wrong. Certainly
there is a reason for many government departments and
ministries to stay centralized.
As I look at our need to stabilize economies across this
country, in my area and particularly in the east, I think of the
money that we put in in terms of unemployment insurance and
social services and think maybe we should also be providing
government jobs.
(1210)
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to support the motion on the address in reply to
the throne speech and to explain how the government intends to
dedicate its resources and energy to the future of our young
people.
First, however, I want to thank those hundreds of volunteers
and the people of Vaudreuil who elected me to speak on their
behalf in this venerable institution, the House of Commons. I
will represent them with great pride, integrity and a sense of
purpose, to defend our common goals.
[English]
To my friends and fellow citizens from Kirkland, selected as
one of the top ten towns in Canada, thank you for your
confidence, your support and trust over the past ten years. I have
been honoured to serve you in my capacity as councillor and
mayor. I am now proud to include you in the new family of the
riding of Vaudreuil where I hope to serve you with equal
dedication.
I also want to express my love and gratitude to my wife Mary
Alice, to our four children, Lisa, Laura, Michele and Marco, for
their patience and unconditional support. They have been a true
source of inspiration for me. To my parents, Domenico and
Immacolata, thank you for teaching me the values and the
importance of education and family values.
[Translation]
To you, Mr. Prime Minister, I would like to say that I admire
your setting down a code of ethics for politicians, in order to
restore the dignity of public office. Your great integrity is an
example to us all. I thank you for it.
To you, Mr. Speaker, I offer my sincere congratulations upon
taking up your new duties.
As a Quebecer, I always felt the opportunities for myself and
members of my family were unlimited. Thirty-seven years ago,
four Discepola brothers left the village where they were born,
Volturara Irpina in the Campagna region in Italy, to settle in
Canada with their families. Their dreams came true.
Today, their children include judges, one doctor, teachers,
engineers and accountants. One of them even wandered off to
become a member of the House of Commons. I do not know of
any other place in the world, any nation, any country where this
would have been possible.
The riding of Vaudreuil has many concerns and a number of
priorities, but I have decided to use my maiden speech in the
House of Commons to talk about the government's program for
the future of our young people, because like all Quebecers and
all Canadians, I am concerned about the future of my children
and my children's children.
It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to explain what the
government intends to do to ensure that our young people have a
decent future.
Canada is proud that it can give its young people a wonderful
place to grow up in. They enjoy the kind of life that is the envy of
the whole world. Like the generations before them, these young
people are looking for rewarding jobs, a comfortable standard of
living and a satisfying family life. The ideals of youth have
changed very little, although the circumstances have changed
dramatically.
[English]
The recession, high youth unemployment and the prevailing
uncertainty in the work force put enormous pressures on our
youth, pressures that older Canadians have never had to
experience.
Today, students who graduate with a high school graduation
certificate and choose not to further their studies seriously limit
their future. In the 1990s, 60 per cent of available jobs will
require grade 12 education or better. It is evident that our youth
are not very well prepared to penetrate the work place. Their
lack of competency will have tremendous social and economic
consequences for us all.
[Translation]
Science and mathematics are the two engines that power
innovation and progress that in turn will determine our survival
in the age of technology. According to international studies,
Canadian high school students are barely average in science.
470
Compared with other OECD countries, Canada has a low
percentage of graduates in science and engineering. There is no
question that we must improve our performance. As the 21st
century fast approaches, Canada must find the way to make its
labour force more competitive. We believe that co-operation at
all levels among governments, the provinces, management and
labour will enable us to find solutions to our country's human
resource needs.
(1215)
Canada spends in excess of $55 billion per year on education
and training. Of this total, $13 billion comes from the federal
government, which represents 7.4 per cent of our Gross
Domestic Product. This puts us well ahead of all OECD
countries in this area.
Not only is this government determined to promote education
and the acquisition of knowledge, it also wants young people to
get the best possible training to fill the jobs of the future.
Despite the current high rate of unemployment among young
people, some employers are still having trouble finding skilled
workers. Serious gaps exist between school and the work world.
With the emergence of new technologies, training in traditional
fields has become outmoded. Many young people continue to
opt for careers in fields which have become saturated, ignoring
others in which workers are more in demand.
Within the context of the new economy, there is a shortage of
training programs in emerging fields in which job opportunities
are plentiful. I am thinking here, for example, about information
technology and telecommunications.
Governments, labour and business leaders must join forces to
revitalize our training system and create new apprenticeship
opportunities geared to new, rapidly growing sectors of the
economy.
This recession has dealt a harsh blow to the aspirations of our
youth. After years of study and part-time work, they cannot find
work, even with a degree in hand.
We have to come up with better solutions. It is clear that our
country's social security safety net is not working in its present
form and does little to encourage integration of young people
into the labour force and develop their full potential.
The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development will be
consulting with the Canadian public and working with the
provinces to ensure that together we are able to adapt our social
programs to the realities of the nineties. Our social security
system is the envy of the entire world. Whether it survives and
remains effective, however, will depend on its ability to adapt to
the new labour context.
One of the options that the government is presently
considering is the development of more and improved training
programs geared to employment in order to ease the transition
into the labour force for young people and help them acquire the
skills in demand by employers.
The second option under review by the government involves
setting up a program in which young people would have an
opportunity to serve their community. The government has
made a commitment in this area by announcing plans to create a
Youth Service Corps to give young people who are out of work
the chance to gain some experience.
The goal of the Youth Service Corps is not only to enhance the
quality of life in our communities, but also to give young people
back some hope and sense of accomplishment. Young people up
to the age of 25 who participate in the Youth Service Corps will
gain some on-the-job experience, have a head start on finding
work and maybe even have a chance to break out of the vicious
cycle of social dependency which destroys ambition and wastes
talent.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is
determined to improve the Canada student loans program. He
will consider making some changes which would increase the
amount of short-term assistance provided and will hold
consultations with the provinces and the other interested parties.
The government also wants to increase the level of support
provided to the co-operative education program which it sees as
a way for students, the provinces, labour and business to work
together to build a highly skilled workforce.
(1220)
Canada's future rests with our young people who need an
opportunity to become productive adults. In its pursuit of this
objective, the federal government will vigorously support
programs that enable young people to acquire the know-how to
get good, well paid jobs and to look to the future with optimism.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank and to congratulate my hon. colleague from
Vaudreuil for his speech. Obviously, he is deeply concerned
with our youth, especially with respect to job training. I would
like to ask him-and this may take a lot of courage on his part,
considering his political affiliation-to tell me where he stands
as a Quebecer on the issue of job training.
If there is an issue for which there is a consensus today in
Quebec, where public opinion is often divided, it is job training.
The Conseil du Patronat du Québec, the CNTU, the FTQ, the
government of Quebec all agree. The Liberal Party of Canada
may well be the only one not to agree that the jurisdiction for job
training should finally be given back to the government of
Quebec and its natural allies, which are labour and management.
Given that, where does the member for Vaudreuil, who has
471
proven to be sensitive, stand on the whole issue of young people
and job training?
Mr. Discepola: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think that our
government has clearly stated its intention to review the entire
subject of social programs, including job training.
As far as I am concerned, as the member for Vaudreuil, I think
it is in the interest of all Quebecers and all Canadians to make
sure that future programs are well structured and clearly meet
the needs of the public in general.
It is also clear that our government did not take a stand against
manpower training. What we said is that we were not prepared to
sign the agreement immediately. We want to review the
programs first, but I am fairly confident that the member will
soon get the answer he was hoping for.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, while the
member talked about the envy of the world of our social
programs it would seem to me that our social programs in many
ways have been part of the destruction of the economic viability
of this country. We are now $500 billion in debt and I think it is
past time that we took our social programs and re-evaluated
them to ensure that they are focused only on those who are in
need rather than those who have collected by virtue of being part
of a specific group.
The hon. member also talked about the right or the
relationship between study and work and one particular
situation that was posed to me by a constituent a few weeks ago
was that we seem to have a situation in our labour training in
which we pay unemployment insurance to people who are in the
apprenticeship training program while they attend school. This
appears to be a good move yet we deny unemployment insurance
to those who are going to university for a longer period of time.
The point being made to me was that here we have someone on
a training program who has a guaranteed job because he is on a
release from his employer who is entitled to pick up
unemployment insurance. Someone going to university has to
fight for a summer job in order that he may continue his studies.
It seems to me there is a vast divergence between the two
attitudes toward the two different kinds of qualifications of
study. I would think that university training has to be
encouraged as much as possible. How do the hon. member and
his government think we can ensure that money is available to
enhance and motivate and pay for the education we so greatly
need in this country?
Mr. Discepola: Mr Speaker, I could not agree more with the
comments made by the hon. member. I think that when it comes
to youth training programs and experience, it has always been
my experience-having had in my other life a small computer
business-that I was able to hire young students coming out of
CEGEP, which is a pre-university entry program.
I must say that in hiring those young students I was able in my
own humble way to give them the experience that is so lacking
when one is trying to find permanent employment.
(1225 )
I think those kinds of programs are the initiatives that our
minister, Lloyd Axworthy, is trying to put into place. What I am
hearing from my two daughters who are in CEGEP is that once
they graduate they cannot go anywhere. That is what our
government has to do and what we have to respond to. Those are
the needs of our youth. It is essentially this: ``Give me the ability
to get some experience and I will show what I can do as a
youth''. That is what I have done in my whole career and that is
what I think we owe our youth.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to congratulate the two previous government speakers, the hon.
members for Brant and for Vaudreuil, for their very pertinent
comments on youth employment. These two hon. members told
us that they were willing to take a lot of steps and participate in a
lot of discussions to allow our young people to work, and I
congratulate them on their position.
On the other hand, I thought that the hon. member for
Vaudreuil gave a very evasive answer to the question posed by
my Bloc Quebecois colleague concerning the decentralization
of job training in Quebec. His response gave me the impression
that he was not ready to transfer all this responsibility to the
Quebec government. We are perfectly aware that the people who
know best what our young people need are those closest to them.
As a teacher I can say that to offer our young people an
interesting lifestyle and lasting employment, we must bring
them closer to the decision centres, namely the schools, or to the
government that is more attuned to their needs.
[English]
Mr. Discepola: Once again, I think the important thing for the
youth of today is to get the training that they so desperately
need. I do not think it is really my job as a member of Parliament
to decide who delivers that service. I think it is incumbent upon
our government to make sure that it is delivered and done with
the most efficient cost possible and that we respond to the
aspirations of the youth of today. We should not get into another
quasi-constitutional debate on who has jurisdiction over what.
472
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I am going to
address my comments this day to the speech from the throne on
the matter of health.
Let me first, however, make my traditional comments as a
novice member of this House to thank the electors of my riding
of Macleod who sent me to this august Chamber. Macleod is in
southwest Alberta and extends from Calgary down to the U.S.
border from the mountains to far out in the grain farming
country. Macleod has a fine group of people I intend to represent
as best I can.
I would also like to thank my children for their sacrifice and
my wife, Sue, for her support and the sacrifice that she is making
in sending me here.
I would like to congratulate the Speaker on his performance in
the chair and pledge my support.
I would finally like to thank the members who sit in this
House, for I believe that they deserve some applause, each one
of them, for serving this country by a contribution to public life.
I am a novice in Ottawa. When I first came to Ottawa I was
interested in looking at the call letters for the Ottawa airport,
YOW. I am not sure what this means in French but in English
YOW has an interesting connotation. I will leave one to imagine
what my connotation was for the call letters for the Ottawa
airport.
(1230 )
What does the throne speech say about health? There are four
items in the throne speech relating to health. The first is a
commitment to the Canada Health Act and a rejection of
measures that would undermine that act. The second suggested
that there will be a national forum on the renewal of Canada's
health system led by the Prime Minister. The third talks about a
centre of excellence for women's health. The fourth is a
pre-natal nutrition program for low income women. To these
four statements I extend my compliments to the Government of
Canada.
However, is this system sick? Is our health care system in
trouble and does it indeed need renewal?
Let me go through a few specific items on Canada's health
care plan. First, Canada spends more on health care than any
other country except the U.S. We are spending over $60 billion a
year on our health care system, yet we are less healthy than
many other countries that spend less. If we consider life
expectancy, perinatal mortality and morbidity statistics then
Canada does not stand at the top of the heap. Almost daily as
well we read of bed closures, hospital lay offs and longer
waiting lists for urgent surgery.
Here is an interesting recent statistic that I read. In 1992
Canada lost 689 highly trained physicians who emigrated from
Canada. That is approximately the output of five medical
schools. This is a resource that Canada should not be losing.
In the short time I have available today I would like to suggest
what I think is wrong with our medical system. Canada is truly
in a debt crisis that threatens all our social programs. With over
$30 billion spent on interest alone on the debt and with no end in
sight our social programs are in serious jeopardy.
There are many internal problems in health care that I could
address, but those internal items are primarily a provincial
responsibility. I will not speak of those at all today, but I will
speak about what we can and I think must do federally.
The Canada Health Act has five principles: universality;
portability; accessibility; comprehensiveness; and public
administration for necessary medical services. I underline the
words: ``for necessary medical services''.
When the program was started, established program financing
provided 50 cents of every dollar back to the provinces for
medical services. These funds have been allowed to slip until
today when on average 29 cents on the dollar is all that the
federal government is providing in cash transfers to the
provinces. This slide of transfer payments must be stopped.
Reformers say to the Government of Canada that the number
one issue on health care is to stop the slide of transfers. That can
be done at this federal level. In real dollar terms the transfers
must be frozen.
Second, I spoke of necessary medical services. Necessary, as I
underline it, means a definition of what in our country is truly
needed. Here I say that the federal government should be
standing up and setting national standards for our health care.
These national standards would define what is necessary and
would also imply what is unnecessary.
Might I suggest a few things that in my view are not necessary
under the terms of universal health care: vasectomy reversal,
cosmetic surgery, routine circumcision, tattoo removal and I
could go on.
Finally, another issue that in my view deserves federal
government attention is the issue of medical malpractice. At the
start of my career my medical malpractice premiums were $300.
At this point in my medical career they are up to $3,400. I cannot
say what engine drives medical costs like the threat of suits in
Canada. Many tests are ordered and X-rays are ordered just to
be on the safe side.
(1235)
In my view this is a spot where the federal government could
step in. I personally favour a no fault medical malpractice
system that could save untold millions of dollars.
473
The real threat to our social programs is the debt-deficit
crisis. Ignoring this problem will surely see us on the path that
New Zealand followed. It ignored its debt-deficit crisis and lost
its health care system in one day. Now it has new measures like
advertising on its ambulances simply to pay for the fuel.
This should be a truly non-partisan question in my view and
one that transcends all party lines since health care is number
one for Canadians, Reformers and the member for Macleod.
Just before taking my seat in this House I delivered by
Caesarean section a 6-pound, 15-ounce baby boy, Zachary
David Birney. As I held that little child in my arms and washed
him off and handed him to a delighted father, nothing could be
happier. That infant, however, owes to the federal treasury over
$17,400. This debt is wrong. This mortgage on his future is
immoral. We in this House are the guardians of that debt. I
dedicate my service in this House to the physical and financial
health of all the Zachary David Birneys.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In fairness to the hon.
member for Macleod, I was simply indicating that he had
approximately one minute left. If you have any other remarks or
comments you would like to make in the one minute remaining,
I will be glad to give you the floor. Otherwise we will go back to
five minutes of questions or comments.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate my colleague for Macleod on his maiden speech in
the House. I understand that he is a very renowned surgeon. I do
not know if that is an exaggeration or not, but I was told that.
I was kind of curious when he mentioned the drain that
Canada has had in its medical profession. That has been going
on for a number of years. We invested in 600, 700 or 800 highly
trained people and then lost them.
Does he see any simple solution to that? For what reasons
would highly trained Canadian professionals leave their country
and go to a neighbouring country? There must be some
attraction there. I am sure the hon. member for Macleod has
wondered about that. I have wondered about it. I know that some
of them come back. What did they go for in the first place? After
a while did they get disillusioned? What brings them back to
Canada? What could we be doing in our system to discourage
them from going in the first place? Do we not have enough
resources to accommodate them? Do we not pay them enough? I
do not know. I am asking the question.
Perhaps the hon. member for Macleod as a professional, a
doctor, would like to give his interpretation of that problem. It is
a big problem in this country to lose those highly trained, highly
specialized and very expensive people from our society.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be called
a very distinguished surgeon. Possibly only in my own mind am
I so distinguished.
To the member's question as to why there is a tremendous
drain in our country on our medical resources, it is an increasing
drain and the figures I gave are quite alarming. It was the highest
number that had ever departed and this was in 1992.
(1240)
Most of my colleagues who leave this country depart for one
of three reasons. First, there is the financial reason. The pay is
much better in the U.S.. The second reason that I hear is the
bureaucratic meddling in their affairs. It is bureaucratically
difficult in medicine. Third, there are freedom issues, taxation
and so on.
Primarily these issues revolve around money. The social
standing of a physician in our country is still fairly secure so I do
not think that is a major issue. I do not have the answer to this
particular problem. I simply say that protecting our medical
environment is very important and I hope to be able to do that
somewhat in this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I must
congratulate the hon. member on the quality of his message
concerning health. We all know that health is very important.
But, to stay in good health, we must offer favourable conditions.
That is why we should keep our social programs.
What I liked about the hon. member's speech is that he was
suggesting that the government freeze transfer payments to the
provinces. Not only freeze these payments but also try and find
additional savings in other government expenditures.
I would ask the hon. member whether, in addition to health, he
was also thinking of social housing. We all know that inadequate
housing can have a detrimental effect on people's health and
lead to massive expenditures for the state. These people are
usually families and households where the main breadwinners
are women. It is under such circumstances that children are
ill-treated and become sick. I would ask the hon. member
whether he considers the social housing issue as important as the
health issue, so that we can continue to protect the health of
Canadians?
[English]
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for his question.
I mentioned that health care has the highest priority for
Canadians and this is not something that I manufactured. This is
something that I learned from studies. Social housing does not
have the highest priority for all Canadians and so I would not put
the same emphasis on it as I put on health care.
474
As we talk about cuts to government expenditures-one
knows that Reformers are very fiscally conservative-we look
upon all areas that can be reduced. By reducing in other areas
and giving us the high priority ones, the most funds are
available. I would not in this instance equate the two.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I understand there have
been some discussions between the parties regarding a
statement from the Minister of Transport. I wonder if the
Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs would approach the
Chair and maybe give us some indication.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, my comments
today will be addressing fisheries issues but first I would like to
offer my thanks to the voters of Delta for allowing me the
honour and privilege to represent them as their member of
Parliament. I would especially like to thank those people who
worked so hard to get me here. I am sure that all my colleagues
would agree that none of us would be here if it was not for the
love, patience and support of our families and for that I am truly
grateful.
I would like to thank my wife Sue, my stepdaughters Kristi
and Erin, and most of all my little Carolyn. She is not talking to
me on the phone these days. She does not seem to understand
why I have to be away so much.
(1245)
At the other end of the scale, despite 24 years of ill informed
advice from me, my son Martin remains a reasonable loving
person of whom I am most proud and I thank for his support.
I would be remiss if I did not also thank my father, John
Cummins, and my late mother. Life is a little easier when you
can look at your mother and father and say with pride ``that is my
mother and that is my father''. I have been able to do that. My
parents gave their all so that my brother, Mike, my sisters,
Colleen and Joan, and I could have the opportunities they could
only dream of.
We in this House should dedicate ourselves to the task of
ensuring that the parents of every child in this country can
provide the opportunity for their children to realize their
dreams.
On a personal level, I believe that in building a better Canada
we should not lessen our efforts in the area of medical research.
Having lost loved ones to cancer and to Lou Gehrig's disease, I
believe that no matter how hard things get we must always
dedicate the necessary funds to find cures that would eradicate
diseases such as these.
Might I also take this opportunity to congratulate all members
of the House on their election. If I may I would like to share
three thoughts with them. First, remember who you are; second,
remember why you are here; and third, above all else remember
who sent you here.
I represent the people of the federal constituency of Delta. It
includes the municipality of Delta and a small chunk of the
neighbouring municipality of Surrey. My riding is a desirable
piece of real estate bordered on the north by the south arm of the
Fraser River and on the west by the Straits of Georgia.
The temperature today in Delta is about 8 degrees and that is
just one reason why I am going to be leaving here a little later
today.
There are many reasons why the people of Delta elected me,
the least of which was my personal popularity. I was elected
because the people of Delta supported the policies of my party.
They accepted as reasonable and desirable, and indeed
necessary, my party's suggestion for parliamentary reform
including an elected, equal and effective Senate. I am sure the
people voted for us because of our desire to change the
extravagant pension plan for MPs.
They supported my party's deficit reduction package and our
calls for the reform of the criminal justice system. Many people
in Delta voted for us because of our support for the continuation
of two viable airlines in this country. Many voters supported us
because of their concern over the future of west coast fisheries.
Pacific fisheries products account for 25 per cent of the total
value of Canadian fish products. Fishing is, depending on the
yardstick, the third or fourth largest industry in British
Columbia. Although more than half of British Columbia's fish
processing jobs are concentrated in the Vancouver area as a
proportion of the local economic activity the industry is
relatively more important in Prince Rupert, Port Hardy,
Ucluelet, Tofino and other coastal communities.
To date we are encouraged by the actions of the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans and support his decision to break off
negotiations over the Pacific Salmon Treaty. We have sent a firm
signal to the Americans that we will not continue to pay the tab
to conserve, enhance and manage Canadian fish stocks for the
benefit of American fishermen.
Recently, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced his
intention to introduce legislation to extend Canada's coastal
jurisdiction on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. In our view,
article 116 of the 1982 convention on the law of the sea gives the
minister, gives us, the right to enforce our fisheries regulations
to the edge of the continental shelf.
We were very pleased to see the minister make clear to
members of the European Community that Canada will no
longer stand idly by while foreign draggers continue to pillage
our fish stocks.
The minister is taking a tough approach on this crisis and if
and when he decides to take tough action we will be there with
him.
Those who would test our resolve should be duly warned.
475
We on this side of the House support a Canada in which
everyone is treated equally in the Constitution and the law
regardless of race, language, creed or culture.
(1250 )
The aboriginal fishing strategy imposed on the fisheries on
both coasts by the past government is an example of the exact
opposite. The creation of a separate commercial aboriginal
fishery was not demanded in the Sparrow decision of the
Supreme Court as some would have us believe.
Furthermore, last June the British Columbia Court of Appeal
found that an aboriginal right to a commercial fishery did not
exist. One would then have to ask why this unfair and
discriminatory policy was foisted on the commercial fishing
industry in 1992 only five months after the then fisheries
minister, Mr. Crosbie, stated that he would never commercialize
the native food fishery on the Fraser River.
Was it because of the constitutional negotiations that were
going on at that time? Was the fishery simply a carrot to
encourage native leaders to drop their demands to be considered
a distinct society? Was the AFS put in place simply to encourage
native support for what was to become the Charlottetown
accord? One can only wonder.
This separate native commercial fishery was set up despite
the fact that aboriginal people make up only 3 per cent to 4 per
cent of British Columbia's population. Yet, they hold 20 per cent
to 25 per cent of all commercial fishing licences in British
Columbia and their share of the commercial catch is estimated
to be 25 per cent to 30 per cent.
Continuation of this ill considered policy will only serve to
drive Canadians apart. It will not and cannot achieve any of its
stated goals.
In 1969, the Trudeau government white paper echoed the
principle in the famous Brown versus Kansas City Board of
Education decision that ended official discrimination against
blacks in the United States school system.
It said: ``you cannot have separate but equal. To be separate is
to be inherently unequal''.
I urge the Prime Minister to use the insight and wisdom he
displayed then, as minister of Indian affairs and the minister
responsible for this white paper, to put an end to the aboriginal
fishing strategy.
On another point, we fully support all efforts by the
government to put the thousands of east coast fishermen back to
work. We know the seriousness of the problem and would urge
the government to listen to those people who are affected, those
people who fish and understand the problem. These people have
valuable knowledge and experience that would benefit the
minister in any future decisions he may make.
Finally, we understand that being minister of fisheries today
is not an easy job. Indeed, some people would suggest that it is
punishment for something one has done wrong. However,
having spent some time with the new minister, I am sure he has
done nothing wrong and appears to have the best interests of
fishermen and Canadians in his heart.
We will not always agree with the government or the minister
of fisheries, and at those times we will let them know loud and
clear. In those instances where we do agree, no matter how
controversial the stand, we will be there firmly beside him.
[Translation]
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, following consultations with
the opposition parties, I think that there would be agreement to
revert to Statements by Ministers, so that the Minister of
Transport could make a short important statement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Would there be
unanimous agreement to revert to Statements by Ministers?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
475
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank my colleagues on all sides of the House for the
unanimous consent granted in order that I may make this
announcement.
I am announcing that, as Minister of Transport, I intend to
designate Air Canada as the second carrier to Japan following
completion of negotiations with the Japanese government.
Under the current Air Services Agreement between Canada and
Japan, Canada has the authority to designate more than one
carrier to serve that country. We have advised the Japanese
government that we want to resume air negotiations as soon as
possible.
(1255)
[Translation]
On September 1, 1994, a new airport is to open in Osaka,
Japan's largest air transport market after Tokyo, of course. With
a population of over 20 million, the Osaka region offers
important opportunities for Canadian carriers in the Asian
market.
A number of desirable landing and takeoff slots at Kansai
Airport have been provisionally reserved for Canada. The
federal government must now move quickly to finalize the
details of an agreement to use these valuable slots.
476
The Japanese air transport market is large and profitable. It is
in Canada's best interest that our two major carriers have a
presence there. Canadian Airlines International will continue to
have exclusive access to the largest Japanese centre, Tokyo.
[English]
Air Canada stated yesterday its clear and unequivocal
undertaking that all litigation that prevents Canadian Airlines
from closing its deal with AMR Corporation will be stopped
immediately. Air Canada's announcement yesterday was an
important one for restoring stability in the airline industry.
I understand that today's decision is a difficult one to accept
for Canadian Airlines. However, I am looking forward to a new
era for the airline industry in Canada.
Our government is committed to a viable, competitive airline
industry. Canada's two great airlines can now get on with their
business. They are in a position to move forward with
confidence into the future.
I could not let this occasion pass without expressing my
sincerest gratitude to Rhys Eyton of Canadian Airlines and to
Hollis Harris of Air Canada for having been able to move with
great courage toward this resolution of a problem that has
plagued the Canadian airline industry for far too long.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before proceeding, I
simply want to advise all members that having reverted to
statements by ministers I will recognize a spokesperson from
both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party and extend a
duration equal to the minister's intervention.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, like
many Quebecers and Canadians, I was very glad yesterday when
the media announced the end of the conflict between Air Canada
and Canadian International. This news shows light at the end of
the tunnel, which is good for both air carriers and their
employees.
I am also pleased with the statement by the Minister of
Transport on allowing Air Canada access to the Osaka airport.
However, since this airport is not a hub for the Japanese market,
the Official Opposition would have liked the government to end
the exclusive rights which Canadian Airlines International has
to the Tokyo airport.
It is essential to promote competition, for the good of
consumers, especially in a growing market like Tokyo.
We hope that the government will recognize Air Canada's
needs and that these will be taken into consideration in bilateral
discussions which the government intends to begin to settle the
question of Hong Kong and China in the near future, for the sake
of many jobs in Quebec and Canada.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
the end of litigation is a positive thing both for the aviation
industry and the Canadian travelling public. It might also be
mentioned that it will not break the hearts of government that it
will not have to get further involved in this dispute. That having
been said, it is my opinion that the government has been
involved in Air Canada's withdrawal from the litigation process.
I believe that the announcement by the Minister of Transport
is as a result of a unilateral deal between his department and Air
Canada. I have many concerns if these types of arrangements are
being made without proper input from all the major parties
concerned. The deal appears to be done. I am not convinced it is
in the best interests for Canadian aviation, however it is done.
(1300)
With the dispute between Air Canada and Canadian Airlines
ended, both airlines should now be proceeding to build their
respective companies. This is done by competing with foreign
carriers, not with each other. Air Canada has a major portion of
the market in Europe and the U.S., and Canadian has always had
a major portion of the Orient. That balance has now been shifted.
I call on the minister to confirm that it will go no further, to
pledge that there are no further deals to hand over Hong Kong or
the People's Republic of China to Air Canada. The deal has been
made. It is now time for the government to get out of the
manipulation process and let free enterprise operate as it should.
_____________________________________________
476
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an
address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his
Speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris): Mr. Speaker, I am
most pleased to rise on this occasion and add my congratulations
on your appointment to the Chair of this House.
First I would like to thank the electors of Brandon-Souris
riding for allowing me the distinct pleasure to serve them in this
Chamber. I would further add my congratulations to all the hon.
members who were elected in the most recent election.
On a personal level, I wish to thank most sincerely my wife,
Karen, in Virden, Manitoba, and my daughters Corleen, in
Edmonton, Alberta, Richelle in Victoria, British Columbia, and
Lindsey in Winnipeg, Manitoba, who have all shown
unwavering support. As one can see, my family is well
represented by the multi-party process in this House.
477
Like most of my colleagues, I would not be here without the
presence of a strong and effective campaign team. To all of you,
a team too numerous to mention individually, I salute you and I
thank you.
I come from the riding of Brandon-Souris which is nestled in
the extreme southwest corner of Manitoba. Most of my staunch
supporters would never dream to have lived long enough to have
seen the vanishing of the political support enjoyed by two of my
predecessors, Mr. Walter Dinsdale, who served and represented
the riding for over 30 years, followed by Dr. Lee Clark, a
member for almost nine years up to and including the 34th
Parliament.
My riding was colonized in the 1880s as the CPR spawned a
string of towns across southern Manitoba. At approximately
16-mile intervals towns sprang up, roughly the same, along
Brandon, Kemnay, Alexander, Oak Lake, Virden and Elkhorn on
the northerly end and a second branch line of Crystal City,
Killarney, Boissevain, Deloraine and Melita at the south.
As I mentioned earlier, the towns in general conformed to the
CPR square mile survey system with 18 blocks to the mile.
Grain elevators and lumber sheds were on one side of the track
and the residential area on the other. Fairgrounds and stockyards
were on the extremities of these hamlets and schools were
located several blocks back so as not to disturb or endanger the
children in attendance.
The colonists were largely French, Belgian, Scottish, Irish
and English, with a predominance of the latter three. They were
experienced farmers from Ontario who had capital and
equipment and who were well educated and extremely
self-confident. They soon came to dominate the province
politically, economically and socially, a domination that some
would argue has lasted to this day.
My riding is approximately 100 kilometres square in
dimension. It has roughly 70,000 people, 45,000 of its citizens
residing in the city of Brandon and 25,000 to 30,000 outside. We
are not without unemployment, recession, high costs, low prices
and a shrinking rural economy and population. Like most rural
Canadians we are optimistic about our future with a new
government in power, a government committed to rebuilding
our economy and the revitalization of the elements that support
our quality of life: jobs, roads, technology, education, personal
integrity and social security.
(1305 )
The riding is home to numerous significant components, not
the least of which is CFB Shilo, the home station of the Royal
Regiment Canadian Artillery of Canada and the best artillery
range in Canada. Shilo is the seventh largest community in the
province of Manitoba and the fourth largest employer. To
illustrate the breadth of activity in Shilo are the peacekeeping
duties in Cyprus and the IRCHA and augmentation of the UN
forces in former Yugoslavia. Shilo also serves as a training
centre annually for 5,000 armoured troops of our NATO ally, the
Federal Republic of Germany.
In Brandon-Souris we incorporate two aboriginal
communities, Sioux Valley and Oak Lake, both of which are
well positioned to assume greater responsibility under
self-government.
At the most southerly end of this constituency is the
International Peace Gardens located 10 miles south of
Boissevain. This is a spacious park and a recreational centre
dedicated to the peaceful relations between Canada and the
United States and is part of the longest undefended border in the
world.
Brandon University is another important component in the
riding. It is an outstanding facility and I am proud to say it is my
alma mater. It has a tradition of academic and social service
spanning over 100 years and is well represented in this House by
the Hon. Stanley Knowles, our chancellor emeritus.
Brandon University is home to the Bobcats, three times
national university basketball champions, and is the producer of
the Canadian Journal of Native Studies and a new innovative
partnership program in education and business administration.
Maclean's magazine called Brandon one of the ten best cities
in which to live, an observation which I would extend to the
other communities I mentioned earlier.
There are several issues of major concern to the
Brandon-Souris constituents.
Agriculture is the most important industry in Manitoba. It has
diversified greatly in the value added process. There are strong
views about the intent to expand or diminish the role of the
wheat board and allow more choices to market products on a
niche basis.
Every town and city in Brandon-Souris has a list of
infrastructure projects that are necessary in rejuvenating our
rural economy. The city of Brandon is proposing bridge, water
and flood protection projects that are desperately needed. Other
specific infrastructure projects from the rural components of my
riding are also being submitted.
Communication and transportation infrastructure will
increase the job opportunities and ability of rural Canadians to
compete internationally and be employed locally.
Brandon-Souris is the only riding in Manitoba that has an oil
resource. Oil has been a key player in our local economy,
particularly in my home town of Virden, Manitoba.
Brandon-Souris also wants to develop a stronger tourism
base aimed at its natural attractions and world class sporting
events. I am honoured to say that Brandon-Souris will be
playing host during the life of this Parliament to national and
world curling competitions, Canada games and world junior
baseball.
478
In the area of transportation, another concern we have is the
absence of air service and VIA rail service. This is of major
concern to all rural and city residents of Brandon-Souris. We
must try to re-establish the ties that first brought our country
together. Also the high cost of western grain transportation is an
item of concern.
The state of our postal services and how they affect rural
Canadians, specifically senior rural Canadians, is an area which
should be investigated before any further cutbacks take place.
I come to this House after completing a 33-year teaching
career mainly at the high school level and I have the greatest
empathy and respect for the students in this country. I wish to
pledge my efforts to them in creating a long term bursary and
student loan program which currently is not addressed in
government policy.
(1310 )
As a proud father of three wonderful daughters I am and will
continue to be sensitive to women's issues relative to
employment, health and equity.
As a former educator I still get involved in school visitations.
I was at Virden Collegiate on January 6 and met with a
wonderful grade nine class. I subsequently received a letter
from a student of that class, Leslie Bunn. It somewhat shows
how I feel about being an MP and working for the betterment of
students:
Dear Mr. McKinnon:
When you came and spoke to my class last Thursday you answered a lot of my
questions I had concerning your position as MP. You made me realize some
important facts about your position.
I realize that being an MP isn't all that easy. You are away from your family
and travelling lots. You are in early meetings and it isn't easy to keep it up. It
made me think that if I ever did become involved in politics, it would be a rough
road to hold.
You told us the amount of money you make and I thought it was a lot. Then as
you explained the sacrifices you make and will have to make I realized it still
may be a lot of money, but it didn't seem quite as bad as before. This also made
me think that if I became a politician I would be well paid but it would not be too
much out of reason.
I think it wouldn't be so bad living close to Ottawa, but it would be horrible
living somewhere in British Columbia where I would be doing nothing but
flying back and forth.
Even after all the sacrifices I heard you have to make, I don't think I would
mind being an MP.
Thank you.
Leslie Bunn, Virden, Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the constituents of
Brandon-Souris and to work toward bringing about dignity to
rural Canada. My constituents have sent me, the first Liberal in
42 years, to represent Brandon-Souris in the House of
Commons, to be part of the Liberal team, to help solve the
problems caused by eight years of failed economic policy.
My constituents want to be part of the new vision of Canada, a
vision which includes all of the wide and diverse mosaic which
is Canada today, a vision which includes jobs for Canadians, a
vision of equitable regional development, a vision of renewed
integrity in government, a vision of economic renewal and
social security and finally, a vision of a safe Canada. In short, it
is a Liberal vision of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for Brandon-Souris, in Manitoba, focused on the infrastructure
program. I would like to ask him the following: Does he not
think that it would be a bit cumbersome if the federal, provincial
and municipal governments all sat down to set priorities for an
infrastructure project, for roads, sewers and small bridges for
example? Does he not think it would make management a bit too
cumbersome if civil servants from Ottawa were to meet with
their provincial and municipal colleagues to make decisions on
such a project? To me, that seems to go against management
efficiency.
We all know that our country is faced with an enormous debt,
which exceeds the 500-billion mark, and we all realize that if
the federal government gets involved in such a project, it will
become more difficult to manage and a high percentage of the
expenditures will go for management, or should I say
mismanagement.
I would like to know, just like Quebec wants to know, how the
federal government will manage to hand the money over to the
provinces, who consider the municipalities a bit like their equals
and work with them to review various projects and set priorities,
and refrain from interfering, making the management of the
infrastructure project more complicated and boosting cost of the
management.
[English]
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking
the question regarding infrastructure. In my preamble I left out
my personal involvement. I did serve as mayor of a community
of a town of 3,000. I have had some background in that area.
(1315)
I would say to my worthy colleague that in many respects in
my experience the ability of a municipality to go it alone on
some of the projects would be very difficult to start with. If we
can get other financial assistance from more senior levels of
government, it will make many projects extremely viable.
Second, in terms of administration, those costs are certainly
going to be there no matter who does it. I would suggest that
there is not the perceived advantaged of simply handing the
money to the lower levels of government and allowing them to
run with the ball. I think we are best served as a country when we
have some standardization in terms of the administration and the
allocation of projects.
479
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, first my
congratulations to the member for Brandon-Souris for his first
remarks in the House. It was an excellent speech.
My question concerns the summation of his speech where he
told us about his Liberal vision for Canada which included
equality, regional development and various other things.
One of the things that he omitted-I hope he forgot-was to
include the fact that Canada is a nation of small business people
and that the engine of growth is from small entrepreneurs and
medium sized businesses in this country. We have a history of
entrepreneurial spirit and capitalism in this country which has
brought this country to the stage it is at today. We must
recognize that small business and entrepreneurs in larger
businesses are the engines of growth. That is where the jobs are
going to come from rather than just more programs such as
infrastructure programs.
I would ask the member for Brandon-Souris whether he is
willing to recognize that capitalism and the entrepreneurial
spirit are the job creation factors in this country rather than
Liberal policies such as infrastructure programs.
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his
question. I would suggest that yes I do recognize and yes I do see
a strong assistance to our nation if government and small
business work together on projects. I agree wholeheartedly that
small business is the engine.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): I want to
congratulate this speaker, along with all my other colleagues
who have done this for the last few days, on his appointment. I
want to congratulate the Speaker on his election. I know he will
serve us extremely well.
At this juncture as well in Parliament it is very appropriate for
me to acknowledge the political forces that returned me to
Parliament as the member for Scarborough-Rouge River. I
want to acknowledge all those who participated in the process. I
thank certainly those who worked selflessly for me in our
campaign, but I also want to acknowledge all the other
candidates and their workers in a way that reflects my pride in a
political system that really works.
A throne speech is an attempt by a government in Parliament
to articulate its legislative goals and its policy goals and it
hopefully does it in a way that reflects what the electorate wants.
In this particular case as we open up Parliament, of course the
agenda of the throne speech has no excuse in the world for not
reflecting what the electorate wants. My leader, our Prime
Minister, and all of our members are only days and weeks away
from the front doors and meeting places of Canadians. We have
absolutely no excuse for not knowing what they want. I suppose
it is fair to say that my government has no excuse for not having
a reasonable game plan in addressing that.
(1320)
Today I would like to make an attempt at relating my
government's throne speech to the issues and matters that were
put to me in the campaign by my constituents. I am happy to say
that the throne speech does address almost all of those issues and
matters. I would like to take some time to elucidate on that just a
bit.
First, the biggest issue that my constituents put to me was the
issue of jobs and the economy. That is clearly the thrust of this
government's throne speech and, as it will unfold in the weeks to
come, its legislative and policy agenda.
Our economy was hit very badly by a recession in and about
the year 1990. In addition to that, we had a free trade adjustment
which took a toll. We knew it would take a toll. Perhaps it took a
greater toll on the economy than we thought but we adjusted. I
think we have been through the bulk of that. There may be more
to come but I think we have seen the worst of it.
Second, monetary policy overshoot, as it has been called,
describes the zero inflation target that the Bank of Canada had
for a period of time under the previous government. It did not
meet its zero per cent. It never really had a hope of meeting its
zero per cent.
Chasing that goal has slowed down our economy even more
than it would otherwise have done. Canadians everywhere have
paid a significant price for that.
In 1994 there has been a change. The economic fundamentals
are much improved. We have low inflation. We have low interest
rates. The worst of the free trade adjustment I hope is over.
Balancing that we have the new trade opportunities provided by
the free trade agreement and the North American Free Trade
Agreement.
My constituents are very much waiting for the new jobs that
this recovery will bring. While no government really runs the
economy out of its hip pocket no government can hope to do that
because the economy is driven by many forces in the private
sector.
It is clear that my constituents will judge this government on
how well it fosters the economic growth for Canada in the
480
months to come. They are watching and waiting. I believe that
my government can do the right thing. It along with the
economic forces at play, will deliver.
My government has already discussed and put into motion an
infrastructure program, the residential rehabilitation assistance
Program. We have yet to begin work on the youth service corps.
That will happen shortly.
In the longer run we will focus on fostering the small and
medium sized business area. We want to see improved access to
capital. I was pleased to see a modest response by the banks and
the newspapers over the last couple of days.
Our Liberal caucus in opposition met with the banks last May.
I think they know the writing is on the wall. They will either
have to serve small and medium sized business, as they have
tried to do for a century, but they have to do it better. If they fail
to do it without stating anything specific-I am merely a humble
backbencher here-Canadians and this government will have to
do what must be done to ensure that small and medium sized
business have the financial tools they need to grow.
We want to improve the access of small business to
technology and to increase their participation in research and
development. We also want to reduce the regulatory burden. In
all of these objectives I know we can make substantial progress
and have some success.
The second major issue was the deficit and taxation. I cannot
do the issue justice. Every person in this House knows exactly
what we are talking about. It is a debt in the vicinity of $500
billion and a deficit way over $40 billion.
(1325 )
My government and our finance minister is committed to
taking hold of it. It is not like there were not other ministers who
tried in the past. I just think Canadians believe now and we
believe that we cannot afford to fail now. We cannot fail to grab
hold of that.
We must reduce spending in a strategic fashion. We must
increase revenues without building in new taxes. We can only
increase our revenues by having growth in the economy. The two
are very much tied together.
There is also room for some modest growth in revenues by
reducing what are called tax expenditures. Those are the field of
deductions available under the Income Tax Act. We are
committed to those goals.
The third issue of major significance was crime and public
safety. I would note, and I am sure other members have noted,
the relatively few number of references in the throne speech to
this significant Canadian issue. It is mostly urban in context but
the references are clearly there. My government is committed to
introducing measures to enhance community safety and crime
prevention.
There is a lot more to that issue than that one sentence. We
must reduce the incidence of crime. We must reduce the fear of
crime. We must also admit that crime is like a penalty tax levied
on our society for our failure to effectively manage our human
resource and we have plans to address these issues.
The last question was one dealing with immigration levels.
This is a question that will have to be debated in this Parliament.
I do not know when the debate will begin but I assure you, Mr.
Speaker, that other colleagues and I will want to debate that in
Parliament.
I am proud to serve my constituents in this place. I look
forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the House
to achieve these and the many other goals that Canadians have
placed with us in trust for this 35th Parliament.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to acknowledge the presentation by the hon. member today.
I listened with a little bit of concern about the lack of specifics
that he brought to the issue of crime.
I know that when I ran during the election we had a very
specific platform for dealing with issues of crime such as the
criminal justice system and the parole board. Just in the last
couple of days we have seen some very serious issues on this
very subject.
I would ask the hon. member to please, if he could, clearly
specify for me some of the areas of change that his government
intends to bring forth in this 35th Parliament.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question. What she is looking for quite reasonably is a list of
particulars, a good solid list of specific initiatives that can be
brought to bear to address the issue of public safety and crime.
She has already noted some of the generic hot buttons, if I
could put it that way. Let me acknowledge right away that the
references in the throne speech are purely generic and in fact I
read one sentence that perhaps covers a couple of pages of
particulars. It is not possible to put into a throne speech all of the
particulars that one might want.
However, I note that the whole area of sentencing is yet to be
dealt with by a federal statute. There has never been a
codification of sentencing in this country. That is still to be
done. There was a bill in the last Parliament. It was consensually
not proceeded with because members from both sides believed it
was not a good and effective bill.
(1330)
I would look for a sentencing bill relatively soon. I would look
for a bill to modify elements of the Young Offenders Act. All of
the areas have been discussed publicly. What the justice
minister will bring forward remains to be seen. I hope the hon.
member will create her own list and send it immediately to the
justice minister.
481
There needs to be changes in the Parole Act, the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act. We need to pass very specific
amendments to the area involved. Most of it involves
accountability.
A very interesting and useful meeting was held during the last
Parliament between the outgoing chairman of the National
Parole Board and members of the justice committee. The
chairman had to get the permission of the minister to appear
before the committee to tell us personally what he believed
should be done for the parole board to better perform its job. He
spoke to us very frankly at that meeting which was held in
camera but all of what he said was duly noted.
We have covered the Young Offenders Act, the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act. There are elements of the Criminal
Code that need to be refined. We are just beginning to deal with
long run strategic crime prevention. Regrettably it requires a bit
of money to get into this area but it is a long running investment
on a long running basis to make everybody in society a
stakeholder and reduce the tendencies to break the law.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, the throne speech raises the employment issue in a very
vague way. The government also tells us that it does not want to
discuss the constitutional issue and will certainly not propose
possible solutions. Our party, on the contrary, constantly raises
this issue in the House of Commons. We do so because it is at the
root of all the debates on every other issue.
We cannot seriously discuss the problem of employment
without asking who has the power to act and who controls the
political and economic levers necessary to tackle
unemployment. Unemployment is the major problem, not only
in my riding, but also for the whole region of Montreal.
The Liberals tell us that the constitutional issue must be set
aside if we want Montreal to develop and get a new start.
However, the municipal authorities of Montreal came to the
following conclusion during the hearings of the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission, and I quote: ``Not only is the
constitutional status quo obsolete, but it has disqualified itself,
not only for Quebec, but for the rest of Canada.'' The municipal
authorities in Montreal came to that conclusion because, as they
said, and I quote again: ``In the current political context,
Montreal finds it difficult to have access to the levers which
would enable it to contribute the way it could to the development
of Quebec and of Canada.''
Thus the city of Montreal proposed the adoption of a national
policy for Quebec, a policy which demands the patriation of just
about every jurisdiction for Quebec. Two solutions were
possible: either a sweeping reform of federalism or a sovereign
Quebec. It has now been demonstrated that Canadian federalism
cannot be renewed. As for the status quo, we agree with the
municipal authorities that it is harmful to Montreal. And, Mr.
Speaker, uncertainty and the refusal to decide are the worst
possible things for investors and for the economy in general.
The brief submitted by the city specified that the choices made
by Quebec would be endorsed by Montreal. Quebec has only one
option left, sovereignty, and the future of Montreal is contingent
upon that choice.
(1335)
We must talk about the future and we must change the present
situation. Let us not forget that Montreal was once the
metropolis of Canada, as well as the industrial, financial and
banking centre of the country.
Today, Montreal is the poverty capital of Canada. Thirty per
cent of Montreal families live below the poverty level, and that
is simply unacceptable. But does this mean that until Quebecers
can democratically decide to have their own country, there is
nothing to do? We, Bloc Quebecois members, do not think so,
but it seems that the government does.
Yet, when the Liberals were in the Opposition, there were
quite vocal when it came to defend the interests of the citizens of
Montreal. One need only recall their fight against Bill C-113 on
unemployment insurance.
The Liberal members from Montreal were telling us then, and
rightly so, that the combined effects of the unemployment
insurance reform of 1990 and that of 1993 would cost, over five
years, close to $490 million to UI claimants in the Montreal
region, adding that those figures did not take into account the
impact of past and future employee contribution increases.
And what have the Liberals done now that they form the
government? They were quick to increase those contributions
without cancelling the anti-social measures of the previous
government. The two governments are like two peas in a pod.
And let us not forget also that those $490 million which are not
being distributed to claimants is also money which is not being
poured back into the Montreal economy.
The Minister of Human Resources Development told us that
all social programs will be reviewed in the next two years. The
men and women who live in poverty in Montreal cannot wait two
years. They need help now and they demand it immediately.
There are solutions to the problem and the Liberals know those
solutions.
For example, there is the Program for Older Worker
Adjustment or POWA, which is a program for older workers who
have been laid off in large numbers following plant closures. To
be eligible for that program, the workers in Montreal must have
worked for companies employing more than 100 people. Why
should it not be 20 employees as is the case in the vast majority
of regions? After all, this is what the Liberals demanded when
they formed the Opposition.
482
The Liberals now form the government but they are simply
pursuing the policy of the Conservatives. No, the appropriate
solutions are not to be found in the throne speech. Rather, those
solutions were put forward by the Liberals when they were in the
Opposition.
Let us take social housing. How many times have I heard the
Liberal members from the Montreal region criticize the decision
made by the Conservatives to eliminate all forms of subsidies in
the social housing sector? Yet, no corrective measures are
proposed in the throne speech. The lack of such measures means
that all the social housing projects for the city of Montreal are in
jeopardy.
I also think of those grants in lieu of taxes, which the federal
government froze last year. The Montreal urban community
criticized that decision, just like the Liberals did when they
formed the Opposition, because it translates into a shortfall of
close to $10 million for the taxpayers of the Montreal urban
community. What are the Liberals proposing now that they form
the government? Nothing. Is this not a very bad example to give
to taxpayers in general? How can a government which is a bad
risk demand of taxpayers that they behave like good citizens?
Should that not be an easy decision to make? And this is not a
measure that would not require any constitutional reform, I
assume.
(1340)
Does this government realize that, to quote the Minister of
Finance and member for LaSalle-Émard, a Montreal riding,
Montreal as the economic heartland and major engine for
development must be put back on track, because otherwise, its
economic decline will signal that of Quebec.
Is remaining silent on the high-speed train project going to
help Montreal? This project was an opportunity for Quebec and
Canada to get a head start in this new technology. We must not
forget that the North American market for this type of train is
said to be worth more than $200 billion over the next 20 years.
This means spin-offs totalling an estimated 120,000
person-years in strategic industrial sectors. It would be a smart
way to fight unemployment, because these are durable jobs
involving advanced technology. The project also means tax
revenues in the range of $1.8 billion during the construction
period alone. Would reducing the deficit by increasing tax
revenues not be better than taking money away from the neediest
in our society? There would also be indirect economic spin-offs
for the Quebec-Windsor corridor, in services, trade and, of
course, tourism. In fact, this kind of transportation is available
at rates that are cheaper than the conventional air fare, and it is
also environmentally friendly.
Do we need more consultation on top of the many studies that
have already been done and which all agree the project is viable?
This government seems to be suffering from acute
``consultationitis'', a disease that was already endemic among
the Tories. After striking the Conservatives, the Spicer
syndrome is now spreading among the Liberals. Nevertheless,
the high-speed train project meets all the criteria for genuine
economic renewal aimed at the future.
The same applies to the conversion of our military industry.
We all agree that the international situation has changed. The
cold war is over. The role of Canada's armed forces must be
reviewed. The Bloc Quebecois proposed a 25 per cent cut in the
budget of the Department of National Defence. However, such a
decision must be accompanied by a policy for conversion of the
military industrial complex, as was done by President Clinton in
the United States, and by France and Great Britain. The issue of
converting our defence industry directly concerns Montreal as a
major centre for the production of defence equipment. And
Montreal has also become increasingly dependent on contracts
from the Department of National Defence.
However, we must not forget that Quebec never received its
fair share of government spending on the equipment
procurement, defence payrolls and maintenance of military
bases. The government certainly did the right thing when it
cancelled the helicopter contract. It is no good wasting money,
in Quebec or anywhere else. However, the Bloc Quebecois asked
and is still asking the government to compensate for the
cancellation of this contract by injecting the same amount of
money in military conversion and advanced technology
projects; two sectors that create durable jobs. Montreal cannot
afford to lose the jobs of the future because the military
industrial complex is shrinking. The government must table an
industrial conversion plan, as it promised during the last
election campaign.
(1345)
I would like to give you another example of the harmful effect
of the Canadian federal system on the development of Montreal:
the environmental co-operation commission under NAFTA.
Montreal, must we point it out, has acquired through its
academic institutions significant know-how in the field of
environment. Let us not forget the agreement on the ozone layer
or the role played by the mayor of Montreal at the Rio Summit.
Yet, the Minister of the Environment hesitates, pussyfoots,
strikes a committee-one more, Mr. Speaker-instead of
making the right decision and setting up this centre in Montreal.
Are we going to see a remake, a repetition of the stupid decision
to establish the head office of the Canadian Network of
Toxicology Centres in Guelph, Ontario, when the critical mass
of knowledge in that area is in Montreal. The same kind of
decision was made about the banking centre. The Montreal
business community had expected an international banking
centre to be established in Montreal, but the federal government
decided that there should also be one in Toronto and another in
Vancouver. In the end, there was to be one centre and three
peripheral centres. This a somewhat geometric expression of
the Canadian federal system. Imagine that, one centre with three
peripheral centres. The
483
banking centres are not working effectively, not in Vancouver,
not in Toronto and not in Montreal.
Basically, nothing in this throne speech meets the needs of
Montreal, except maybe for the infrastructure program,
provided that-and this is important-the Government of
Quebec reaches an agreement with Ottawa on the major issue of
project management. But an agreement has yet to be reached by
Quebec and Ottawa, while many are being signed with the
provincial capitals outside Quebec. At any rate, this program
alone cannot give Montreal the thrust required to escape the
horrendous cycle of unemployment. More needs to be done, and
better. But it cannot be done if we do not find a way to change
Quebec society on the one hand, and Canadian society on the
other.
I will conclude on this common finding made in 1992, a rarity,
as it is, in Canadian politics. The Liberals, the Reformists, the
Bloc members as well as two parties that were official parties at
the time, the NDP and the Conservative Party, all agreed on the
eve of Charlottetown that Canada was unable to face the
challenges of the new global economy with its present political
structures. Everyone agreed on that, but responses varied.
Charlottetown demonstrated that our responses were totally at
variance. Canada rejected the Accord because it gave Quebec
too much, while Quebec rejected it for the opposite reason,
because there was too little for Quebec in it. The finding still
holds and we still have the same structures. The constitutional
status quo has been maintained and we are no better equipped
today than we were in 1992 to face modern-day economic
challenges. And that is what we will be emphasizing during this
entire session.
[English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Laurier-Sainte Marie makes a comment about
international banking centres and somehow believes that the
designation of other cities in this country has contributed to
problems in Montreal in the financial services sector.
I would like to point out that Toronto is not an international
business centre, so whatever the cause of the member's concerns
about that it is not because the federal government designated
Toronto as an IBC. It did not.
Second, I cannot fail but detect in listening to the historical
litany described an internal inconsistency. On one hand there is
a great concern for an economic decline in Montreal which all of
us who represent major cities lament. Cities are very much the
economic engine of this country. We all lament the economic
decline of our cities.
There is an internal inconsistency in the logic in the hon.
member's comments if he believes that continued constitutional
wrangling, reopening discussions, indeed the very election of
the Bloc, does anything other than contribute to a continued lack
of investor confidence in this country.
(1350)
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, it can only be one of two things:
either the Liberals held an untenable position before the 1992
draft agreement because your leader, your party was saying:
``Canada's political structures do not enable us to meet the
current economic challenge.''
Today they tell us that there is no need to change our
structures to meet this challenge. Either you were telling the
truth in 1992 and you are lying today, or you were lying in 1992
and you are telling the truth today. It is one or the other but it
cannot be both. That is obvious.
We see two great trends in the world: one where peoples and
nations become countries that co-operate. That is what is now
preventing Canada and Quebec from functioning. Canadians
want a strong central state with national standards, a stronger
regional presence in the central state. That is the triple-E Senate
demand. Canada needs it, but Quebec does not feel comfortable
with it, will never be able to work with it, will never accept it.
That is one demand that will never be met as long as we are here.
We are preventing you from functioning just as you are
preventing us from functioning. We should be thinking about
agreements similar to Maastricht; must I remind you of it?
I favour the European Economic Community model but I
would like to hear the Prime Minister go to Westminster and say
to the British people that Canadian-style federalism is the way
of the future and that Great Britain will no longer be a sovereign
country in ten years or so. I would like to hear him deliver the
same speech in the French National Assembly or go to the
Bundestag and tell them that Germany will no longer be a
sovereign country ten years from now. Just you try!
I am telling you that agreements such as Maastricht are the
way of the future.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie for his
speech. I met him over two years ago, after his first election, and
so far we have had a good experience, I think, working together
on the Board of Internal Economy.
[English]
The member is an important person in his party and he made a
couple of references in his speech similar to things that were
said by his leader.
484
I would like to ask him on behalf of his party to clarify for me
a couple of questions. I wish I could put them to his leader but
the rules of the House do not make that terribly easy.
First, the member as well as his leader has stated that the
federal system does not work and of course this Parliament is
part of the federal system. Although he may believe the federal
system does not work, does he and his party see it see it as their
obligation in their role as members of this Parliament to do their
best to make this Parliament work and by implication to make
the federal system work as long as they play this role?
Second, I would like to ask him about his position in the future
constitutional debate that may take place in Quebec. He has
categorized that debate as between independence and the status
quo as represented by the current constitutional arrangements.
If a referendum like that was rejected by the people of
Quebec, would he follow through on the consistency of that
argument and see that rejection as an acceptance of Quebec's
role in Canada and of the 1982 constitutional arrangements?
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I too have learned to work
together with the hon. member and, yes, I think that we can
co-operate on many things.
We want to make this Parliament work as well as possible. We
have made suggestions for this purpose and I think that with this
election, we have just created a real dialogue for the first time in
the history of this country, because, you know, a dialogue cannot
be based on anything but the truth.
(1355)
I am not saying that all Quebecers are for sovereignty, but I do
say that pro-sovereignty feeling exists. For the first time we can
debate it here. I think that it is something new for Canadians to
hear it discussed here. It puts the debate in its proper place, so
that it can be done right. In that sense, such a contribution, with
Parliament working better, would ultimately lead to a better
attitude to the political problems we face. It does not mean that
federalism would work better because, as I said, I do not believe
that federalism in itself is bad, but the federal arrangement in the
present political context cannot be reconciled with the needs of
Canadian people and Quebecers.
We must move towards a political and economic framework
involving both national sovereignty and common markets, as we
see in Europe and will see, I am sure, with NAFTA, which will
grow and not be limited to Mexico and the United States but
within fifteen or twenty years will include all the countries of
Central and Latin America. We must move in that direction.
On the other question, what will we do if the referendum is
defeated? I answer you: what will you do if the referendum
passes?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of
the hon. member and share his view that he has some legitimate
grievances with the way the political structure is operating right
now. The people in my community who are without work and
children who are without nourishment are no different in their
feelings than those in his community. I am sure he shares that
view.
But if we address in a constructive way some of the issues
which he is talking about, and if we develop national standards
in health care, education and training so that all Quebecers
benefit as all other Canadians benefit, is it still his position that
in spite of that correction he still wants to give up on Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, when you talk about national
standards, to really understand what Quebec feels about Canada,
I must tell you right away that our society, the country that we
want, will in no way be superior or inferior to Canada, just
different.
To properly understand how we react to national standards,
ask yourself why you have national standards that are different
from the Americans'. You will answer, ``Because we are
Canadians, because our national sovereignty is important to us,
because we have different values, not better or worse than the
Americans, just plain different.'' It is the same for Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie regarding a 25 per cent reduction in the
defence budget.
I am sure the hon. member is aware that over the past 20 years
Canada has been second only to Luxembourg in per capita
commitment to defence. In fact, we have been recognized in
NATO and other agencies as being very much remiss in our
contribution to defence.
Over the next four years we are scheduled to see a $6 billion
reduction in the defence budget already announced. I would ask
the hon. member if it is realistic and reasonable to suggest a 25
per cent reduction in a budget for a force that we do not really
know yet what we are going to ask it to do? Would it not be more
appropriate to await the outcome of the defence review before
we establish a budget to operate that force?
485
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Of course, we want to review the whole role of
the Canadian armed forces before making these 25 per cent cuts.
It is not simply an accounting exercise. Of course, we must
think before we act. Nevertheless, I tell you that we will come to
a conclusion. We must set a target of a 25 per cent cut;
otherwise, more and more defence-related jobs will be lost,
because the arms market throughout the world is shaky. That is
exactly what Bill Clinton did in the United States. He made
incredible cuts in the defence department, but set up an
industrial conversion fund of some $29 billion. France and
Great Britain are doing the same. Remember that 50 per cent and
more of the weapons made here and exported went to the
American market. Since they cut their spending, and given state
secrecy surrounding national defence, they will buy at home and
that is quite normal. We cannot blame them. Now we have
unemployment here. If we do not cut, we will have more
unemployment, and that is exactly the opposite of what my hon.
colleague wants.
[English]
The Speaker: It being two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by
members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
485
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker, a
secret trial was held in Brampton, Ontario last month. We know
that the presiding judge was one Mr. Justice John Webber who
closed the court and sealed the trial records at the request of the
accused who felt that public knowledge of the case would have
endangered his family. That is all we know.
Consider what the public does not know. Canadians do not
know the name of the accused, the charge against him, or the
sentence he got. As the Globe and Mail observed, we do not
know what evidence was presented and what testimony was
given. We do not know the nature of the accused's appeal for
secrecy, the nature of the arguments against it, or the quality of
the judge's decision in granting it.
This is going too far. Gag orders under the Criminal Code
prohibiting publication of some evidence may have their place,
but a whole trial entirely in secret? That is unacceptable. It
arouses suspicions unfortunately about the judiciary.
Canadians deserve a full explanation.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, on my
behalf and on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois caucus, I would like
to offer my sympathy to Mr. Jacques Parizeau, leader of the Parti
Quebecois and MNA for L'Assomption, in my riding, as well as
to his family, following the passing of his father, Mr. Gérard
Parizeau.
The late Mr. Parizeau had a full and meaningful career. His
pride, honesty and integrity should be a model for all of us.
Besides working in the insurance business, he taught at the
École des Hautes Études commerciales for almost 40 years. He
also wrote several books on French-Canadian society.
For his dedication to society, he was made a member of the
Royal Society of Canada, dubbed Knight of the Legion of
Honour and awarded the title of High Officer of the Ordre
national du Québec. Such tributes are evidence of the significant
contribution he made to the development of Quebec society.
Again, our deepest sympathy to the Parizeau family. We wish
them all our best in this difficult juncture in their lives.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, speaking on behalf of the small business owners in
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt these people are forced to
spend long hours dealing with government paperwork and
regulations.
Even before the imposition of the GST, over 60 per cent of
small business owners in Canada spent up to 10 hours a week
complying with government regulations and red tape. This time
is better spent marketing their products and doing business. This
situation has become much worse with the GST.
This government promised to review the impact of
regulations and paperwork on small businesses and their ability
to comply. Government and the public service must live up to
their names. They must serve Canadians by removing
unnecessary and duplicate regulations.
Let us make compliance with the needed regulations as
convenient as possible. I believe this will help restore the public
confidence in government and allow small businesses to do what
they do best: create jobs.
* * *
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox
and Addington): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all
the members of this House on their thoughtful comments during
Tuesday's historic debate on Canada's peacekeeping role.
486
The decisions that we take on the future of peacekeeping in
Bosnia cannot be divorced from the broader issue of Canada's
overall future in international peacekeeping.
(1405)
Like many of my constituents and many Canadians, I support
the UN peacekeeping role. Peacekeeping is so vital to
international security. Therefore we must examine, reconceive
and perhaps reconsider our present involvement in
Bosnia-Hercegovina. In my opinion there is no one right
answer. There are only options to be weighed and there are only
best possible choices.
I trust that our government has every intention of making the
right choices. I thank the government for its sincere efforts to
consider all the options and insights put forward in the House
during the course of that historic debate.
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South): Mr. Speaker, I want to
draw to the attention of the House a phone call I got last night
from a young man in my riding, a Mr. Don Shay.
Don is apparently a fan of the parliamentary channel. He
phoned last night to say that for the first time in all the times he
has been watching that channel, he felt he learned something.
He asked me to congratulate the Prime Minister, the Leader of
the Opposition, the leader of the third party and all members of
the House for a debate that was truly informative. He looks
forward to more of them.
* * *
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
support most strongly the proposed Canadian Red Cross blood
fractionation facility in Nova Scotia.
Currently, 96 per cent of our fractionated blood products,
which are used by 300,000 Canadians, are purchased abroad.
This situation makes us uniquely vulnerable to foreign safety
standards, international shortages, export restrictions and
fluctuations in international prices.
This facility will ensure that all Canadians derive, first and
foremost, important health benefits. It will provide safer and
less expensive products and will generate savings of up to $575
million in the next decade to the Canadian health care system.
Moreover, the economic benefits of this facility are of
importance to Nova Scotia. It will produce $11 billion in
economic spinoffs for the Atlantic region in the next decade and
create over 400 jobs in the high-tech sector.
This plant represents a significant step toward the goal of
self-sufficiency in blood products, which has been deemed
essential by the World Health Organization.
Nova Scotians and all Canadians must be allowed to reap the
benefits of a Canadian fractionation facility.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, when the Auditor General of Canada examines Canada
Post activities in 1994, I invite him to check the relevance of this
agency's advertising budget, sponsoring costs and contract
allowance methods.
This should also help us to appreciate the effectiveness of the
Canada Post privatization policy, which is based solely on the
postmasters' age of retirement rather than on the number of
customers.
Last, the Auditor General could evaluate the impact of such a
policy on the development of our rural communities.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on
behalf of farmers who seek sound programs that balance their
interests with those of consumers and taxpayers.
Reformers will promote the following changes to agriculture:
Consolidation of over a dozen uncoordinated programs into
three: a trade distortion adjustment program; an income
stabilization program; and an improved crop insurance
program;
Reform of the transportation system so that products may be
moved by any route, any mode and in any state of processing;
Improved private sector participation in research, education
and job training;
Better targeting of research funds to meet the goals set out by
farmers and agribusiness; and
Improved regulations relating to safety, fair competition and
dispute settlement.
These changes and others will allow farmers to build a much
brighter future.
487
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, during the last Parliament there were large
demonstrations and intense opposition to the Conservative
amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which denied
benefits to persons who were obliged to leave their employment
for serious reasons but who could not prove just cause as defined
in the act.
I continue to meet individuals who were obliged to quit their
jobs because they were exploited or harassed and who are now
denied all benefits. Their alternative was to continue working as
slaves.
Since this party at that time strongly opposed those
amendments as being unduly harsh and excessive, I would urge
the government to initiate amendments as soon as possible to
correct this injustice.
* * *
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr.
Speaker, 1994 marks the 25th anniversary of the first Official
Languages Act in Canada adopted by this House. Under the nine
year Tory regime we saw fading interest in and commitment
toward official languages. Too few Canadians understand what
it is all about.
(1410)
A serious study should be undertaken by an individual to
determine whether the Official Languages Act is working as
intended. The mandate of the study should include federal
institutions, the courts, education, training and development,
language minorities, culture, the national capital region,
volunteer organizations, et cetera.
I hope the government will support this proposal and come to
an early review of the implementation of this act so that Canada
can move on to other things.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, on December
14, 1993 the city of Nepean passed a resolution supporting
restrictive pricing and marketing measures with respect to high
alcohol content beer.
The Traffic Injury Research Foundation, Mothers Against
Drunk Driving, the Addiction Research Foundation, and the
Canadian Medical Association all have demonstrated their
opposition to high alcohol content beer.
Research shows that for a typical 19-year old, two drinks in
one hour would produce a blood alcohol content sufficiently
high to violate the impaired driving provisions of the Criminal
Code.
I ask that the federal government express to the Ontario
legislature the need to regulate high alcohol content beer.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister of the
Environment the need to add to the Canadian fleet a ship
equipped to respond quickly and efficiently in case of a spill in
the St. Lawrence River or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
It is common knowledge that Quebec is totally unprepared to
respond to an environmental disaster that would have disastrous
consequences on the river's ecosystem.
This type of ship would fill a real need in addition to helping
the shipbuilding industry.
As the member for Bellechasse, I know that many of my
constituents who work at MIL Davie, in Lévis, are expecting a
quick decision on this matter.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, the
people of Fraser Valley West and others in Canada are concerned
about safety in the streets. It is especially troubling when
criminals slip through the cracks in the system and are allowed
to roam free due to technicalities.
Michael Lawrence Drake was convicted of molesting a young
girl in Bellingham, Washington in 1992. He is now roaming the
streets of greater Vancouver, a free man, while his immigration
inquiry is adjourned. This man was born in the United States and
has resident status in Canada but he is not a Canadian citizen.
I wish to ask the members of this House to work toward giving
the law enforcement officers in this country the power to detain
people like this and the courts the power to deport them
immediately.
Reform of the criminal justice system has been a high priority
of the Reform Party. It is my hope that this government makes
this reform a high priority as well so we feel good about leaving
our families in a safe environment.
* * *
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood: Mr. Speaker,
I rise under Standing Order 31 to clarify and confirm my
wholehearted support for Magna International's proposed $200
million development project.
488
This project, which includes a world-class research and
training facility, will create 1,100 jobs immediately in Aurora,
Ontario, and will create 10,000 spinoff jobs throughout the
entire southern Ontario economy.
I would urge the municipal and regional authorities to
consider this as a massive investment in infrastructure that
requires no taxpayers' money to create.
I am sure in light of this massive proposed investment in the
greater Toronto area and in light of the fact that all or part of this
project may have to be moved to the United States if it is not
approved that all necessary planning and environmental issues
will be resolved quickly.
I urge the provincial, regional and municipal authorities to
consider this project in an appropriate and timely manner.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, our country is faced with a serious smuggling problem.
As a non-smoker, I am generally in favour of high taxes on
tobacco to help discourage young people from smoking.
However, the reality in Canada today is completely different.
Because of the smuggling problem in our country, almost any
young Canadian can buy cigarettes cheaply, even illegally.
Moreover, those same young people can participate in and profit
from this illegal activity controlled by the undesirable elements
in our society. We have no choice, Mr. Speaker. We must put an
end to this illegal activity by reducing, however temporarily,
taxes on tobacco. We have to work together to enforce the laws
of our country.
* * *
(1415)
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, in the last
Parliament, I rose three times in this House to denounce the
flagrant unfairness of double standards, the inaction of what was
then my government and the Quebec government in the
unfortunate saga of tobacco smuggling, where they turned a
blind eye for many years by allowing the mafia to get rich on the
backs of honest people.
I have always said, and I will say it again today, as the only
independent elected member of the Parliament of Canada, that
tax reductions are the answer to the smuggling problem. Greedy
governments have led people to become smugglers, criminals
and outlaws.
Today, we want to ask questions such as: Who is protecting
who in the government and the police force? What public
servants, politicians or organizers would profit from showing
such sordid tolerance? We have now reached the point where
these questions need to be asked, Mr. Speaker.
_____________________________________________
488
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is
directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. A year ago, images of
six young Innu sniffing gas vapours horrified public opinion, as
we became aware of the terrible living conditions of the native
population in Davis Inlet. A year later, nothing has changed.
Drugs and suicide are still a serious problem, as shown in a
report televised last night on Radio-Canada's
Le Point. On the
same program, we also saw that conditions were similar in a
native community, in Quebec, at Lac Simon.
My question is this: Does the minister agree that if the
government is serious about its fiduciary responsibility for
these people, it must develop a joint strategy for putting an end
to the obscene poverty in Canada's native communities,
including Davis Inlet and Lac Simon?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I quite agree. The hon. Leader of
the Official Opposition was once a member of another
government which spent $1.7 million to send these children to
Poundmaker. Of the 17 families who went there, 16 of the kids
are back in trouble. So that did not work.
We are back in there again working with the leadership. As I
said last week, three of our people have been working actively.
Hopefully we can have a package some time in March that
addresses these things.
I do not think there are quick solutions and I do not think the
hon. member thinks so either. I think we have the responsibility
to be there to do whatever we can as far as healing, health,
housing, and trying to solve the situation in a pragmatic
step-by-step process.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Indian
Affairs. This week in response to a question from the hon.
member from Saint-Jean, the minister said that he was about to
make a proposal to the people of Davis Inlet that would deal with
issues of justice and health care, a proposal that he felt was
acceptable. Does the minister realize that the problem is
escalating, since RCMP officers are being denied access to
Davis Inlet to investigate cases of sexual assault and violence
against women and children?
489
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): After the initial incident when I was down in the
area the leadership took another position. They invited the
RCMP in. They came and collected the prisoners and then left. I
think the situation is much better at Davis Inlet now than it was
when I was there. The leadership wants to work with the RCMP,
wants to work with the government in Newfoundland, and wants
to work with us. I think together we can find solutions.
(1420 )
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the minister should have watched the television
program last night. He should ask his staff to show it to him
because it is really terrible to see. You cannot watch this
program and report without feeling sad about the situation of
those people in Canada.
I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to agree to the
request of the Innu in Davis Inlet who want to leave the island to
go back to the Labrador mainland to recover their ancestral
hunting grounds?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I have heard some crazy figures
like $80 million. I am at present getting hard figures on it. I am
very sympathetic to that move but I want to make sure it can be
done within our budget. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition
realizes we have budget constraints and I have to work within
that budget.
In my heart I want to make that move. I hope we can do it
within the constraints of government these days with the heavy
deficit.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, my question
deals with the incidents which occurred last Friday in
Kanesatake, and about which the Minister of National Defence
is constantly changing his version of the facts. He first talked
about the Sûreté du Québec, which proved incorrect. Then he
said that he had been informed that the Sûreté du Québec was
investigating, which also proved incorrect. Finally, yesterday,
he said he did not have time to ask the Sûreté du Québec to
investigate.
Could the minister tell us whether anyone is investigating the
events in Kanesatake? If so, will the minister give us the
assurance that he will table the report once the investigation is
completed?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the hon. member is unaware that the chief of the band
involved at Oka, Chief Peltier, gave a press conference a short
time ago. In that press conference he said, first, that he was
completely satisfied with the explanations given by the
Department of National Defence.
Second, as far as he is concerned the matter is closed. Third,
bearing in mind what I said the other day about members on the
other side inflaming the situation, he has accused the members
of the Bloc Quebecois of deliberately inflaming the situation for
their own political ends in Quebec. That is a shame. The member
should be ashamed of that action.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the minister
does not seem to understand that his first obligation is to answer
questions in this House where he sits as an elected
representative, rather than satisfy some people, people who
might be involved in that affair.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): The truth hurts on the other side.
Could the minister tell us whether the mysterious signal
received by the Canadian Forces could have come from a plane
used for cigarette or arms smuggling? Can the minister give us
any information on that?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, my
first obligation is to answer legitimate questions posed in the
House and to expose the truth. The chief of the band made the
statement that I referred to a few moments ago.
I find it rather ironic that a couple of days ago the hon.
member was posing as an advocate of natives at Oka. Now he is
attacking them. Please be consistent.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last week the
Reform Party proposed a spending cap that would have reduced
federal spending next year by a modest 6 per cent. Yesterday the
minister described this proposal as savagery.
This weekend the minister is attending a pre-budget
conference in Calgary where resource companies have had to
downsize 10, 15 and 20 per cent in order to remain competitive.
490
(1425 )
Will the minister tell the House how he intends to explain to
workers and investors in those companies why the federal
government cannot cut its spending by even a modest 6 per cent
and prefers instead to expand the tax base?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the reference I made yesterday to
savagery was to not only the motion made in this House but to
the program put forward by members of the Reform Party during
the election. They put forward a series of recommendations
concerning old age pensions which they said would affect
families above $54,000 but in fact affected families below
$35,000, going down.
It is certainly not the case that we are reluctant to cut
spending. We are very desirous of cutting spending and in fact
we intend to do so. But it is precisely because we are not
prepared to ignore the cause and the plight of laid-off workers
that we are not going to cut spending the way the Reform Party
would want us to do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, a
supplementary question for the Minister of Finance that relates
to the helping of workers.
A recent publication by the minister's department entitled
Canada's Economic Challenges shows that Canada's total public
debt as a percentage of GDP is higher than that of our major
trading partners.
This weekend the minister will be told that the higher taxes
paid by Canadian exporters to service that debt are already a
competitive disadvantage, killing jobs in the export sector. Does
the finance minister agree that this is so, and if so will he explain
how further expanding the tax base can possibly stimulate job
creation in the export sector?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, broadening the tax base and filling in
the tax loopholes will simply remove inequities in the tax
system and make it a great deal fairer. Then Canadians will be
far more prepared to support it. That is what we are dealing with.
In terms of export sales we stated unequivocally in the red
book that the ultimate aim of any government, certainly this
one, must be to reduce taxes. But this party, as the Reform Party
certainly claims to be, is also worried about the financial
condition of the public finances of this country. We also know
that unless we attack the deficit we are not going to get interest
rates down. Unless we get interest rates down we are not going
to have a competitive economy. If the member would like a
lesson on the deficit I would be prepared to give it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
one further supplementary question for the finance minister so
that we are clear on his position.
The airline industry in Canada pays about 20 per cent of its
gross revenues in direct charges and taxes to governments
compared to about 10 per cent paid by the American carriers to
their government. Will the finance minister acknowledge that
the high levels of these charges and taxes are already killing jobs
in the airline industry and again explain how expanding the tax
base can possibly improve the job situation in that industry or
any other industry?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about equity, making
sure that one group of Canadians does not benefit more from the
system and the services that this country provides than other
groups of Canadians. We are trying to build fairness into the
system. That is crucial.
I fail to understand the objection of the party opposite to that
kind of fairness. However we are going to continue to do it
despite the objectives of the party opposite.
In terms of the competitiveness of our system there is no
doubt that our airlines, our farmers, the inputs to fertilizers, the
interest rates that this country has had to bear over the last five
years; there has been a great deal of unfairness in this country
and that is why we were elected, to try and make that right.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday, the
Prime Minister, justifying the reluctance of the RCMP to lay
charges against cigarette smugglers, claimed that it did not have
enough evidence to take action, and I quote: ``-when it has
compiled valid evidence, it takes quick action, as it must.''
How is it that the RCMP does not yet have enough evidence to
lay charges when, every night, we see smugglers strutting their
stuff on TV?
(1430)
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
it is up to the RCMP, in consultation with Crown prosecutors, to
decide when there is enough proof not only to lay charges, but
charges that will lead to convictions.
491
I do not think it is for me to interfere in these operational
decisions of the force. I think that courts in the past have
demanded more than nightly television programs on which to
base findings of guilt.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, in view of the fact that it has been going on long
enough, will the Solicitor General be forthright and tell the
House why the media are able to compile such evidence and
show it live on our TV screens, while the RCMP, with the tools at
its disposal, is unable to gather evidence of this kind, and go
after the real criminals?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the press plays a very useful role in this country, but it is not the
equivalent of proof on the basis of which charges can be laid and
on the basis of which after a trial where the burden of proof is on
the Crown there will be convictions.
I will draw the attention of the RCMP to my hon. friend's
suggestions. I am sure they will take them into account in doing
the work for which they are world famous.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance in the absence of the
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
By way of preamble I would like to say that a lesson in deficit
cutting from a Liberal finance minister is like a lesson in
firefighting from a pyromaniac.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I know the hon. member will want to
change his statement about the pyromaniac and rephrase it just a
little bit.
Mr. Strahl: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Over the last four years the government paid a housing
allowance of more than $400,000 to a UN bureaucrat working
for the International Maritime Organization. In the dying days
of the Conservative administration the government further
agreed to pay up to $12,000 a month, for a total of $580,000, in
housing allowances for the same official for the next four years.
My question for the Minister of Finance is this. At a time
when thousands of Canadians are homeless, will the Liberal
government reverse this Conservative decision that gives this
UN official the equivalent of about $500,000 a year?
Mr. Tobin: Shame on the Tories.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, it does not help when you mess up your
preamble, does it.
I will take the question as notice and I will certainly speak to
the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I can assure the member that we
are dedicated to reversing a great many Conservative decisions.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, the
recent musings of this government that it may move to eliminate
double-dipping has been appreciated and applauded I think by
all Canadians, and certainly on this side of the House.
Will the government move to eliminate this example of
triple-dipping as well?
The Speaker: I am not sure to whom the member is directing
his question.
Mr. Tobin: Ray Speaker.
Mr. Marchi: Let Ray answer it.
The Speaker: Order. Would the hon. member just repeat the
question.
Mr. Strahl: I will speak slowly. Will the government move to
eliminate this example of triple-dipping from the government
as well?
The Speaker: I think that is for the Minister of Finance.
(1435 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I am told by my
colleague the Solicitor General that we will certainly be dealing
with that and I think that my preamble answers the question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was ready to
consider lowering taxes on tobacco products, unilaterally if he
had to, in order to put an end to the smuggling that is causing
problems in Quebec and Ontario and the Minister of Finance
declared that lower taxes would help stop the smuggling.
I ask the minister if she concurs with the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Finance on the necessity of lowering those
taxes?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my
first obligation is to protect the health of Canadians. The
smuggling of tobacco products is also a health problem.
492
You know that about 300 children start smoking each day.
Tobacco smoking also causes 40,000 deaths a year in Canada.
Therefore, I feel it is absolutely essential that we convince all
Canadians that they should stop smoking.
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the
minister is in favour of maintaining the tax. Therefore, since she
does not agree with her government, what would she
recommend to stop the increasing number of young people who
smoke contraband cigarettes?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
are very concerned with the problems of contraband and
cigarette smuggling.
The government and I as Minister of Health are extremely
concerned with smoking and the effect it has on the health of
Canadians. Not only do young children start smoking every day,
but those who purchase cigarettes on the black market do not pay
the taxes which help us fund the health care system. And,
believe me, we are very much in need of as many dollars as
possible to fight the kinds of problems that are caused by
smoking.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Defence.
On January 25 the minister told the House that he is seeking
further clarification on the discrepancy between the accounting
principles of his department and those of the Auditor General.
Also on January 25, when the minister was asked about civil
servant accountability in his department, the minister stated:
I do not think that is a question that should be addressed to me. That is a
question for government, and I do not know who can answer that.
The minister says that he is not responsible for the actions
taken by the civil servants in his department. On this basis,
could the minister explain to this House his concept of
ministerial accountability?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member will realize that the way the supplementary
question was asked by his colleague left some in doubt as to
what he was actually trying to get at. No one disputes the fact
that public servants report to their political masters as elected
and members of the government.
With respect to the actual question on costing, which is
serious, I know the hon. member would like to get to the bottom
of the differences which we feel exist between DND accounting
and the Auditor General. If the House will give leave early next
week I will make our report public and table the document here
in the House so all can see the Department of National Defence's
reasoning. We have nothing to hide.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, a
supplemental for the Minister of National Defence.
It was only yesterday the Prime Minister explained to this
House that sometimes the figures of the Auditor General are
misleading.
(1440)
Does the minister believe that in this case the Auditor General
has again misled the House?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister was referring to the same discrepancy between
what we feel are accurate costing figures. I think he did a very
good job at explaining in graphic terms the difference between
our concept of how these costs should be arrived at and that of
the Auditor General.
As members of the government we are quite entitled to have
legitimate disputes with whomever about accounting methods.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The inquiry by professor James Hathaway of Toronto on the
Immigration and Refugee Board, commissioned by his own
department, concluded this week that the minister is failing in
his duty, that the board is disregarding the most elementary rules
of fairness toward refugee claimants, and that incompetent
commissioners have made dubious decisions based on
questionable grounds.
When is the minister going to reform the board to restore its
credibility? What does he intend to do about decisions already
made by these incompetent commissioners?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question the hon.
member raises.
Late last year we had an opportunity to make our first
appointments to the Immigration Refugee Board. We wanted to
assure ourselves that the government meant what it said when
we were going to bring back integrity and competence, not only
to government but to the appointments of boards and
commissions under the government.
493
With respect to the Immigration Refugee Board we made 33
appointments which were heralded across the country with very
positive accolades. In fact the hon. member himself said that the
government was on the right track and improved the
Immigration Refugee Board.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, the media
were saying today that the board is a privileged haunt of
patronage appointees and incompetents. Could the minister
commit himself, today, to changing the rules of appointment, so
they are based on qualification rather than on political
affiliation?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I just finished saying that the hon.
member actually applauded the first appointments that we
made, as did the Reform Party of Canada.
What we have laid down is an unprecedented consultation
process with respect to the Immigration Refugee Board. We
consulted with NGOs across the country. We consulted with
lawyers across the country. We consulted with advocates across
the country.
Even before the Hathaway report was tabled this week, I
suggested as minister we should elaborate that system of
consultation with the view of setting up committees of
interested Canadians from a variety of disciplines to begin to vet
a number of names that come through the system and to
recommend individuals who would be capable of discharging
the responsibilities and the important mandate of the
Immigration Refugee Board.
The hon. member should also distinguish what took place in
December from what took place for nine years under the
Conservative Government of Canada.
* * *
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I believe Canadians would insist that as a complement to our
military role in the former Yugoslavia we contribute to the
efforts to arrive at a negotiated settlement.
Could the minister tell us whether the government plans to
take a more active role in diplomacy? As part of our contribution
to the negotiations, would the minister consider convening a
meeting of knowledgeable Canadians to explore ways to bring
an end to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions and for his
interesting suggestions.
I would like to indicate that a diplomatic avenue should be
pursued to complement the tremendous contributions of
Canadian forces and the humanitarian aid that we are bringing to
the area.
(1445)
I have been in touch with our ambassador in Geneva and have
conveyed to him our feelings following the debate that took
place in the House, that every avenue has to be explored in order
to bring peace to the area.
With regard to the suggestion to bring a number of prominent
Canadians to advise and assist us, I want to remind the House
that there will not only be a parliamentary committee struck to
review our foreign policy in which parliamentarians in a
traditional way will ask witnesses to appear before it, but in
keeping with our promises in the red book we will hold a
two-day national forum at the end of March to review our
foreign policy.
It is in that context that people across the country could be
invited to participate and give us their advice.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker,
businesses and employees are fed up with never ending hikes in
UI premiums. My question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Will the minister agree to turn over control of the UI program
to the businesses and employees who fund it?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will
know, the minister of human resources is on his way to
Winnipeg in anticipation of further discussions about the whole
review of unemployment insurance. The social policy review is
considering all options.
I am sure he would be very happy to have the input of the hon.
member and other members on this important issues.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question. As the minister knows payroll taxes
actually cripple the ability of business to create jobs.
Could the minister tell the House which labour and business
groups were consulted about the 1 per cent training tax that both
the Prime Minister and the human resources development
minister have said is under consideration by this government?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know
that under the previous government certain statutory obligations
were laid out.
494
The current government has moved to freeze unemployment
insurance premium payouts by employers in the short term. In
the long term we are undertaking a complete review in which the
member will be welcome to participate.
We are looking for his participation. We are looking for the
participation of all Canadians. Indeed that is why just 10
minutes ago my colleague left for Winnipeg to begin the process
of participation outside Ottawa.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): My question is for the
President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for
Infrastructure. To date, Canada has signed agreements with six
provincial governments: Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, New-Brunswick and, more recently, Ontario. Since
Quebec has already received a first contribution from the federal
government, as confirmed by the announced construction of a
new Convention Centre in Quebec City, one can only wonder
why there is no formal agreement between the federal
government and Quebec.
My question is this: Is it possible that the agreement everyone
is waiting for in Quebec has been postponed because the federal
government refuses to give Quebec full leadership in that case
and absolutely wants to keep an eye on the selection of projects?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
when the provincial premiers were here at the first ministers'
conference on December 21 they all agreed in principle to the
program, so Quebec is indeed a part of the program.
What we are attempting to do at this point in time is to dot the
i's and cross the t's on the framework agreement. As soon as we
have that done we will be signing the agreement.
Everything is going well in that connection. In fact I note in
Le Soleil this morning that the hon. André Bourbeau is quoted as
saying that he is quite happy. He is the minister responsible for
the program in the Government of Quebec and he is quite happy
with the progress. So are we.
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question for the Minister responsible for
Infrastructure.
Can the minister tell us if ratification of an agreement with
Quebec is delayed because Ottawa is reluctant to give Quebec
full authority and wants to have a say in the choice of projects in
Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
the short answer is no.
* * *
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister answering for the Prime
Minister today.
The January 24 issue of Maclean's magazine reports that the
Prime Minister ``has hired Toronto lawyer Robert Wright, his
chief fund raiser for the 1984 Liberal leadership campaign, to
negotiate the cancellation of the contract to privatize two
terminals at Pearson International Airport''.
Will the minister explain to the House why the Prime Minister
has appointed one of his Liberal fundraisers to dismantle a deal
he vilified during the election campaign because it involved a
Tory fundraiser?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I am astounded the hon. member would not understand that the
cancellation of Pearson airport and the negotiations that have
been undertaken to deal with the compensation would be led by
such an experienced lawyer as the one I as Minister of Transport
appointed.
Mr. Wright is a former chairman of the Ontario Securities
Commission and an outstanding legal mind. I am sure the entire
question of compensation arising from the cancellation of
Pearson will be addressed in his usual professional, very
thorough and competent manner.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, I admit that I am new to Ottawa and fundraiser politics,
but could the minister please explain to me what ethical criteria
distinguished the appointment of Liberal fundraisers from Tory
fundraisers?
The Speaker: I think we are getting into little different areas
here. I will permit the minister to answer the question if he so
desires.
However I would encourage hon. members not to impugn
anything, if they possibly could, along the way. The hon.
minister, if he would like to answer.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
in view of the comments of the hon. member alleging, as I
understood them, that there would be anything that would put in
question the ethics of Robert Wright is totally unacceptable to
me. This man has an impeccable reputation.
As it happens, and the. hon. member will learn this as he
spends some time in the House, the Prime Minister has many
friends in this country.
495
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Many people in my riding, including representatives of
environmental groups and First Nations, have voiced their
concerns to me regarding the completion of the Kemano project.
Earlier this week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans hinted
that he might be able to shed some light on how and when the
government intended to honour the commitment made by the
Prime Minister to participate in the current British Columbia
Utilities Commission review of the Kemano completion project.
Will the minister provide the House with some details today?
If not, when will he be ready to do so?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. Indeed her
question gives me an opportunity to announce on behalf of the
government that today the government has decided to
participate in the British Columbia Utilities Commission review
of the Kemano completion project.
The government will make documents, evidence, officials
and scientists available to testify in these provincial hearings in
accordance with the Prime Minister's commitment given to the
people of British Columbia, to aboriginal groups and to
environment groups during the course of the election campaign.
(1455 )
It is in this government's interest to ensure a full airing of
opinion on the contentious technical issues involved. We shall
comply in every way, shape and form to keep the commitment
given by the Prime Minister.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, in 1991,
the Ontario-Quebec rapid train task force agreed it would be
appropriate to establish a rapid train service in the
Quebec-Windsor corridor. The task force did a very thorough
preliminary feasibility study, listing the many economic
spin-offs connected with the project.
The present Prime Minister's chief of staff, former Quebec
City mayor Jean Pelletier, was the co-signer of this report. The
task force also held wide ranging public consultations, in the
course of which intervenors stressed that cities in the corridor
would have to become more efficient if they were to succeed in a
competitive market.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Could
she tell me what she would prefer: spend taxpayers money to
proceed with the abandonment of railway lines or spend it on an
innovative project that would create jobs, jobs, jobs and
increase our exports of technology to the United States?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environnement): When people mention jobs, jobs, jobs,
it reminds me of that statement by Mr. Bouchard's friend. I think
the Liberal Party made it clear that we are going to work with the
private sector, as suggested in the study to which the hon.
member referred. We want to improve public transit to promote
the use of advanced technology in Canada for Canadians, but
also to maintain an infrastructure that will give our economy a
chance to expand. We are working on a number of measures,
including the proposal put forward by the bipartite committee. I
am sure that when we have a chance to discuss our budget
priorities, the Bloc Quebecois will indicate whether this is their
priority for the budget.
Mr. Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I assumed that when the Deputy
Prime Minister referred to the Leader of the Opposition by
name, it was an oversight.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I realize this is the beginning of the
session, but it would be preferable to refer to each other by the
names of our ridings. I would urge all members to do so if at all
possible. The hon. member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): I assume the Deputy
Prime Minister's answer means that she does not endorse what
was said by the Minister of Transport, who said last week that
establishing a rapid train service was not one of his priorities.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environnement): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada is anxious to work together with the private sector on all
modes of transportation that can be helpful as part of the
infrastructure and provide applications for advanced
technology. It is true that we are experiencing a budget crisis, as
the hon. member's friend, the member for Saint-Jean, said in
this House. Next month, when the Minister of Finance
announces his budget priorities, the hon. member will see
whether we are able to create jobs and at the same time meet our
budgetary responsibilities. It is a difficult balancing act, but we
are convinced that as a long term goal, public transit is good for
the economies of both Quebec and Canada.
496
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On Tuesday afternoon in a Vancouver courtroom Dale John
Hicks was found guilty of manslaughter in the killing of Caren
Rainey and Laurie Wood.
The charge was reduced from second degree murder to
manslaughter. The reason given for this reduction was that
Hicks had not shown an intention to kill the two women but
merely to assault them. Their brutal deaths, with one being
stabbed 17 times, was blamed on the cocaine that Hicks had
taken rather than on Hicks himself.
(1500)
On behalf of the families of these two victims and millions of
other Canadians, will the minister consider changing the law so
that substance abuse does not constitute an excuse for murder?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am not
familiar with the details of the case referred to and I will
withhold comment on it specifically until I have an opportunity
to investigate it further. If the hon. member wishes to have me
comment on that specific case, I will be happy to do so after I
have had an opportunity to examine it in detail.
As to her broader question, the issue of whether substance
abuse can be taken into account in determining the degree of
culpability or the nature of the charge, may I simply say that the
Criminal Code at present, and defences that are available to
those accused of criminal acts, provide and have provided
throughout the history of our justice system that all
circumstances be taken into account, including the question of
whether the individual accused was acting under the influence
of an agent.
This is a question which is more complex than can be dealt
with in a short response. I assure the member that once I am
familiar with the facts of the case to which she has referred in
particular I would be happy to discuss it with her at greater
length.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Minister of Natural Resources.
Durham includes a site known as the Port Granby nuclear
dump only 100 yards from Lake Ontario, the tailing site of the
former Eldorado nuclear, a crown corporation.
After committing up to $16 million of taxpayers' money this
site continues to leach contaminates into Lake Ontario. What are
the minister's plans to address this threat to our community and
the Great Lakes?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I acknowledge the importance of the question just
posed by the hon. member for Durham to the residents of Port
Granby.
It is clear that we must find a permanent location for the low
level waste referred to by my hon. colleague. We have an
independent siting task force working with the communities
involved to find an acceptable permanent site. Once that process
is completed we will begin the clean up of the Port Granby
dump.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, as provided
for in the Standing Orders, I would ask the Leader of the
Government in the House to tell us what the business of the
House will be for the rest of the week and next week.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
today we will continue with debate on the Address in Reply to
the Speech from the Throne. As we know the House will sit until
ten o'clock this evening. There will also be a continuation of the
throne speech debate tomorrow.
If there is to be a vote on the motion, the vote will take place if
necessary at 6 p.m. this coming Tuesday. On Monday the House
will be asked to consider the motion of the Minister of Human
Resources Development to establish the timeframe for a study
by a committee of social programs. This motion and the text of it
will be on the Notice Paper this evening. On Tuesday we will
have a special pre-budget debate to enable members to state
their views on what should be in the forthcoming budget.
On Wednesday, depending on the extent of our consultations
with other parties on this matter, we could debate a motion on
parliamentary reform.
_____________________________________________
496
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an
address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his
Speech at the opening of the session.
497
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate
you on your election to the chair. I noted in your opening
remarks that you quoted Disraeli. I know your comments reflect
the feeling of many new members present in the House.
(1505)
I know we all have the best of intentions and I hope that
together with your guidance, Mr. Speaker, we will be successful
in restoring dignity and respect to both politics and politicians. I
am also mindful of your advice that we must remember we are
not here because of personal merit, although that surely is a
factor, but because free men and women have faith in us and in
the principles we put forward during the election campaign. I
appreciate those comments.
The Speaker: Order. Would hon. members please take their
discussions behind the curtains.
Is this the hon. member's maiden speech?
Mr. Wells: Yes.
The Speaker: I wish you well in it.
Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I hope all members will remember
your comments. The reality is that we must all perform to the
best of our ability and work toward restoring respect and dignity
or, come next election, there will be another record number of
new members sitting in this Chamber.
I congratulate all members on their election to the House. I am
sure it is for them, as it is for me, an honour and a privilege to
represent their constituents and bring their concerns forward to
this assembly. I look forward to working closely and
co-operatively with all members, regardless of party affiliation,
during the next four years.
I thank the people of South Shore, Nova Scotia, for putting
their trust and faith in me on October 25. My riding, as were
many others across Canada, was represented by another party
for many years prior to the past election. In fact the last Liberal
to represent the South Shore in Parliament was the late Robert
Winters. He last served South Shore in 1957.
I do not purport to be another Robert Winters, but I can
promise the people of the South Shore that I will represent each
and every one of them to the best of my ability. I will fulfil my
commitments to them as they were stated over the long and very
arduous nomination process and election campaign.
The riding of South Shore is one of the great coastal ridings of
Canada. It is presently the home of the largest fishing
constituency in all of Canada. In 1992 there were approximately
5,000 active fishermen and 126 licensed processing plants in my
riding alone. The value of the annual catch is close to $200
million per year, for a market value of approximately $375
million.
In my constituency there are three counties, all of which have
resource based economies. Shelburne County is the fishing
capital of Canada. Queens County is known as the forestry
capital of Canada, and Lunenburg County is known as the
Christmas tree capital of Canada. One could say that the South
Shore is the capital capital of Canada with all those capitals.
My riding extends from the community of Hubbards in the
east to Charlesville 150 miles to the west. It extends 50 miles
inland from the Atlantic Ocean to the communities of New Ross
and New Germany in Lunenburg County, Caledonia and
Greenfield in Queens County, and to Upper Ohio in Shelburne
County. Its bays contain thousands of islands from East
Ironbound and Tancook in the east to Seal Island and Cape Sable
Island in the west.
The historic towns of Lunenburg, Mahone Bay, Bridgewater,
Liverpool, Shelburne, Lockeport and Clark's Harbour are all
located on the South Shore, as are many quaint and beautiful
villages such as my home of Chester and other communities
such as Blandford, New Ross, Riverport, Port Mouton, East
Green Harbour and Barrington Passage. I could go on and on. I
would like to name them all but I understand I am limited in
time.
I still remember the Friday morning 10 days before the past
election when the Prime Minister visited historic Lunenburg,
home of the Bluenose, the Bounty and the Fisheries Museum of
the Atlantic. This was a proud occasion for the people of the
South Shore, one which I am sure left many people touched by
his honesty and humanity.
It goes without saying, as we hear the names of these historic
towns and villages, that tourism plays a major part in the lives of
my constituents. We must continue to promote tourism as it is
serving to revitalize communities devastated by the downturn in
the fishery. It generates more than $100 million annually and
provides employment for thousands of people on the South
Shore. It is an industry that can and will play a leading role in the
economic recovery we are all anticipating.
(1510)
As I said earlier, the economy of my riding is primarily
resource based. My constituents are affected by and concerned
with the downturn in the fishery, the challenges in the forestry
sector, particularly those of the pulp and paper industry, and the
difficulties and uncertainty being experienced in the
agricultural sector.
I for one believe the fishery can be prosperous once again if
we properly manage the change. I have faith, and I know that
faith is not misplaced, in the present minister of fisheries. I
applaud his willingness to listen and his courage to act. Once we
set aside special interests in favour of community interests
practical solutions will be found.
498
One of the first steps we must take is to curtail foreign
overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. I must say I
was encouraged by the comments of Reformers earlier today
when they said that they would be supporting the Liberal Party
on that initiative.
With regard to the forestry sector I have every faith in the
Minister of Natural Resources with whom I, along with my
constituent, Mr. Rick Lord, president of the Canadian Christmas
Tree Growers' Association, and the Prime Minister, presented a
Christmas tree to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.
The minister is aware of the size and scope of forestry in my
riding. There are 270 established companies within our forestry
sector which employ directly or indirectly upwards of 5,000
people. The annual value of all forest exports from my riding
alone is in excess of $150 million. The minister is no doubt
aware of how important the extension of the federal-provincial
forestry agreements are to the future viability and management
of this resource.
Not everybody in the riding has resource based employment.
There are many who are looking forward to the benefits that can
be realized from the Canada infrastructure works program
implemented recently by the Minister responsible for
Infrastructure. The introduction of this program was well
accepted by all 12 municipal units in my riding. Not only is this
initiative necessary but its premise that all levels of government
in Canada can work together toward a common and beneficial
end is sound. I sincerely hope that this is a positive indication of
things to come.
There are many issues and concerns to be discussed.
Thankfully we have four years in which to deal with them.
However there is one further concern I would like to bring
forward. It is one that I addressed continually throughout my
nomination and election campaign. My concern is for the future
of the youth in this country.
In addition to my responsibilities to my family and my
business, over the years I have focused some of my energies on
the young people in the communities of the South Shore. I have
enjoyed working with young people and I have been repaid
many times over through my experiences with them.
It saddens me to see so many worried and troubled young men
and women in our society today. They have become alienated as
their concerns were overshadowed by those of our generation.
Their lives are difficult, their futures insecure. We should all be
aware of the fact that the changing times, the state of the
economy and the seemingly bleak prospects for their future are
taking their toll.
Their hours are not always easy to fill. There are few of the
simplistic pastimes that most of us remember from our youth. I
know I never had to compete with the televised or computer
generated games that assail the youth of today. None of my
distractions came from drugs, alcohol or idleness.
Today the need for continued education is greater than in the
past. Jobs are fewer and costs are higher. It is not easy for them
even to begin to compete in the global marketplace.
Where do they find hope? They find hope in our faith in them.
The Liberal Party demonstrated its belief in the young people of
Canada during the election campaign by introducing the concept
of the Canadian youth corps and the Canadian apprenticeship
program. I was pleased to hear a reconfirmation of that former
initiative in the speech from the throne.
The youth corps program will afford our youth the
opportunity to make a positive contribution to the country while
building self- esteem, developing skills and gaining experience.
The apprenticeship program will give young people the skills
needed to succeed in growing economic sectors, will forge
strong schools to work linkages and will result in making
apprenticeship a valid career option.
In closing, I would like to note that I am fully committed to
the program outlined in ``Creating Opportunities''. The
government of which I am proud to be a part was elected to
implement this program and the speech from the throne reflects
its intention to do so.
(1515)
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the member for South Shore. First of all I congratulate him
on his maiden speech.
With respect to the resource industry of which the hon.
member said his riding has a cross-section, specifically in
forestry, he said there were over 270 companies employing
5,000 people. When these companies strip the trees, are they
forced to replace them at intermittent stages during their
contract? Or, is it like some other companies in Canada that are
allowed to wait until the last days of their contract and walk
away from that commitment?
Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, a lot of reforestation is taking place
in my province and in my riding. As we discuss this matter with
different people in the forest industry there is a difference of
opinion sometimes as to whether or not we should let natural
forces come into play. If the cutting is done properly and we
leave enough, nature will run its course and natural regeneration
will occur.
The supply of wood and wood fibre is sufficient. It is perhaps
sufficient for another major industry. Certainly at this point in
time our forests are relatively well managed. There is no major
concern with wood supply or wood fibre at this time.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for South Shore. Indeed it is a pleasure
to have him as a colleague from Nova Scotia in the House of
Commons. I have known the member for many years. The area
has made a very wise choice in sending him here to be its
representative in the House of Commons. On a personal note, I
am very pleased
499
that a friend of mine has pursued this noble occupation of being
a member of Parliament from South Shore.
The member comes from one of the most beautiful parts of
Canada. Perhaps he can let people who are watching this debate
and people who are in the House know about some of the
beautiful spots and tourism events in his riding. Tourism is a
major industry in the riding of South Shore. Perhaps he could
elucidate for us some events that take place there so that some of
the people in the House and the people watching can take him up
on an offer and maybe we will see them there in the summer.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do not doubt that the
member's riding is as described by the hon. member for
Dartmouth. I would be very surprised if the member for South
Shore, in the short time left of approximately one minute, could
do justice to the beauty of his riding, as any other member would
find almost impossible to do. I am sure we will get a valiant
effort from the member for South Shore in the little time he has
left.
Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I guess the greatest risk when we try
to do answer a question in one minute is to be concerned about
what we might leave out.
When we run summer election campaigns we learn that in my
riding which is 150 miles long and 50 miles wide there are many
exhibitions from the big exhibition in Bridgewater, to the
fisheries exhibition in Lunenburg, to the exhibitions in
Barrington and Shelburne, to the folk festival in Lunenburg, to
Chester Race Week. Again, with the limited time, I have left
many out.
During the summer I will not say South Shore is the tourism
capital of Nova Scotia because I notice other members here who
may take objection to that. Certainly tourism and all the events
that take place are big draws and more and more are being
developed all the time.
I thank the member for the question. I hope over time I can
expand more fully on some of the major events that place in my
riding.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova): Mr. Speaker, the
people of Central Nova have authorized me to represent their
many diverse and urgent interests in the House of Commons; to
speak on their behalf with courage, determination and integrity;
to ensure that their families are protected and safeguarded; to
ensure that their right to work with pride and dignity is restored;
and to ensure that our country remains united, independent and
free.
My people in Central Nova, by electing me as their member of
Parliament, have bestowed the highest honour upon me and have
placed me in a position of trust. I pray that God will grant me the
wisdom, knowledge and understanding to fulfil my duties in this
office with justice, integrity and equity.
(1520 )
The people of Central Nova must not be underestimated. They
know the issues. They see the problems. They feel the heartache,
pain and anxiety. They have experienced firsthand the
devastating social and economic effects of government policies
and decisions. Many are unemployed. Others are what I refer to
as the working poor.
The speech from the throne and the initiatives and programs
outlined therein offers hope to the people of Central Nova.
Already initiatives are being implemented in my riding, such as
the municipal infrastructure program. Hope has been offered for
employment and hope for new opportunity. This is as a result of
the speech from the throne and the initiatives set out in the red
book, Creating Opportunity.
Let us look at the unemployment situation. Every day jobs are
lost or being threatened. Unemployment, job security and job
creation must be and will be the priority issues for this
government. Unemployment is the scourge of mankind. It robs
the person of his or her dignity. It has a crippling effect on the
entire community and our nation as a whole.
The causal effects of unemployment can lead to the
breakdown of the family unit, leads to family violence, suicide,
alcohol and drug dependency, increased crime, theft,
insurmountable financial and emotional problems, and
dependency on social assistance. The effects are unlimited. The
price society and the taxpayer pays in the cost of support
services for family breakdown is also immeasurable. The price
the family pays is immeasurable.
I am proud to represent Central Nova. Central Nova is known
as the industrial heartland of Nova Scotia and rightly so because
the industrial revolution in Canada began in my home town of
Stellarton. It came about with the advent of steam power and the
usage of the 40-foot thick Foord seam of coal in Stellarton. The
steam power was applied to industry in Central Nova including
shipbuilding, steel making, sawmills and railroads.
The first steel railroad ever built in Canada was built in
Stellarton and is still in existence today.
New Glasgow, a town in Central Nova, built the first iron
sailing ship ever made in Canada.
The development of the Pictou coal deposit created an
industrial complex in the town of New Glasgow which in 1883
broadened into the opening of the first steel making plant in
Canada. Today we have Maritime Steel and our New Glasgow
foundry.
The first steel ever successfully made in Canada was
produced in the town of Trenton. Since then, the town of Trenton
in Central Nova has been referred to as the birthplace of steel in
Canada. It was known as Trenton Works at one time and
manufactured railway rolling stock. The plant is still in
existence today but it is known as Lavalin.
500
Westville, a coal mining town, was incorporated September
1884 and became known as the friendly town. Coal mining
began in 1865. As the town of Westville celebrates its centennial
of incorporation this very year, once again it will look to its coal
mines for another resource; that of geothermal energy extracted
from the warm waters of flooded, abandoned mine workings.
The town of Pictou is an historic town in Central Nova that
overlooks the best harbour in northern Nova Scotia. The
Scottish immigration to Pictou began in July 1773 and the early
economic base centred around the sea. Shipbuilding was and
still is a very prominent part of Pictou's economy with our
Pictou Industries.
The municipality of Pictou consists of geographically Pictou
east and Pictou west. Located therein is the north shore which
has a multi-purpose fishing industry and agriculture.
We have the eastern shore fishing industry in the county of
Halifax. The eastern shore is an unscathed environment with a
beautiful coastline and the most wonderful people you would
ever want to meet.
Central Nova is now facing a fishing industry crisis that has
devastating effects on our people and their livelihood both on
the north shore and eastern shore of Central Nova.
We have the First Nation Micmac community of Pictou
Landing with a population of approximately 420 band members
living on about 250 acres of land. Although the area around
Pictou has been settled by the Micmac for thousands of years,
official status of reserve land has only been granted for a little
more than 100 years. Education and high unemployment are
issues of concern and our Micmac nation is open to the concept
of self-government.
(1525)
It is interesting to note that Central Nova, the birthplace of the
industrial revolution of Nova Scotia, must now prepare for the
technical revolution. It is imperative that we be strong in science
and technology. To survive this technological revolution our
people must be educated, for part of the oppression of our people
lies in the failure to provide quality education and literacy skills
for our youth and labour force.
Although education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, I
wish to remind the federal government that I feel that it has a
major role to play in initiating the necessary changes to provide
quality education for the common good of our country.
Our youth are without jobs. Our youth are without hope. The
youth apprenticeship training program and youth services corps
are two government programs that will provide hope.
In my 17 years of practice as a litigation lawyer, I have
experienced first-hand the oppression, manipulation and abuse
of many people arising from the abuse of power, abuse of
authority and abuse of the process within the systems of
government.
The system of government is not working as it should. The
three branches of government, namely the legislative, the
executive and the judicial, require reform to ensure justice and
equity to all Canadians.
With respect to the legislative branch of government, it is
time that we as legislators put responsibility and morality back
into the law. Justice, law and morality go hand in hand. They are
inseparable.
With respect to the executive branch of government that
administers the law, it is time to diminish the authority, power
and discretion of the bureaucracy and make it more accountable
for its decisions and attitudes that affect our individual
Canadians.
With respect to the judicial branch of government that
interprets and enforces the law, it is time that perhaps
consideration be given to electing our judiciary. The people
must live with the decisions of the courts and therefore it is time
that the people elect the decision makers.
In conclusion, the greatest investment we can make as a
nation is in our own people. Our people are the human resource
required to make it all work. The family unit is the basic
institution of life and the solid foundation upon which our
forefathers built this great nation. The protection of families,
family life and family values must be a priority with this
government. The family is where life begins. Life begins from
the moment of conception and continues until natural death. The
family is where our purpose to live, to work and to prosper is
nurtured.
The conventional terms of debate in matters of political,
economic and legal issues tend to focus on individual rights and
the state, not the family. This is unfortunate and must change,
for the family is the most important reality in our lives.
Remember, Canada was made for families. Families were not
made for Canada. When families prosper so too will Canada
prosper. When families are strong so too will our country
Canada be strong.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to congratulate the hon. member from Central Nova for
her excellent speech which I found particularly touching and
501
humane. It is not often that we see in this House such a humane
approach. But I would like to ask the hon. member a question
since she is from a resource based area, the riding of Central
Nova. Given the way she talked about her riding, it seems that its
economic activity is mainly dominated by fisheries and
agriculture.
I would like the hon. member to explain how she can feel
comfortable in a party like the Liberal Party of Canada, a party
that during the GATT multilateral negotiations abandoned one
of the pillars of Canadian agriculture, especially the dairy sector
so important in the riding of Central Nova. How can she feel
comfortable in a party that has sacrificed a good part of the
safety net, at least for the Canadian dairy industry, and which is
also known for its negligence and its inability to deal with
Atlantic fisheries?
(1530 )
[English]
Ms. Skoke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon.
member that I feel very at ease and very much at home with the
Liberal Party. I think the principles and the philosophy of the
Liberal Party certainly augurs very well with respect to our
principles of justice, fairness and equity for all Canadians. I
chose the Liberal Party for those reasons.
With respect to the issues of agriculture and fisheries, I am
very confident that our party will do what is best, within its
powers and within the limits it has available, to ensure that the
dairy farmers, and particularly our fisheries, will be taken care
of.
I am also pleased to have the opportunity to work with the
hon. ministers in ensuring that my constituents, with respect to
those issues, will be taken care of.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I too
would like to congratulate the hon. member for Central Nova.
Having been raised in Nova Scotia myself, I have travelled the
areas that she was elected in many, many times. It is indeed
beautiful.
The member has spoken very earnestly and sincerely about
unemployment in her area, but unemployment has been a
problem in the maritimes and in her area for decades. I believe
that the infrastructure program is once again more
taxes-federally, provincially and municipally-on the
constituents in that area. The infrastructure alone will not cure
the problem of unemployment in that area and training in itself
will not help the situation either, or at least will not cure it.
I am wondering if the member would perhaps suggest a new
industry that could perhaps turn the tide in that area. Other than
infrastructure and training, what new changes would help the
people in Central Nova?
Ms. Skoke: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
Throughout my speech I talked about the oppression of our
people. It is correct for the member to say that the people in the
maritimes and the Atlantic provinces have been unemployed
more so than in other parts of the country. In my opinion there
has been a form of oppression.
I think the answer to unemployment is quality education.
Although I know education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction,
I feel that the federal government has a responsibility under
industry, science, technology and trade, and certainly for the
common good of all Canadians, to intervene with respect to the
issue of education.
Perhaps our youth and those people in the labour force, be it
the fishery or whatever, who may have to look for new
employment, are not properly educated in the basics of reading,
writing and literacy skills.
One way to oppress people is to ensure that they cannot read
or write. Then they cannot understand what is going on or that
they are going to continue being manipulated and deceived by
hidden agendas.
I feel that the answer and what this government should be
looking at is education. It does not cost extra money to educate
your people. What it takes is ingenuity and the basics. I think it
is time we go back to the basics in our education system.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I am proud
today to stand as the member for Kootenay East constituency.
In the October 25 election the constituents expressed their
confidence in the agenda that I and the Reform Party were to
bring to the Parliament of Canada. The topic of my speech today
is really directed to my constituents. My topic would be entitled
demand less.
It is critical in my constituency, indeed in Canada, that
citizens give clear direction to their politicians at all levels of
government.
(1535 )
Political decisions are not made in a vacuum. Decisions to
spend money and deliver services and social entitlements to
citizens are made as ordinary citizens make their demands
known to the politicians. Any politician who wants to get
elected or re-elected must respond to those demands and so I say
to my constituents we must demand less.
Following my election I made two immediate activities my
priority. One was to open lines of communication and
accessibility to my constituents. The second was to grapple with
the issues surrounding mining-especially coal mining-and
how it relates to my constituents in the Elk Valley.
The Elk Valley which is east of Cranbrook is a magnificent
area of my constituency with beautiful mountains, the Snow
Valley ski area in Fernie and the districts of Sparwood and
Elkford. There is no area in Canada which has been more
502
adversely affected by ill advised taxation, blatant tax revenue
grabs and overregulation than the Elk Valley.
The area suffers with a 30 per cent unemployment rate. In the
last couple of years there have been significant mine failures
with as a many as 2,000 people out of work severely depressing
the commercial community.
It was interesting that in a recent news article in the
Kimberley Bulletin a headline read: ``Cominco irked at city tax
rate''. The complaint of the mining company was that the major
industrial tax rate in Kimberley is 69 per cent higher than the tax
rate in Cranbrook. In justifying the position of the city, the
mayor of Kimberley agreed that Cominco taxes are high but said
the tax rate is justified. He said the mining company has had it
easy on taxes because it did not start paying taxes until 1968
when Cominco was incorporated into the city limits. The mayor
said: ``That is when Cominco started shutting down plants and
laying off people''.
I am not criticizing the mayor of Kimberley for his comments.
I simply cite that quotation as an accurate representation of what
happens when an industry is taxed. The fact is that when taxes go
up then jobs and an industry decrease.
Capital for mining is fleeing Canada. The country of Chile is
one of the greatest beneficiaries of this flight. It has an effective
tax rate of 15 per cent. The countries of Mexico and Papua New
Guinea have a mining tax rate of 35 per cent. The Philippines
and even the United States has a tax rate on mining companies of
38 per cent whereas the mining companies in the province of
British Columbia suffer under a mining income tax rate of 50 per
cent. That is hard rock mining.
In coal mining, although it is hard to believe, in four years
between 1987 and 1991 the B.C. coal industry paid $454 million
dollars, almost half a billion dollars, in direct taxes while net
returns to the industry believe it or not were only $8 million.
Citizens must demand less from the federal government,
provincial government, regional district, cities, towns and even
the school boards because I say that taxes kill jobs.
For example property tax rates charged on coal mines are
three times higher than residential rates. These taxes pay for
municipal services. The ministry of environment of the province
of B.C. has made a decision to require the East Kootenay region
to implement a solid waste disposal program. To put solid waste
disposal into normal terms, it is simply people's garbage.
The annual cost of this program is $3.2 million. The share of
the costs of Sparwood and Elkford combined would be about
$940,000 annually. The coal mines in these municipalities
would pay $717,000 of that $900,000.
Yesterday Fording Coal announced that following a 4 per cent
decrease in the selling price of their top grade of coal in Japan in
1993, they are suffering a further 8 per cent decrease in their
selling price in 1994. This solid waste management program as
desirable as it may be will remove an additional $700,000 from
coal producers' cash flow while prices in the world market are
dropping.
Citizens must demand less or we will continue to see
bankruptcies, job losses and potentially the total disintegration
of B.C.'s export coal industry.
The problem is not confined to the East Kootenay area. The
coal must move from the mines in my constituency to port.
(1540 )
We have a world class facility with our transportation services
to the coast. The coal car repair shop in Golden is state of the art.
The railway company and its workers just as with the workers in
the coal mining producing plants are going flat out to be
efficient. However, we are going to tax them out of existence at
every level of taxation.
In 1981 the selling price of coal was around $67 a tonne. In
1991 it had dropped to $60 a tonne. However, in real dollars, that
is converting 1981 dollars into 1991 dollars, the $67 a tonne
revenue in 1981 became $35 a tonne revenue in 1991.
The companies responded and the workers and the companies
have driven their operating expense from $41 a tonne to $22 a
tonne or, again in real costs, to $13 a tonne.
In other words operating costs have been reduced through
diligence and hard work and significant capital investment
driven down by 70 per cent since 1981. The workers in the coal
industry and transportation have shown extreme dedication in
this quest to reduce costs while at the same time demands for
additional services and social entitlements by Canadians has
pushed politicians to increase taxes and outright revenue grabs
at an alarming rate.
As weird as it may seem some of the bridges on the rail line
over the canyons and through the mountains between the Elk
Valley and Roberts Bank attract tax levels of tens of thousands
of dollars each. One bridge classified as an improvement costs
the railway over $100,000 annually in taxes simply because the
canyon exists and we want to get the coal over the canyon.
At the federal level fuel taxes on diesel use by the railway
stand in the way of our coal producers in British Columbia being
able to ship clean burning coal from B.C. to Ontario. The fuel
taxes on the diesel used by the railway locomotives are for the
purpose of building highways. This is totally unrealistic and
unfair in the application of taxes. It is taxing one method of
transportation to subsidize another.
503
On the coast at the Roberts Bank terminal, charges to put coal
into the ships for export have tripled over the last ten years and
the Vancouver port authority, a part of the federal government,
has direct responsibility for the fees which are continuing to rise
at a rate of 10 per cent a year. This is at a time when coal prices
are crashing.
Yet I read in the newspaper yesterday a headline which said:
``Our finance minister says Canada can stand more tax''. Canada
cannot stand more tax. Taxes kill jobs.
If the Liberals wonder why western Canadians are uptight
about the potential imposition of a carbon tax they need only
look at the results of the national energy plan which was only a
thinly disguised revenue grab from western Canada to central
Canada. We still suffer from the residue.
Coal mines are subject to higher mineral taxes than hard rock
mines in British Columbia. It is unclear but it appears as though
this is simply a leftover from the bad old days of the era of the
national energy plan that was imposed by the former Liberal
government.
The fact is that our coal mines supply world markets and the
Japanese steel industry will lose $3 billion U.S. in the current
fiscal year. There is a continued oversupply of coking coal in the
world market. That is world reality. We Canadians have to face
reality and so again I say to my constituents that we Canadians
must demand less service and entitlements from our politicians
or we will tax our jobs out of existence.
I say to the trustees of the schools boards, the mayors and
councillors of our towns and cities, the regional district
directors, the MLAs Corky Evans and Jim Doyle and the hon.
minister of mines Ann Edwards that we must be prepared to lead
cutting government costs so that we will not tax our jobs out of
existence.
I challenge members of the House of Commons to follow the
example shown by the Reform Party members and take a 10 per
cent cut in their pay not because they are not earning it but
clearly to show leadership by example. It is only by demanding
less that we will have more jobs, more security and more future
for ourselves and for our children.
(1545)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I thank my hon. colleague from the Reform Party for his
excellent speech, which contained views on taxation that I do
not share but respect nonetheless. In fact, I would have a
comment to make about the tax system and I would also like to
ask a question.
From the moment the election campaign began and from the
moment this House resumed sitting, I have been hearing
members of the Reform Party refer to uniform cuts of 10, 12 or
15 per cent depending on the speaker, because it would seem to
me that there is no party line where this matter is concerned. I
wonder what the rationale is for requesting such drastic cuts
across the board. I would like to know if the Reform Party could
not suggest some other alternative like broadening the tax base
to make the Canadian tax system fair again.
Let me explain. In 1991, the very rich, some of whom
probably live in my hon. colleague's riding, were said to have
paid tax at an actual rate of about 18 per cent, while the basic tax
rate was 29 per cent. Other statistics show a flight of capital
from very large Canadian corporations, which means that
Canadian businesses-very large businesses, not the small and
medium-sized or the very small ones, but the very large ones
that turn a profit year in year out-are transferring their profits
to some tax haven without paying a nickel in taxes in Canada.
Yet, the same businesses transfer to Canada the losses they post
abroad because they can get a tax deduction for those. I wonder
if we could not recover billions in lost tax simply by broadening
the tax base. I think that we are starting to get a clearer picture of
where we are going in terms of the budget. There might be a way
to get these businesses and these very rich taxpayers to pay their
fair share, thus achieving the very objectives you have been
talking about since this House resumed its business.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, and I will end my comment on that,
there is a need for effective spending control. The Auditor
General of Canada did mention a certain laxness about the
budget when he tabled his last report. But to suggest such drastic
cuts, across the board, do you not think that this could affect the
poorer taxpayers or the middle-income earners who are already
overburdened by a tax system that has become unbearable,
especially since 1984? I put the question to the hon. member.
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because it
gives me an opportunity to speak to some of the confusion that
the member refers to.
There seems to be a lack of ability of being able to get hold of
our documents from the election campaign. I would be very
happy to provide them to any member in the House. We are not
talking about uniform cuts of 10, 12 or 15 per cent. We are not
talking about lateral cuts.
We are talking about selectively making sure that we have the
ability to be able to fund exactly the people at the end of the
member's question to which he was referring. They are the most
disadvantaged within our society.
If we do not have the resources or the funds, truly it will be
those who cannot take care of themselves who will be
disadvantaged. Therefore we have a very specific program that I
would be very happy to share.
Let us take a look at the overall principle that has been very
clearly put out by other members of the Reform Party in this
debate. It is that 25 cents out of every dollar put out by the
government goes out as an interest payment for overspending
we have already done. That money is gone. There is no way of
recovering that money.
504
Even if we were to take all of the cost of running the
government, fire every member of Parliament, let every civil
servant go and shut down the entire government we would still
not be able to balance the overspending by the government.
(1550 )
With respect to the members of the BQ, when the party is
talking about protecting social programs, I suggest that they
also give consideration to how they are going to protect the
social programs unless they are going to be prepared to
selectively make sure that people who have the most needs are
protected.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, a former member once told
me that I would probably be making my maiden speech to an
almost empty House. I did not believe him. This must be what it
feels like to address an NDP election rally.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by congratulating you on your
appointment. I would also like to congratulate all hon. members
for their election to this House. It is my earnest hope that in spite
of the philosophical gulf that separates some of us that we will
be able to sit down and reason together to address the problems,
the almost overwhelming problems, that are facing us.
I want to sincerely thank the people who sent me here, the
electors of Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia. I made
only two election promises to them: to faithfully represent them
and their views in this place; and to work with every means at
my disposal toward the restoration of fiscal sanity in this
country.
Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia is a western rural
constituency. The majority of my constituents are people who
take their living from the land: farmers, ranchers, coal miners
and people who work in the oil patch, the sort of people who
political, cultural and media elitists sometimes dismiss as
rednecks. I have been called a redneck myself and it is a label I
wear with considerable pride.
What is a redneck? A redneck is someone who does not belong
to all the right clubs and who does not subscribe to trendy social
and political doctrines. We rednecks strongly believe in the
concept of public service, that governments, civil servants,
politicians and political parties exist to serve the people and not
the other way around. We believe that individual rights are
sacred, that they supersede group rights, and moreover that you
cannot protect and enhance the rights of some groups at the
expense of other groups. Rights are indivisible.
We believe in the virtues of hard work and personal
enterprise. We strongly believe that the producers of real wealth
are entitled to keep a reasonable share of the fruits of their
labours, that their standard of living should not be lower than
that enjoyed by the multitudes of non-producers who the
taxman requires them to carry on their backs.
Taxation in this country is so high that working people are
beginning to have difficulty differentiating between taxmen and
highwaymen.
We believe in the spirit of community service. It made our
communities liveable long before the tentacles of central
government began to strangle us a couple of generations ago.
Neighbours helping neighbours.
We tend to speak the Queen's English without embellishment.
Among my friends and neighbours even in this day and age it is
not at all uncommon to hear such phrases as: ``It's a deal,'' or:
``That is none of your business''.
I have staked out my philosophical position. I believe that it
fairly represents the views of the people who sent me here.
However, there are a few people, a very few, in Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia who are as politically
correct as any hon. member might wish and I shall never forget
that it is my duty to represent them, too.
The future of our country appears more bleak now than at any
time since the second world war. The former government has
left us a legacy of debt, deficit and national disunity for which
the Progressive Conservative Party has been consigned to
well-deserved oblivion. However, we must never forget nor
allow the government to forget that seeds of these problems
were sown by Liberal governments in the 1970s. The PCs
watered and fertilized these weeds but they did not plant them.
(1555)
Therefore when I realized that we face 177 Liberal members
my heart sunk a little but then I remembered that more than half
of them are like me. They are new to this place and they bear no
responsibility for the disastrous Trudeau years. I optimistically
hope and expect that many of them will have fresh new ideas.
They did not write the speech from the throne which is
remarkably short on new ideas and contains no serious
initiatives to control the deficit. Perhaps that shortcoming will
be rectified when the government presents its first budget.
If the government does make a serious effort to kill the deficit
monster, I pray that the weapon of choice will be a knife to cut
costs and not a gun to extract more taxes from the people.
In Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia with our farm
economy flat on its back we are very dependent on fuel
production for our economic survival. We have several small oil
fields, some natural gas and one of the biggest coal mines in the
country.
505
For more than three years federal politicians, including some
members of the present government, have been musing about
the imposition of a carbon tax, a tax on fossil fuels which would
be cleverly disguised as an environmental levy.
An independent study commissioned by the government last
year indicated that a carbon tax high enough to effectively
inhibit the use of fossil fuels would adversely affect almost
every measure of economic activity, including the gross
domestic product, the level of industrial investment, consumer
price index and the unemployment rate.
All we need in Saskatchewan is another fuel tax for our
hard-pressed farmers. Thanks to taxes, including a 12 cent per
litre federal tax, fuel produced and refined in Regina can already
be purchased in Montana 50 miles from my home for two-thirds
of what I pay.
I mentioned our coal mine. Its entire annual output of 3.6
million tonnes is sold to one customer, the Poplar River Power
Station at Coronach. A tax on that coal would increase the
consumer cost of electricity not only in Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia but throughout Saskatchewan.
Meanwhile electricity costs in Quebec with mostly
hydroelectric generation and in Ontario with its massive nuclear
stations would be scarcely affected. It is the national energy
policy all over again but wrapped in the fuzzy green blanket of
environmentalism.
I am not day-dreaming. I may be having a nightmare, but I am
not day-dreaming. The rumours of an impending carbon tax are
persistent and they are consistent with statements made by the
hon. Minister of Finance when he sat on this side of the House.
The second energy industry nightmare, and this one applies
more to Alberta than to my constituency, is that government will
move to restrict natural gas exports, thus strangling the most
vibrant sector of the Canadian economy but creating a market
surplus and forcing down prices in Ontario and Quebec where
the votes are.
In closing I wish to reiterate my party's position that the path
to effective deficit reduction is through spending cuts, not
through tax increases. During the election campaign Reform
made two dozen deficit reduction proposals. No doubt many of
them would be ideologically unacceptable to the government
but surely not all of them.
Last October 25 the people of Canada clearly demanded a
change of direction. The government has a clear mandate. It has
an obligation to take action. If it follows the course of least
resistance the bumbling course of the last 20 years and this
country with all of its enormous promise and potential finally
gurgles down the drain, this government will never be forgiven-never.
(1600 )
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
quite enjoyed the hon member's remarks. They help me indeed
in understanding a lot of things. I must say also though that I am
one of those new Liberal MPs the hon. member mentioned in his
remarks. There are some things I do not quite understand and I
hope the hon. member can clarify them for me.
I have heard consistently through the day from other hon.
members of the Reform Party that the Reform Party appears to
be universally against higher taxes. Indeed the proposal, as the
hon. member has said, is to lower taxes. Juxtaposed against this
consistent theme is the idea that MPs should take a 10 per cent
salary cut. I am quite interested by this juxtaposition.
My question therefore for the hon. member is when we put
these two things together, am I to understand that the hon.
member and the party of which he is a member would support a
10 per cent tax surcharge on all those earning $60,000 or more?
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. The answer to the question is no, of course not. We do
not advocate or agree with the increase of taxes of any kind on
anybody.
When I talk about members of this House taking a 10 per cent,
and I am one of them, we are doing this as a gesture to set an
example to this government to cut spending. This is what I have
been saying over and over again. Cut spending.
Mr. Harvard: Tell the truth, not all of you.
Mr. Morrison: To my knowledge, all of us, but you are
talking-
Mr. Harvard: I just want you to tell the truth. You stand there
so sanctimonious-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I know there is a
tremendous amount of interest in today's debate and some
strong views on either side, but I would remind hon. members to
direct their comments to the Chair, please.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is the custom of
this House that one does not accuse other members of not telling
the truth. Is this not correct?
Mr. Harvard: I said tell the truth.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Yes, there is a tradition in
this House that we regard each other of course as we are,
honourable members.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would wish
to come over and audit my books he will find that I have indeed
taken this cut-
Mr. Harvard: I did not suggest you did not.
Mr. Morrison: As to any other members of my caucus, I have
not audited their books, but to my knowledge they have taken it.
That is all I know. If the hon. member has other knowledge, then
I think he should present it to me.
506
Was there a question attached to this or was it just a heckle?
Apparently there was no question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question or the
comment came originally from the member for
Hamilton-Wentworth.
There are a few minutes left in questions and comments. The
hon. member for Durham.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I liked the
presentation from the member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia.
I note he mentions in his dissertation the debt structure of
Canada. I note the provincial debt of Saskatchewan is one of the
highest per capita in this country. It seems to me that did not
occur with the auspices of any Liberal support.
Also, I am very concerned about the aspect of cutting
expenditures. I think everyone in this country wants to do that. I
note one of the biggest expenditures that we have currently is
subsidies to grain farmers. I would like to know what the hon.
member's orientation is to that.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments. The Reform Party is on record as wanting to phase
out all subsidies to all sectors of the economy, including grain
farmers, but only in a step-by-step program with everyone else.
There is hardly anyone in this country, probably including me, if
I look back far enough, who is not getting a subsidy. I would
suspect almost every member in this House if they have private
business interests is getting a subsidy of some sort. We are
opposed to that.
An hon. member: Speak for yourself.
(1605 )
Mr. Morrison: Check it out carefully, sir. I think the hon.
member will find that we are all on the take, not because we want
to be but because this is the way the system has grown. This
monster has been created.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rideout: Ask him to withdraw. That is shameful.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I regret I did not hear the
comments of the member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia. I would ask for the co-operation of all
members that if they want to seek the floor they do so on a point
of order.
The time has expired.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured that I have been asked today to rise in
this House on behalf of my constituents in
Cumberland-Colchester.
The roots of my constituents run deep into the history of
Canada. Cumberland-Colchester contributed two Fathers of
Confederation, Sir Charles Tupper and Sir Adams George
Archibald. Sir Charles served Canada briefly as Prime Minister.
My home town of Truro is the birthplace of that outstanding
Canadian, Robert Stanfield.
Cumberland-Colchester contributed many of its young men
in service and in many cases ultimate sacrifice for Canada in two
world wars. Many veterans of the North Nova Highlanders were
in that historic assault that began the liberation of western
Europe a half century ago. Fort Cumberland, the first historic
site one sees as one crosses into Nova Scotia from New
Brunswick, has witnessed clashed between many nations. The
early struggles were between the Micmac nation and British
settlers. The treaty of 1752 finally brought peace and one of
Nova Scotia's principal Micmac communities, Millbrook, is
adjacent to Truro today.
In 1755, the Acadians, Cumberland-Colchester's first
European settlers were forced into exile because they would not
swear allegiance to the British crown during the seven years war
with France. Some of the Acadian families through great
diligence ultimately did return. Many of their present day
descendants farm along the Minas basin in the communities of
Joggins and Minudie. The famous dykes the 17th century
ancestors built to reclaim salt marshland are still in place today,
protecting farmland from incursions of the sea. Just over 20
years later, we had more civil unrest at Fort Cumberland when
Colonel Jonathan Eddy of the continental army tried to foment
an uprising on behalf of the American revolution among the
New England settlers who replaced the French Acadians. If
Eddy had succeeded, and he might very well have, Canada today
would not have an Atlantic coast.
As well, Cumberland-Colchester has many black citizens
with a long, rich history. Some of their ancestors helped build
the Halifax Citadel as freed men from Jamaica. History knows
them as the Maroons. Others came back later as black loyalists
and still others came on the underground railway as fugitive
slaves. Since Truro became an important railway junction many
blacks settled in the town as railway workers.
As I travel through my constituency from the coastal
communities of Pugwash, Wallace, Parrsboro and Advocate to
the larger centres of Springhill, Truro and Amherst, the land is
as diverse as its people. Its rich history is exhibited in the culture
of its people and the beauty of the landscape. It is this land and
these people that I love so much. I have a heartfelt thank you for
each one of them for the honour and privilege of representing
them in this magnificent House.
For many of my constituents the last 10 years have been the
cruelest decade. They have witnessed a continuous erosion of
government services that are basic needs to our rural lifestyle.
Small communities across Canada, battered by economic
507
hardships, are struggling to retain their post offices, banks, rail
lines and bus services.
We must remember that when our rural communities fail,
these people end up in cities, many of them in homeless, pathetic
situations. All statistics indicate that in the long run it is less
expensive to live in rural communities. What this government
needs to offer is a certain minimum level of service to ensure the
survival of rural Canada.
(1610)
For rural Canadians the community post office is probably the
only federal presence in their lives. If you remove their local
post office, as Canada Post has done in over 1,400 small
communities, including seven in my riding, you virtually say to
them: ``You do not matter''.
I was struck by the Governor General's remarks last week that
public trust in the institution of government is essential to the
attainment of the government's agenda for Canada. I am pleased
that my government is committed to maintaining rural postal
service as I have fought to save the Truro post office and restore
dignity to rural Canada.
My constituents in Cumberland-Colchester are very
sensitive to anything that threatens their standards and values.
Until very recently they lived in communities where doors could
be left unlocked and where vandalism, theft, murder, assault and
robbery were very rare. Unfortunately that is no longer true.
Their concern about crime centres on the Young Offenders
Act. Many believe that the Young Offenders Act is not working,
that it does not deter nor does it reform young criminals. Above
all else, they believe the Young Offenders Act must be changed
to give the victims real justice.
In 1989 the family and friends of Andrea Rogers founded the
Truro branch of Citizens United for Safety and Justice. Their
main objective is to ensure that the safety of children and all
innocent citizens of Canada takes precedence over the rights of
criminals.
A hit and run driver in North Vancouver killed Andrea Rogers.
Subsequently caught and convicted the driver, a young offender,
received a suspended sentence of 100 hours of community
service, one year's probation and lost his drivers licence for two
years.
I would like to thank the parents of Andrea Rogers, Citizens
United for Safety and Justice and the Truro branch of the
Canadian Federation of University Women for their
recommended changes to the Young Offenders Act. I wish to
assure them that I have presented their recommendations to the
justice minister and will defend them vigorously in this House.
I want us to meet our campaign commitment to bring
meaningful gun control to Canada. We must closely consult with
the provinces and respected shooting sporting groups so that we
can disarm the criminal and the irresponsible without undue
hardship on responsible, law-abiding gun owners.
I therefore welcome the government's stated intent to restore
the Law Reform Commission. I trust it will also have the
promised mandate to consult widely with the public on
sentencing, parole and other criminal justice issues.
We Atlantic Canadians are perceived to have a deep-seated
economic problems despite the fact that we have thousands of
successful small businesses as well as some outstanding
corporate successes such as the Sobeys, McCains and Irvings.
Our problem is not a lack of enterprise, it is the lack of a
sufficient capital pool.
Ironically, Atlantic Canadians do generate considerable
capital through their savings, pension contributions and
investments. Unfortunately this capital flows into funds that
leave the region. That is why I welcome the government's
pledge to work with our national financial institutions to
improve access to capital for small business and long term job
creation.
I applaud the throne speech proposal to foster technology
partnerships between our universities, research institutions and
the private sector. In my riding the Nova Scotia Agricultural
College has been doing this for some time. Not only has this
college provided expertise to Atlantic Canada farmers and food
processors, but to developing countries and the eastern
European nations as well.
The Nova Scotia Agricultural College bachelor of science
degree in agriculture is widely respected and now the college
proposes a new bachelor of science degree in aquaculture. I
applaud the staff for the foresight in recognizing that as the
marine fishery continues its decline, there is a considerable
opportunity for Atlantic Canada to get its share of the world's
aquaculture production, which by the year 2000 is expected to
provide 25 per cent of the total fish harvest. I also salute the staff
for their vision in planning new educational opportunities for
our young people in a growing field with potential for real jobs.
The aquaculture project is very much in the spirit of our
government's commitment to promoting training and new
technologies that I would like to publicly support it and ask my
colleagues to do the same.
(1615)
Cumberland-Colchester farmers accept with good grace the
fact that the new GATT rules mean they will have to eventually
alter the marketing structures under which they now operate.
The north shore lobstermen know they must increase the
carapace size of their catch to maintain a sustainable lobster
fishery. Woodlot owners know that they cannot realistically
hope to have
508
a new federal-provincial forestry development agreement
similar to the one they have now.
Coming from a business background I always equate
government to business. Just as business must stay close to its
customers, so must this government stay close to the people we
serve. Just as a business must have high quality employees, so
must this government have members of integrity. And just as
employee trust is essential to a company's success, so is the
electorate's trust vital to our government's success.
This is a very exciting time to be a member of Parliament. I
have the highest praise for our Prime Minister for scheduling
all-party debates on major issues before and not after a decision
is made. We saw this open process this week when debate was
held on cruise missile testing and peacekeeping, and I look
forward to the pre-budget debates next week. If we stick to the
philosophy whereby economic policy must sustain
environmental policy, must sustain social policy, then with
continued open debate and responsible public spending we will
succeed, we will win the trust of the electorate.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate my hon. colleague for speaking about rural
Canada. She seems to be very fond of small communities. She
also spoke about post offices and it is true that the post office in a
small community is a vitally important institution.
In my riding we have the Ralliement populaire. Before that we
had Opération dignité the goal of which was to save small
communities, because if small communities are allowed to die
out, surely the same fate will befall small towns.
Therefore I share my hon. colleague's sentiments and she can
rest assured that she has an ally in me.
Now, regarding the question of post offices, one of my
constituents called to tell me that new postal outlets were still
opening up. And while there have been no further post office
closures per se since a moratorium has or will be imposed, I
would like the hon. member to tell me if in fact it is true that new
postal outlets are opening up?
[English]
Mrs. Brushett: I thank the member for his question. Across
the country people are concerned with closures of rural post
offices. It was a mandate of our government to cease closing
post offices. As he will recall, shortly after this government was
elected the Minister of Public Works stopped the closing of post
offices. A freeze was put on the closure of post offices. It is our
mandate to ensure that freeze stays on post office closures until
we have a complete look at restoring rural services across
Canada.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I would like as
well to congratulate the hon. member for what I thought was a
wonderful speech. She can rest assured that she has much
support for what she said in the Reform Party caucus.
(1620 )
It goes to show what I have believed for some time. It is that
the reform that is sweeping across the country certainly goes
beyond the borders of the Reform Party of Canada.
I would like to ask the hon. member if she would be prepared
to elaborate her thoughts, time permitting, on two areas that she
touched on, the Young Offenders Act and the gun control bill.
Would she be willing to share with us her thoughts about the
amendment to these two bills?
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for his thoughts that rural post offices transcend party
lines and that all parties have the common thread in this House
for us to seek to serve the people of Canada in rural areas
because they are the backbone of this country.
Thinking of the Young Offenders Act and gun control, many
constituents in my riding have brought forward their own
thoughts. I spoke of the young teenage girl whose parents live in
my riding. She was going to university in Vancouver and was
struck and killed by a young offender. As I said in my speech
there were very small reprisals for that offence.
They have brought forward numerous recommendations on
the Young Offenders Act and on gun control and I believe
without going into great depth that I am presenting them to the
Minister of Justice and I will debate them in this House when
those debates come forward. The whole purpose is to assure
justice and some consideration for the victim and to ensure that
we rehabilitate the young offender and not incarcerate him for a
long period for a life of crime. He must receive proper
punishment to suit the crime.
In terms of gun control we would like to not have a blanket
obliteration of the use of firearms but let us be more severe in
punishing those who offend rather than renege on all firearms
across the board.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately the throne speech was silent on two particularly
important issues. But, before addressing these issues, I would
like to thank my constituents for their majority support of the
sovereignty option in Quebec.
Saint-Hubert voters have unequivocally sanctioned my
decision to join the Bloc Quebecois on August 12, 1991. My
decision was endorsed by 56,6 percent of the electorate, or
15,000 more votes than my Liberal opponent.
509
The riding of Saint-Hubert is a high-tech aeronautical
engineering and airport centre. Located on Montreal's south
shore with an 84 per cent francophone majority, it includes the
cities of Saint-Hubert and Lemoyne and part of Longueuil, as
well as the city of Greenfield Park with its large and dynamic
anglophone population.
I want to speak for every one of my constituents in my
response to the throne speech. This speech is a universal
disappointment because the economic solutions it proposes are
unsatisfactory and because it lacks a clear message for the
unemployed and for low-income Canadians.
In his speech, the Opposition leader denounced the lack of
vision of this government, which is unable to give Canadians
hope for a real economic recovery.
Others before me have already listed the wide gaps left in the
throne speech with regard to taxation, public finances and the
economy.
I want to deal with two questions raised by the national
conscience, on which this government does not seem to have a
position. Although we are concerned about the economy, social
issues are equally pressing.
While Canadians and Quebecers are impatiently calling for
vigorous state intervention on crime, the throne speech bitterly
disappoints us by not addressing the urgent need to control
firearms. Existing legislation, even laws that were recently
improved, must be amended in order to meet objectives.
(1625)
The throne speech was full of good intentions. However,
where are the promised positive, concrete measures aimed at
increasing public safety and crime prevention, as mentioned in
the throne speech? Why have they not been identified?
The number of family incidents involving shotguns, pistols
and revolvers is increasing. Women continue to be the most
common victims of deadly assaults with prohibited or restricted
weapons. Handguns are still the preferred weapon for
committing suicide. There is a general consensus that the
amendments brought about by Bill C-17 on gun control were a
step in the right direction, but Canadians and Quebecers are
telling us that we have not gone far enough.
Despite the new regulations calling for improved screening
with respect to firearms acquisition, it is disturbing that
civilians are still allowed to own semi-automatic weapons.
Most of the firearms in circulation are not registered and all a
person needs to acquire a pistol or a revolver is a certificate
which can be obtained free of charge.
An Angus Reid poll conducted on September 15 and 16, 1993,
revealed broad public support for the registration of all
firearms. Such a move is supported by 86 per cent of all
Canadians, including 91 per cent of all Quebecers, while 70 per
cent of Canadians, and 79 per cent of Quebecers want an outright
ban on assault weapons and handguns.
Where in the throne speech can we find any indication of a
willingness on the part of the government to address these
urgent expectations and to ease the concerns of citizens across
the country? As we all know, the legislative priorities of this
House are economic in nature given the serious hardships
experienced by Canadians and Quebecers. However, fighting
crime should top the list of the government's major concerns,
particularly because of the social tensions and personal dramas
stemming from the state of the economy.
Even with the recent amendments to the Criminal Code, it is
still a simple matter to acquire a firearm and the cost involved is
merely symbolic. This House should take courageous steps,
setting aside partisanship, and give Canadians the protection
they want. It is estimated that more than six million handguns
are currently in circulation in Canada. This is indeed a
frightening statistic.
What we need is a universal registration system for all types
of firearms. The sale, trade and resale of weapons needs to be
regulated. A genuine policy should be formulated for training
dealers, who should be required to pay licensing fees to finance
control programs. Restrictions should be placed on the
acquisition of restricted weapons and users of these types of
weapons should be required to obtain an annual permit.
A permit should also be required to purchase ammunition. All
citizens should have the opportunity to oppose all applications
for permits to acquire or carry weapons. A notice of application
should be published in advance in the newspapers, as happens in
the case of several kinds of licenses, including liquor licenses.
All automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be
banned. Strict minimum sentences should be imposed on
persons convicted of possession of illegal weapons. Local
registrars should be given mandatory investigative powers.
Finally, and most importantly, the cost of permits should be
increased to give the provinces more money with which to
enforce these controls, because without them, even the best of
laws will remain nothing more than wishful thinking.
Had all of these measures been in place, I am confident that
the Auditor General would not have made the comments he did
in his report about weapons smuggling.
(1630)
Our American neighbours are now realizing with dismay that
the law of the Old West has produced an armed, defensive and
criminalized society instead of protecting honest citizens.
510
It can never be said often enough: in two years, firearms have
killed more Americans than the entire Vietnam war.
In the U.S., the dramatic figure of 24,000 murders committed
with handguns every year has impelled the Clinton
administration to pass new regulations to control the sale of
weapons. In Canada, murders and deaths due to firearms have
not reached the magnitude of the American slaughter, but every
year 1,400 Canadians are shot dead.
Even with its flagrant flaws, our firearm control system, as
opposed to the free movement of weapons American-style,
makes all the difference when we measure the quality of life in
Canadian cities and helps more than other factors to strengthen
the fabric of Canadian life. And even if a single life is spared
because an irresponsible or desperate violent individual was
unable to acquire a firearm, we will have achieved our goal. As
additional evidence, a July 1992 report by the Research and
Statistics Directorate of the Department of Justice establishes a
close correlation between the number of firearms in circulation
and the suicide rate per 100,000 Canadians.
According to the authors of the report, since the adoption, in
1977, of legislative and regulatory measures to control firearms,
the suicide rate has dropped substantially. We have here
numerous briefs and reports establishing a direct link between
owning a firearm and using it for illegal purposes resulting in
loss of life. The Department of Justice has all these reports.
We must now go beyond these reports unanimously repeating
the need for tighter controls. We must legislate to protect
democracy. We must protect our democracy, which is not based
on the force of arms but on the people's will allowing us to
assemble in this House to express our differences in a civilized
fashion.
The report published, a few days after the election, by the
Baird Royal Commission unexpectedly set up by the previous
government raised another social issue that is less current but
equally relevant. How can this government totally ignore the
widespread public criticism levelled at the Baird Report tabled
by the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies?
We have all seen that this Commission's mandate only led to a
report that was outdated the day it came out and whose
conclusions were widely criticized. We would have liked the
government to tell us whether budget restrictions are still at the
top of its priorities, to give us a policy statement on the futility
of allocating public funds to such royal commissions.
The throne speech announces prenatal nutrition programs for
low-income pregnant women. But did we hear any reference to a
global policy on fertility that could be based on or move away
from the report's conclusions?
On the positive side, this Commission, which tabled its report
two years late, drew our attention to recent developments and
warned us against abuse by big business and dangerous practices
calling for immediate action. Its report also proposes measures
encroaching on provincial jurisdiction in the health-care sector.
The establishment of a federal agency to deal with the whole
issue of regulating reproductive technologies would be akin to
the proverbial fly in the constitutional ointment.
(1635)
We think that this flawed report, produced at a prohibitive
cost of $28 million in these tough economic times, is already
outdated by new scientific facts.
This government has not yet denounced the Baird Report.
There is every reason to believe that it will act like previous
governments, preferring to leave it to a royal commission to deal
with urgent questions raised by new social situations.
Infertility is a big issue for many women and the couples it
affects. It is lived differently from one province to another and
from one social milieu to another. It is a current issue which the
industry and its powerful lobbies are trying to use for purposes
completely unrelated to people's legitimate aspiration to
reproduce in dignity and with respect for the person.
We believe that the government must act quickly to avoid
legislating later when faced with a fait accompli. On these issues
and all other social, economic and political concerns of
Canadians, we were waiting for signs, messages and evidence of
a real intention to act from the government. But with all due
respect for all members of this Parliament, I would ask you to
note my deep dissatisfaction with the governing party's
abdication of its social responsibilities, its premature fatigue
when faced with the government financial crisis and its obvious
lack of perspective on all the expectations of Canadians and the
regions.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member about her firearms registration
proposal. While I agree there must be changes to the gun
legislation, does the member realize what she is asking the
government to do? Does the hon. member not realize that such
actions have been taken by other jurisdictions? I refer to New
Zealand where it resulted in a total breakdown of the registration
process costing the taxpayers millions of dollars and a logistical
problem that was insurmountable.
Would the member please advise this House which study she
is referring to that would back up her position to register all
firearms. Realistically that is an impossible task. In effect would
it not violate the right to own property?
511
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, I think that you yourself were on
the firearms committee when we discussed firearms
registration. The gun lobby kept coming and saying that we
could not register all firearms because it would cost too much.
However, I have firearms at home, so I can tell you how I bought
them. With my firearms acquisition certificate, of course, I went
to a gun dealer to buy the weapon I wanted. He immediately
entered my firearms acquisition certificate number in a register,
as well as a description of the weapon. Why could he not then
simply record it on an electronic network connecting all of
Canada, or just a provincial system, because it could also be
done provincially, or, if you prefer, a duplicate could be made
and sent to a central firearms registry. It is not expensive. The
argument that an electronic system would cost too much does
not stand up; it is completely wrong to begin with.
[English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
with respect to the comments of the hon. member, I come from
the province of Saskatchewan where people cherish their
independence very much and certainly do not appreciate the
interference of government at most stages, including taxation,
but I will not get into that.
(1640 )
Since most deaths occur in Canada on highways and not from
the use of firearms, and many injuries in this country result not
from the use of firearms but from the use of knives, are we not
placing the wrong emphasis on further trying to control
firearms? Are there not diminishing returns where further
legislation will not result in further reduction of crime by the use
of firearms?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: At the beginning of his speech, the hon. member
said no new taxes were to be expected. I was not talking about
taxes. I was talking about permits, the purchase of permits and
the fact that we always seem to be in favour of user fees.
Currently, we simply allow people to buy guns. Right now, all
you have to do is get a $50 firearm certificate valid for five years
and you can buy an unlimited number of firearms. It is a little
much to ask of those who eventually have to pay for the people
who want to buy firearms.
All those permits, the permits to carry a gun or to own a gun,
all of those firearm permits are free, except for the restricted
firearm certificate. All the others are free.
Why could firearm owners not pay for those permits, and I
mean pay a fair price for them, not just a token amount of $50 for
five years? That is totally ridiculous.
The hon. member voiced another reservation concerning the
fact that more people die of injuries caused by knives or cutting
and stabbing weapons that by guns and firearms. I would like to
see the statistics on that, because that is not what we heard in
committee.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the
comment of the hon. member for Saint-Hubert on the ease with
which an FAC can be obtained under the new legislation.
The problem I have to deal with the most in my constituency
and the greatest single source of complaints I am getting is in the
difficulty and the delay in getting FACs under this new act. I get
more on that than I do on UIC, on income tax, on just about
everything else put together. It is taking, believe it or not, up to
five months to get an FAC which is supposed to be available in
28 days. When these people phone the authorities concerned,
they simply say that there is a backlog and they cannot do it.
The other problem which is going to arise very soon is this
question of the tests that have to be taken to determine whether
or not one is suitable to have an FAC.
Most people in my part of the country own firearms, or have
owned firearms from the time they were about 12 years old and
they are quite expert and experienced in their handling and use.
Yet anyone of those people will now have to go to some
bureaucrat who probably knows less about firearms than they do
and take a government sponsored course which will cost them a
few hundred dollars before they will be able to get a new FAC.
This is absurd.
When anyone tells me that this new law is working well, I
have to from my experience take a lot of issue with that.
The other thing I would like to mention perhaps is more
philosophical. The hon. member does have a certain mindset
which is very common in this country, particularly in urban
areas, with respect to the restriction of owning firearms by
common citizens.
I spent many years of my life in Third World countries. This is
basically the way it is done in the Third World. The only people
who own firearms or who can easily get permission to own
firearms are criminals and agents of the state and it sometimes is
difficult to distinguish between them, but that is the way it is.
(1645)
I would rather live in freedom in a country in which we do not
have big brother looking over our shoulders at every respect
than to live in one of those peaceful paradises that I have in
which the ordinary citizen really does not have the right to that
most basic of all human rights: to own arms to defend himself
and his family.
512
Mr. Harvard: Maybe you should move to east Los Angeles.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, my colleague certainly has a
well-developed sense of humour, but I would like to tell you
about the famous 28-day waiting period.
In Quebec now, applications are mostly processed on time.
Since the hon. member is from Saskatchewan, I think he should
put pressure in that area. In my province, anyway, it is going
very well.
As for the firearms handling certificate, in Quebec, we have a
hunter's certificate. To go hunting, you need that certificate,
which is good for two years. So that is a difference between
Saskatchewan and our province, because it seems to me that
they do not need a hunting certificate, since as he said, people
have gone hunting for years without ever taking a course on
handling firearms. In our province, you must take a course on
handling firearms to obtain the certificate.
In closing, I wanted to say that there may be big differences
between his province and ours in the way the laws are applied,
unfortunately.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, first
allow me to echo the sentiments of my colleagues who have
risen before me in this House and congratulate you on your
appointment.
This new government faces a great number of daunting tasks,
not the least of which is how to give Canadians a reason to
believe in the dedication, perseverance and sound ethical
judgment of their elected leaders.
Each of us was sent to this House because our constituents
believe that we are the men and women most firmly committed
to their concerns, their needs and their demands. However, we
are more than our individual selves and we are more than our
collective individual voices. We were elected to represent in this
Parliament the collective voice of our constituents reconciling
their competing and at times conflicting visions with the others.
The aim of Canada's House of Commons is not to serve the
selfish and parochial interests of any one person or province to
the detriment of others. It is to advance the well-being and
prosperity of the whole country and therefore of all Canadians.
We were elected on this side of the House to fulfil the Liberal
vision which was clearly articulated in our election platform,
the red book ``Creating Opportunity''.
Everyday in my riding of Winnipeg North I talk with honest,
hard working people eager to put their faith in hard working and
honest politicians. For five solid years, from 1988 when I was
first elected until last fall's election, I had fear.
I had a fear that 1.6 million Canadians, the unemployed in this
country would remain jobless. I had a fear that the poor,
particularly children, would continue to depend on social
assistance. I had a fear that the sick, the elderly and all
Canadians for that matter would continue to face the
consequence of a threatened medicare system and the
uncertainty that goes with it. I had a fear that the minorities, be it
due to race, colour or creed and the disabled would continue to
face unfair treatment and discrimination in the workplace.
I had a fear that the infrastructure of cities and municipalities
would continue to decay without help from the federal
government. I had a fear that the safety and security of persons
and property would continue to be in peril. I had a fear that
honesty and integrity in government would never be restored. I
had a fear that Canada would close its doors to immigrants.
(1650)
Last but not least I had a fear that Canada my adopted country
and home to some 27 million Canadians was on the brink of
national collapse. However, I had always hoped that my fears
would not come to pass.
Now I am certain that there is much hope for this great nation.
I have hope because this government has already taken
significant strides to enhance its integrity by rejecting many of
the unessential privileges parliamentarians had exercised for so
many years during their tenures as public servants.
I have hope because each political party represented in this
House has already voiced its commitment to seeking
consultation from the public on a wide range of issues of great
national importance.
I have hope because the finance minister has already made
good on this commitment by talking to people across the country
in an effort to formulate a federal budget that is both sensible
and sensitive. I am confident that the minister will continue in
the short number of days remaining before budget day to consult
with all Canadians from all walks of life.
We must never let ourselves forget that each time we make
fiscal decisions here in Ottawa we may be affecting the wallets
and pocketbooks and the day to day budgets of individual
citizens in ridings like yours and mine.
I have hope because this government promptly cancelled the
questionable deal that was to lead to the privatization of portions
of Toronto's Pearson airport.
I have hope because this government does not believe in
allowing its leader to jet around in a $53 million VIP aircraft or a
Porsche while many Canadians scramble to make both ends
meet.
I have hope because this government has already put its
infrastructure program into motion.
513
The moves we have made in the short time that has elapsed
since the Liberals came to government have given me great
hope. However, what assures me that we are on the road to
recovery are our plans for the immediate future. It is our
policies, ideals and blueprints for the years to come.
I am assured because we are committed to helping and
supporting small and medium sized businesses that will create
long term jobs in the country. I am assured because our plan to
get youth working again will be realistic because we will be
creating the youth corps service and national apprenticeship
program. I am assured because this is a government that
understands the importance of investing in people.
All Canadians use their work to varying degrees to define who
they are. When they are not working their self esteem suffers,
their relationships suffer and their dignity suffers.
I am assured that our health care system is now to remain as
universal and free for all. I am assured because the speech from
the throne reaffirmed our commitment and the plan to have a
national forum on health care is underway. In fact, the plan to
establish a centre of excellence for women's health and a
prenatal program across the country is underway.
It was not long ago that in a moment of great anger I stood up
in this House on behalf of one of my constituents and questioned
whether the previous government had any heart at all. Today I
am proud to stand before you. I am assured that this is a
government with plenty of heart.
We are speaking for the first time in a long time the language
of those we represent. In short our ideals are backed by plausible
and realistic means of implementation.
We are also keenly aware that it is self-defeating to focus only
on any one issue before us. The issue of the economy, social
policies and the environment and many more are all interrelated
and interdependent.
Mr. Speaker, I know you share with me the desire to see this
Parliament mark a turning point in our great nation's history. I
began by indicating the daunting task we all know the
government has to face.
(1655 )
I mentioned the fears that plagued me during my first five
years as a member of this House. Given those fears how is it
possible for me to feel the hope and assurance I now feel after
just a short period of time in government?
I have seen what we have accomplished so far. I know that we
will follow through on our promises and thereby resolve the
fears of Canadians. Give them jobs, reform and stabilize our
institutions and in the end control the deficit.
Citizens will continue to demonstrate the kind of support that
sent 177 Liberals to this House in October 1993. I hope that the
people of Winnipeg North and Canadians everywhere sense that
great changes are afoot.
The next four years will reveal a new kind of government, a
new kind of leadership and a new Canada that is united, strong
and prosperous and working for all Canadians today and
preparing Canada for the 21st century.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, this is my first
opportunity to speak in this House. I represent the riding of
Chambly which, for those of you who do not know, is located on
Montreal's south shore, between Mont Saint-Bruno and Mont
Beloeil, along the Richelieu River, which flows from Lake
Champlain into the St. Lawrence River.
I was listening to my colleague from Winnipeg North and, of
course, his speech was in the best tradition of his party. I also
realize that my hon. colleague was, it seems, almost traumatized
by the previous Parliament in which he had the pleasure of
serving as a member of the opposition.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North talks about a new
Canada, as a Quebecer I would like to ask him to clarify for me
certain paragraph in the speech from the throne, and I quote:
The Government will work vigorously to fulfil its responsibilities to ensure
that federalism meets the needs of Canadians, recognizing that all Canadians
share in the responsibility for making Canada work. It will be the policy of the
Government to seek to clarify the federal government's responsibilities in
relation to those of other orders of government, to eliminate overlap and
duplication, and to find better ways to provide services so that they represent the
best value for taxpayers' dollars and respond to the real needs of people.
If this paragraph had been read to me outside this House, I
could have easily believed, and with good reason, that it was
written by the leader of my party. But since it comes from the
government party, it is obviously a summary of their red book.
My question to the hon. member is this: How can he reconcile
his vision of Canada which he described earlier with his party's
vision of a renewed Canada?
[English]
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the
hon. member's questions for which I thank the hon. member.
Certainly my vision of Canada that I just articulated is the
very vision that we as Liberals have developed as we travelled
around the country. We would like a Canada that exists for all
Canadians irrespective of geography, race, colour or origin.
Whether Canadians have been born in this country or whether
they come from across the seas or across the oceans, we are all
equal and ought to receive the benefits of our nation and
514
federalism would respond to the needs of Canadians. For that
we must have federal institutions.
(1700)
Institutions do not mean only buildings. Institutions refer to
programs that we have in this country. Let me mention national
medicare. That is the type of institution I see and the Liberals
see that will continue to respond to all Canadians irrespective of
geography and with no user fees to make it very specific.
There is the question of how we can avoid overlapping. This
government has already announced its plan to eliminate trade
barriers that in a sense also allow for duplication. We have plans
to eliminate duplication so that small and medium sized
businesses can thrive and thrive prosperously.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, may I begin by adding my
voice to those of many others who have spoken to congratulate
you upon your appointment as Speaker. May I observe that in the
few days you have presided it is already evident through your
leadership in the House that members will better achieve the
objective we all share which is a forum of civility and decorum
acting in the public interest.
I feel enormously proud to take my place in this Chamber as
the representative of Etobicoke Centre. The riding I represent is
a diverse and a vital one whose needs and strengths reflect to a
great degree those of Canada in these challenging times. During
the election campaign, as was the case with so many of my
colleagues, I had the opportunity to visit over 30,000 doorways
in Etobicoke Centre and among other things I learned first hand
the extent to which Canadians everywhere feel strongly about
the important justice issues of our day. For me it is a great
privilege to be in this Chamber not only as the member of
Parliament for my constituents but also as their representative in
cabinet dealing with justice issues.
It has been said that justice is the first of the social virtues. In
its absence all else seems contrived. When the scales are in
balance the way is open for the best in our nature to emerge.
[Translation]
As Minister of Justice of Canada, I am fully aware of my duty
to initiate the development of policies and proposals to
strengthen our justice system, which without the shadow of a
doubt is one of the best, most flexible and fairest in the world.
Canadians have a system of justice that is bilingual and drawn
from two different legal systems; the international community
considers it to be a model of tolerance, integrity and openness.
Although two distinct legal systems are developing, at the same
time, they serve to advance a single idea in Canada, the primacy
of law.
[English]
During these past 10 weeks I have worked with members of
the department of justice and my colleagues to identify the
immediate priorities for this portfolio at this time.
I wish to take this opportunity to outline for the House at least
in general terms the priorities which we see as the most urgent.
In recent weeks I have had the opportunity to meet with
members of the parties opposite, or at least some of them, to
discuss their perspectives with respect to justice matters. I have
found that they have valuable perspectives, that I look forward
to working with them and that we have really common
objectives in the public service so far as justice issues are
concerned. That will ensure that Canada has the best and most
effective system of justice possible. I respect their perspectives
and, as I say, I look forward to working with them.
(1705)
The justice agenda I will describe today falls generally into
three categories: first, measures to deal with violence and
initiatives to prevent crime; second, proposals to ensure the law
promotes equality in the diversity of today's Canada and
provides for equal access to justice; and third, steps to
modernize our laws so they reflect current values and meet the
challenge of changing times.
Let me acknowledge at the outset that which must be evident.
It will be impossible for us to achieve meaningful progress on
any justice issues without collaboration with our provincial and
territorial counterparts. So much that is on our agenda involves
shared jurisdictions. It needs co-operative collaboration. We
cannot succeed alone and I acknowledge that at the outset. I will
work with my provincial counterparts in addressing the
objectives which I will describe today.
Let me first deal with measures dealing with violence and
initiatives to prevent crime. The speech from the throne
contained a commitment to enhance community safety and
crime prevention. Canadians are determined to preserve the
peaceful, orderly and safe communities that reflect our society's
values. One of Canada's defining characteristics is our deep
sense of order and civility. Yet in a society that abhors crime and
violence, there is increasing concern for the safe and peaceful
communities we feel are being threatened by crime, and
particularly violent crime.
The time has come for us to send the message loud and clear
that violence in any form will not be tolerated. We shall not
stand for it from any individual, from any group, of any age. Yet
our response to the problems of crime and violence must also
reflect the very values that we seek to preserve. We must not
simply become harsh, although stern measures will sometimes
be required. We must recognize and address the causes of crime
and put appropriate emphasis on rehabilitation, on treatment
where that is required.
515
Several recent and comprehensive studies have urged in the
strongest terms that Canada develop a coherent national strategy
for crime prevention.
[Translation]
Last year, the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor
General asked the federal government to take the lead and
recommended that together with the provinces, territories and
municipalities, it develop a national crime prevention strategy.
The special advisory committee on a Canadian strategy for
community safety and crime prevention made the same
recommendation. Crime prevention must take into account the
fundamental causes of crime: poverty, sexual exploitation of
children, family dysfunction, racial inequality and inefficient or
underfunded social services.
Our government is determined to develop an integrated crime
prevention strategy. Together with the other levels of
government, the police, victims' groups and community
organizations, we will make a priority of looking at the
fundamental causes of criminal behaviour and eliminating
them.
[English]
We will create a national crime prevention council and
convene it at the earliest possible date to start preparing a
comprehensive crime prevention strategy, and within that
strategy, specific community based tactics to prevent crime. We
will consult broadly on its mandate. We will ensure that it is not
simply window dressing. We will make it meaningful. And we
will need and we will appreciate the views of the members of all
parties in this House as we put it together.
(1710)
Turning now to another aspect of our response to violent
crime, this government is determined to address squarely and
openly the widespread concerns about the Young Offenders Act
as it relates to violent crime among young people.
We will soon introduce legislation reflecting the
commitments made during the election campaign to make
specific changes to the statute: increased sentences for specific
violent crime, the greater sharing of information about young
offenders with those who need to know for reasons of safety, the
creation of the category of dangerous youth offender for certain
violent repeat offenders, adjustments to the provisions
respecting transfers from youth to adult court and steps to
ensure that treatment will be available for those young offenders
who need it most.
At the same time, I intend also to initiate a thorough public
review of the Young Offenders Act to ensure that it continues to
serve the interests of justice in Canada. Canadians must be
satisfied that the Young Offenders Act strikes the proper balance
between, on the one hand, the protection of society, and on the
other, recognition of the special needs of young persons in
contact with the criminal justice system.
We will involve Parliament in this exercise of review in
keeping with our commitments toward a consultative process
contained in our election platform. As part of our review of the
statute as a whole, we will have regard to the many helpful
submissions that my department has received during the past
few months as part of the public consultation process.
In addition, we shall demonstrate that Canada will not tolerate
the manipulation and exploitation of young people by adults for
criminal purposes. We will do this by encouraging law
enforcement officials to make greater use of existing provisions
of the Criminal Code which make it an offence to induce others
to commit crime.
Still addressing the question of violent crime, I can tell the
House that in the present session we will take steps to address
concerns about the release of high-risk offenders into society at
the end of their custodial terms.
Taking into account the imperatives of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, we shall find ways by which society can protect
itself from individuals who may be unfit for release. In many
cases this issue will arise at the intersection of the criminal
justice system and the health care system. For that reason it will
be essential for us to develop these responses in concert once
again with our provincial counterparts and we will consult for
that purpose with those officials.
The government will address the serious problem of violence
against women and children, including domestic violence, not
as a women's issue, but as a justice issue. We acknowledge that
violence against women is linked to their lack of economic
equality. I will work with others, among them the Secretary of
State for the Status of Women, to develop and introduce
measures to promote equality and safety for women, both in
their homes and in public places.
In support of this commitment and as Minister of Justice, I
will work with federal, provincial and territorial colleagues to
introduce appropriate justice reforms. We shall sponsor public
education programs to increase understanding of violence
against women. We will increase levels of funding for transition
houses that provide refuge for victims of domestic abuse. We
shall introduce changes to the nature and effect of peace bonds
and more effectively protect spouses from abusive partners. We
shall work in collaboration with colleagues in the department of
human resources to ensure that court ordered child support
payments are made.
(1715 )
It makes little sense for a government that is having to come
to grips with massive deficits to pay out annually extraordinary
sums to single parents, mostly mothers, when they are the
beneficiaries of court orders that are not being respected. We are
determined to find a way to make those responsible for making
payments under court orders comply with those obligations.
516
Finally in this category, the government will take steps to
reflect the widespread public expectation that there will be
stricter gun control in Canada. We shall act on our campaign
commitments in that regard.
[Translation]
In co-operation with other departments, we will tackle the
problem of illegal arms smuggling. We will see to it that better
statistics are compiled on the criminal use of firearms. We will
scrutinize the list of prohibited weapons to see if it should be
added to. We will strengthen the current legislation which
provides for a separate offense if a weapon is used for criminal
purposes. But we will not however disregard the views of
legitimate firearm owners who now have to meet certain
requirements before purchasing such weapons.
We will review the types of weapons sold in Canada and we
will consider measures to ensure that no weapon falls into the
hands of criminals or unfit individuals.
[English]
The second broad category to which I wish to refer has to do
with equality before the law. Equal access to justice and equal
treatment in the justice system are fundamental principles in
Canadian society, a society that is increasingly diverse. There is,
however, mounting evidence that our justice system is falling
far short of the high standards that Canadians expect.
A number of recent and authoritative studies have established
there is a significant degree of gender inequality in Canada's
justice system. The present government is committed to
addressing gender issues both in the justice system and in
society generally.
[Translation]
The Department of Justice acted on the recommendations
made by the working group chaired by Madam Justice Bertha
Wilson. As a matter of fact, the department has already received
an internal report which lists in detail steps aimed at eliminating
the systemic inequalities prevalent in its own organization.
[English]
I am sure all members of this House will agree with me that a
strong and independent judiciary is a fundamental element of a
free society. Canadians are justly proud of the high quality of
our judges. For my part, I shall bring forward to cabinet
recommendations for judicial appointments that reflect
competence and merit in order to maintain the present high level
of confidence that Canadians feel in the judiciary that serves
justice in Canada.
Another important element of our approach to equality before
the law in a diverse Canada is the search for better ways of
ensuring that the justice needs of aboriginal peoples are
recognized and acted upon. Canadians generally tell us that our
system of justice, despite its strengths, could work better. They
are right.
Aboriginal people, among others, say the law has become a
system more about process than about justice and to some extent
they are right. In many aboriginal communities there is now a
remarkable will to actually try to do something about this
challenge. It is a will to carve out new relationships with the
justice system. The process of change will be gradual and
difficult but we have an obligation to aggressively pursue this
opportunity for change. We shall work closely in these efforts
with our provincial and territorial colleagues and with the
aboriginal leadership, with the communities and with aboriginal
individuals, who are prepared to improve the administration of
justice.
(1720 )
A further aspect of equality before the law in Canada has to do
with the Canadian Human Rights Act. In the throne speech the
Prime Minister's commitment made during the election
campaign was renewed. We shall introduce amendments to the
Canadian Human Rights Act. These amendments, among other
things, will include sexual orientation as a ground upon which
discrimination is prohibited.
The House has been committed to that principle for many
years, and successive governments have expressed the intention
to introduce the amendment. This government shall do so, not
just to fulfil a commitment but as a matter of fundamental
justice.
May I mention briefly steps we intend to take in connection
with hate motivated crime. We shall make it clear that such
crimes will not be tolerated. We shall introduce legislation that
will expressly provide that hate motivation must be regarded as
an aggravating factor in determining the sentence to be imposed
for any specific criminal act.
Let me say also that we shall introduce changes in the
criminal justice system that will help persons with disabilities
participate fully on an equal basis.
May I turn now to the third and last broad category on the
agenda for justice in the year ahead, modernizing the law.
[Translation]
We will soon table a bill re-establishing the Law Reform
Commission. We are fortunate to be able to revive this
commission which will serve a useful purpose as an independent
body drawing attention to needed amendments to Canadian
legislation. We will give it a new mandate and a new structure.
517
[English]
Last year a subcommittee of the standing committee on
justice released a report on a recodification of the Criminal
Code. We will be considering those recommendations, and we
will undertake an assessment of the question of whether the
present code is serving the interests of criminal justice in the
modern age.
We shall also introduce legislation to deal with the sentencing
aspect of criminal law. The legislation will clearly set forth the
purposes of sentencing, provide for a full range of alternative
sentences, focus on the desirability of non-custodial sentences
for non-violent crime, and provide for a range of intermediate
sanctions where they are appropriate.
The agenda I have described very briefly this afternoon is a
broad and a challenging one. Nonetheless it is equally clear that
the issues we seek to address are urgent and important. May I say
that I look forward to working with my colleagues in
government, my colleagues throughout the House of Commons,
in meeting the challenges this agenda presents. In doing so, may
we recommit ourselves to what must be our ultimate objective in
justice: to furnish, provide and maintain the fairest and most
effective system of justice for Canada and Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I was just taking notice
that many members are seeking the floor. I would remind all
members that we will begin a 10-minute period of questions and
answers. As short as the questions are is as many of you who will
participate.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Naturally, it will
be brief.
The Minister just announced in his speech the creation of a
national crime prevention council. As everyone knows, councils
such as this are often made of up of experts who are slow to
report, so much so that when they do finally get around to
releasing their report, all one can do is comment on the findings.
My question is this: Who will be appointed to this
high-profile council?
(1725)
Does the minister intend to take into account in the
appointment process certain new elements which may not have
been considered in the case of past councils. I am referring here
for example to appointing certain individuals who through their
work are familiar with criminals, indeed with hardened
criminals. While it is natural that the council would include
people whom we have come to expect to serve on such bodies,
people such as lawyers and professionals who provide services
to individuals in the corrections field, maybe it should also be
made up of people who work with criminals every day. I am
thinking about correctional services officers who in the course
of their day-to-day jobs deal with those who have committed
crimes and are serving time.
I know from experience that those who work inside
correctional facilities are somewhat bound by professional
secrecy. Understandably it is quite natural for them not to
disclose everything that goes on. Some of what goes on is not
very pretty and there is no need for everyone to know the details.
The people who work inside these institutions and see firsthand
how people in need of assistance live are, we have to admit,
often overlooked initially, when in fact they may be in the best
position to make a contribution to this high-profile council and
to propose more pragmatic solutions.
Therefore, I will repeat my question to the minister. Has he
given any thought to the make-up of this body? Who will be
appointed to serve on the council?
[English]
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, the question the hon. member has
raised strikes really at the heart of this council. If it is going to
be effective, if it is going to achieve the objectives I have
described, it cannot be academic or remote. It cannot be slow to
report. It cannot simply research and write. It has to be
community based. It has to be pragmatic, and it has to be
government supporting communities to get action under way.
I am sensitive to the dangers he has identified. We cannot
burden the council with a mandate that will result in it going on
forever and achieving nothing.
Let me tell my hon. friend that my department will be mailing
out during the next week or so to dozens of individuals and
organizations throughout the country a discussion paper raising
many of the questions he has touched upon. My hon. friend
talked about the structure and composition of the council and the
mandate of the council itself.
We will be seeking the views of police forces, community
groups, other levels of government and individuals with the kind
of practical experience to which my hon. friend referred in
coming to grips with the design and creation of this council. We
will also be grateful for his suggestions. I will be sending the
discussion paper to my colleagues in the House as well. We will
look forward to having the benefit of his views as we put it
together.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the minister for the consideration he has shown me
when we first met and had a short exchange of ideas. I would
also thank the minister for keeping the door open for
submissions on the Young Offenders Act. I believe Canadians
certainly do want input into this particular piece of legislation.
The question I have for the minister is in relation to his crime
prevention program. I am aware of the document of which he
speaks and the direction in which the crime prevention program
is going. Was it not supported by all parties last year?
518
(1730)
There appears to be one matter though that the report does not
thoroughly address. I believe it is on the minds of many
Canadians. Certainly thousands of my constituents and
hundreds of thousands of other Canadians want to see a
punishment that fits the crime outlined. I would suggest they
want to see it reintroduced into the system.
Would the minister please satisfy the Canadian people in their
desire to see such a stand taken by the government?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question put by the
hon. member for Calgary Northeast, with reference to the
recommendation last year it was the Horner committee, an
all-party committee of the House, that conducted extensive
research and had lengthy hearings on the whole question of
crime prevention. That committee unanimously recommended,
among other things, that a national strategy including a national
council be created for this purpose. We are really acting upon
and giving life to recommendations that emanate from an
all-party committee, as well as from other sources as I
mentioned in my remarks.
In terms of sentencing obviously it must be the very purpose
of the criminal justice system to ensure the sentence fits the
crime. That is often, however, in the eye of the beholder. There
can be controversy about whether a given sentence on a
particular day in answer to a specific crime is the right one.
If I may be permitted to say so at this time, I recently reread a
study done by Anthony Dube, a noted criminologist, who
undertook as a research project to examine public reactions to
sentences meted out to specific crimes first from the newspaper
story and then after acquainting members of the public with all
the facts of the case that went before the judge who passed
sentence.
In his research Mr. Dube made the observation that when the
citizens read of the sentence in the newspaper a given
percentage thought it seemed like a very light sentence for such
a crime. However when the same persons were given all the facts
before the judge who actually passed the sentence, the
percentage of those who agreed that the sentence was
appropriate increased dramatically until it became almost
unanimous.
The lesson we learned is that it is often misleading and
sometimes dangerous to assess the appropriateness of a sentence
from a brief newspaper report or a television report. Surely the
justice system we want is one in which competent judges, on the
basis of all the facts in the adversarial system, assess the
appropriate sentence in keeping with appropriate principles in
the courtroom where the case has been tried.
I do not wish to sidestep the question put by the hon. member
for Calgary Northeast. Let me deal with it squarely by saying
that I have already indicated we propose to introduce legislation
on the subject of sentencing. I will be happy to have his reaction
to it. In the process of committee hearings on that bill I am
certain he will have an opportunity to develop his point further.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to start my maiden speech by taking a moment to
thank the constituents of Fraser Valley East for the trust they
have placed in me. I will be doing my utmost to earn their
continued confidence in the months and the years ahead.
I also thank my own family for their ongoing sacrifice and
support. If, as many people say, a nation is only as strong as its
families then in this International Year of the Family we must
emphasize the importance of the nuclear family in our own
country. My own family, Deb and Karina, Mark, Loni and Kyla,
can rest assured that for me every year is the year of the family.
Listening to the speeches in the House during the throne
speech debate has been very enlightening. Each member
describes their riding as the most beautiful one in all of Canada,
representing the best that Canada has to offer. Each of these
speeches comes from the heart. They bode well for the future of
our country if the members of Parliament will emphasize the
positive themes that make us distinctively Canadian.
As a proud Canadian representing a proud area of Canada, I
will fulfil my mandate as a positive, constructive opposition
member in the 35th Parliament.
(1735)
I come from a constituency that has given much and yet has
even more to offer to the Canadian way of life. We can all take
pride in the 1 Combat Engineer Regiment from Canadian Forces
Base Chilliwack, a regiment that has represented us so well in
Croatia. Often during Tuesday's debate on our peacekeeping
role my thoughts were with the soldiers of 1 CER and their
families as they prepare to go back into that very dangerous
arena. We salute them all.
I could talk for a long time about my riding. Our forest
industry has provided jobs for a century and continues to offer
exciting opportunities for the future. From farms to flowers,
high mountains and hot springs, our area is so colourful that we
call it rainbow country. Tourism, fishing, golfing, unmatched
scenery and warm weather year round make Fraser Valley East
one of the finest places in Canada to live, to work and to play. All
members are invited to B.C. to see for themselves.
519
I want to bring the attention of the House to a matter of great
concern for the people who live in B.C.'s beautiful Fraser
Valley.
Most Canadians can take satisfaction in the successful
conclusion of the recent GATT agreement. The Reform Party
believes that much of Canada's future prosperity is dependent
upon the security of our export markets. To the extent that the
Liberal government has secured this access we commend it.
Consumers and western grain producers will benefit. Lowering
import barriers will allow in turn our high quality Canadian
products into more world markets.
However, in any deal there are winners and losers. I want to
express the concern of my constituents especially in the poultry
and dairy sectors. They were the losers at the GATT table. They
were left swinging in the shifting wind by this deal, uncertain of
their future. Many of these hard-working people have invested
heavily in land, buildings, equipment and livestock. Most have
purchased the right to produce at great cost. However the value
of their quota could now drop drastically. It depends on the
American response to the proposed Canadian tariffs.
What if the U.S. challenges our tariffs under the NAFTA
agreement and wins? It is going to try. Promises that everything
will be fine made by the agriculture minister last week in the
House ring hollow compared with the stirring election promises
that they will go to the wall for our producers in the GATT
negotiations. A poet once said that a promise made is a debt
unpaid. Many farmers are counting on the government for an
IOU given during the election, the promise of a secure future.
Many are concerned that a lack of foresight yesterday and
wishful thinking today may spell disaster for their system
tomorrow.
It is not just a system we are talking about. In Canada, it is an
$8 billion a year industry. It is a way of life for 100,000 families
who stand to be stripped bare by the global market. They feel
they have been left naked by a government spending too much
time promoting its much ballyhooed infrastructure program and
not enough time tending to the bread and butter businesses that
actually generate wealth in this country.
Does the Liberal government have a plan for agriculture? As
of last week, we still could not find out who in the Liberal caucus
was a member of their own agriculture committee. It is
unsettling when a simple request for information from the
minister a month ago not only went unanswered but
unacknowledged. Worse, we hear that officials in the agriculture
department admit there is no contingency plan if Canadian
tariffs should fall under a NAFTA ruling.
The Reform Party has had a detailed plan for over three years
now. Let me share with this House just a few of the principles
from our agricultural program that should guide this
government in the months ahead.
The first is summed up in just one word: Order. For all its
flaws, supply management ensured a stable, orderly production
climate and the government must now work to ensure that the
transition from a managed to an unmanaged environment will be
orderly. Because of the long cycles of crop yields and livestock
renewal, predictability on the part of the government is essential
to the farmer.
The throne speech repeated the second important principle
and I quote: ``The government will assist Canadian companies
to translate improved market access into greater export sales''.
Access to markets is the key to future prosperity and for that we
support the successful completion of the GATT negotiations.
What we do not need is another level of bureaucracy to grind this
search to a halt. Let aggressive companies search out new
markets and develop new value-added products.
The third and final principle is the most important. Although
the Liberal government expressed a vague intention a few
months ago to reduce agricultural input costs, the House will
note that Preston Manning delivered a keynote address on this
subject over three years ago. Input costs, especially input costs
caused by excessive taxation levels is one cost area we can
control within Canada.
(1740)
We envisage a day when the government assists our industry
to compete by eliminating the interprovincial trade
barriers-recent agreements are a step in the right
direction-and by pushing aside antiquated regulations that
impede our producers, restrictions that our neighbours to the
south do not suffer from, a time when the government levels up
the north-south playing field and lets our industries score the
goals for Canada.
Our farmers are among the world's most efficient, but even
the best farmers cannot overcome taxation levels and costs that
are higher than those faced by their American counterparts. The
elusive level playing field will never be possible until the
government cuts federal spending resulting in a lower level of
taxation for all Canadians, including farmers. Our producers can
do the job but the government must supply this tool of
competitiveness.
Reformers were talking about this for years and marketing
boards, farmers and small businesses throughout my riding are
in agreement on this issue. They have repeatedly urged
governments at all levels to reduce taxes and cut the red tape that
impedes growth, to get out of their pockets and off their backs so
they can do what they do best: create jobs, create exports, and
create wealth for my riding, for all of B.C., and for all of
Canada.
We have talked for years about this subject but it is time to
actually do something. The Liberals have a clear majority in the
House but it remains to be seen if they have the will to push
through on these reforms. I remind the minister that the
Canadian people are reluctant to accept talk any more. They are
520
judging this government and all governments every day by their
performance.
Over the past two years we have repeatedly invited other party
leaders to debate this important subject. We have repeatedly
asked them to place their ideas on the table for discussion, to
help our industry plan for the future. Those invitations were
never accepted. Now we see why. The ideas just were not there.
The opposition party of yesterday, today's governing party, did
not take the time to develop a well-reasoned agricultural policy.
To conclude, the Liberal red book is over 100 pages in length
yet it has devoted a full four sentences to its agricultural agenda.
That is all, four sentences. The throne speech did not even
mention the word agriculture and I hope along with my riding's
farmers that this does not reflect the priority that the
government places on our own agriculture ministry.
It is especially unfortunate because the essence of real
leadership is setting broad goals with the input of all the
stakeholders, making public a detailed agenda to meet those
goals and then pressing ahead with the plan. Our producers can
run with the best in the world, but they can never win on an
undefined course.
If GATT and NAFTA form the new rule book that farmers
must take to the field in the next few years they will need the
right equipment. Only stability, lower taxes, less red tape and an
even chance in the marketplace will equip our industry,
including the agriculture industry in Fraser Valley East, to
proceed with confidence into the 21st century.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
quite enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley
East and I found them very edifying.
I come from a riding that is mainly suburban-urban so I
cannot claim to have the expertise on GATT and agriculture that
he obviously does have. However, I do have to say that some of
his remarks do not parallel the kind of reading I am doing on this
issue. In my mind, he seems to confuse ice cream and yogurt
with other dairy products.
My understanding is that in the GATT round at Geneva what
was at stake was a question of either sacrificing all the GATT or
preserving marketing boards and in fact what subsequently
occurred is that a deal was struck at GATT which is still to be
ratified basically putting a tariff regime on most poultry and
dairy products.
(1745 )
What has happened here is that ice cream and yogurt failed at
the GATT panel some years ago. Now the Americans have come
forward and questioned the tariff regime that we would like to
see on ice cream and yogurt. That is what is at question here.
Perhaps the hon. member knows something that I do not on this
issue. As I understand it also from everything that I have read
GATT takes precedence over NAFTA in every category
involving this tariffication of dairy and poultry products, with
the exception of ice cream and yogurt.
Given all these things, is the hon. member suggesting that the
Reform Party's approach to agriculture policy over the last two
months would be one where he would sacrifice, would do
without the GATT agreement in favour of preserving marketing
boards? That was the kind of choice we had. Is that what the
member for Fraser Valley East would recommend?
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, some of the points the hon. member
brings forth are valid in the sense that we recognized several
years ago the inevitability of the GATT negotiations and the
ruling on article XI(2)(c). That was never in question in the
Reform Party. In fact we campaigned vigorously on it and took a
lot of flak from members of the Liberal Party at the time which
said that would never come to pass, that article XI(2)(c) was safe
in their bosom.
Really that is what I am arguing about when I talk about order.
Farmers were willing and are currently willing to live with the
proposed tariffication rules of the GATT. However starting on
December 29 and every week since I have asked the Minister of
Agriculture for a legal opinion of even why he believes that the
GATT ruling will supersede NAFTA because the Americans say
otherwise. I have yet to receive a response to my request.
There again, that just creates more indecision and uncertainty
in the farming community which is really only looking for that
stability. Farmers are willing to work under the new rules but
they need to know what the rules are.
Two years ago we proposed that the GATT negotiations
should be successfully completed and that we should have
negotiated the proper tariffication protection for our farmers at
that time. We feel that had we proceeded then while we still had
some bargaining chips in our hands we could have made a good
deal for Canadian farmers that would have been negotiated
rather than brought through the courts.
Really I am not arguing with the completion of GATT. My
argument stems from the fact that it should have been planned. I
think even at this late date if we can somehow assure our farmers
that GATT will proceed, that GATT will supersede NAFTA, then
they will proceed with confidence and do the investing,
exporting and so on that brings prosperity to that industry.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, a thank you is in order. We have a new Speaker in the
House and a new speaker team and hopefully we are entering
into a new era in the House of Commons.
521
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the voters of
North Island-Powell River who have given me the opportunity
to represent them in this House. North Island-Powell River
riding takes up the north half of Vancouver Island and half the
mainland coast in British Columbia. The population within this
large diverse area is evenly split between Vancouver Island and
the adjacent mainland. It is a resource based riding.
The population has a very strong feeling that government
decision making is not representative and sensitive to their
interests very often. It is my pledge to bring their concerns to the
House of Commons regularly. I pledge also to bring to the House
of Commons constructive thoughts from my constituents on
how to improve life in the riding and throughout the nation.
Within the riding we have a diversity of progressive
aboriginal groups with a living culture. The Sechelt Indian Band
took the initiative to negotiate unique legislation to replace the
Indian Act for their band alone and as a result they have been
operating under a municipal style of self-government since
1986.
(1750)
The primary focus of my speech today is aboriginal affairs. As
the Reform Party spokesman for aboriginal affairs, I want to
discuss the current direction of federal policy in respect to
Canada's indigenous peoples with a B.C. perspective.
British Columbia is in a unique situation. We have 15 existing
treaties including 14 on southern Vancouver Island and one in
northeast B.C. We have a predominantly non-treaty aboriginal
situation and a very significant portion of the nation's aboriginal
population.
In general there is a spirit of good will between the aboriginal
and non-aboriginal populations. We all want aboriginal people
to enjoy a standard of living and quality of life and opportunity
equal to other Canadians. There is consensus that a
self-government model is essential to create a climate of
certainty for investors and to bring together the population at
large.
The federal government has a paramount mandate and
responsibility in the area of aboriginal affairs. It is essential that
government direction and policy unify rather than divide the
population.
The government has pledged to wind down the department of
Indian affairs at a pace agreed on by First Nations. There is a
consensus that a wind down is called for, replacing the current
outmoded and outdated department with a system of
accountability provided by self-government. Federally
chartered municipal status on reserves such as the Sechelt
arrangement is a good way to go, giving the bands autonomy to
run their affairs.
I believe it is time for some new points of view. Some recent
federal initiatives have been divisive, not uniting and I would
like to offer a new perspective.
The aboriginal fishing strategy of the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans is one area that needs overhauling. The commercial
fishing industry in B.C. until 1992 was a colour blind industry
with 25 per cent aboriginal participation. There is a
longstanding aboriginal food fishery which remains unaffected.
The federal AFS policy implemented two years ago has
created a separate aboriginal commercial fishery based on race.
This is a two-year pilot project with agreements under the AFS
umbrella expiring March 31, 1994. Implementation of these
agreements has been very divisive within the industry and
socially. Also it has not been conducive to conservation
management. In 1993 several B.C. Court of Appeal decisions
served to reject the necessity of a separate aboriginal
commercial fishery. The promised DFO review of the AFS this
spring must be carried out with transparency and sensitivity to
the conflicts that the agreements have created.
We recommend avoidance of this conflict and new direction
for our important fishery by orienting the AFS to the
recreational fishery and to fisheries enhancement. No new
commercial fishing agreements should be negotiated under the
AFS umbrella.
There has been a great deal of recent discussion about the
terminology ``inherent right to self-government''. According to
my understanding the term ``inherent'' can mean that federal
and provincial legislation would not apply to aboriginal people
without their agreement. I also understand that it could be the
basis for claims to international sovereignty which would signal
aboriginal government immunity from all federal and provincial
laws. This is unacceptable to most Canadians.
(1755)
We believe that aboriginal self-government means a mix of
federal, provincial and aboriginal laws to be worked out through
negotiations. Regardless of the framework, it must work within
the structure of Canadian society as a whole.
British Columbia residents want to resolve the issue of
unsettled land claims so that the investment climate is improved
and so that individuals, business, government and aboriginal
groups can go forward with certainty. The recently formed B.C.
Treaty Commission which is federal, provincial and First
Nations is up and running, having already received 38 proposals
from bands in British Columbia. The commission will be a
positive influence on negotiations but there are major
shortcomings. To overcome these shortcomings I have
recommendations related to interim measures, third party
interests and transparency.
Recent resource related interim measures negotiated between
the province and aboriginal groups are eroding federal aborigi-
522
nal jurisdiction and the urgency of the negotiating process. It is
in the federal government's interest to question the mandate of
the province's negotiation of these agreements without federal
participation.
Third party interests are not at the negotiating table.
Philosophical objection to having them at the table is unfounded
as they also want to remove the current impasse. They will
expedite rather than delay the process. The whole question of
government mandate would be much more clear if third parties
were represented.
The population at large is increasingly suspicious of the entire
negotiating process. This initiative of involving them is a bold
step for the current players but it is an essential step in order to
build consensus.
Philosophically I question and a body of legal opinion
suggests that because of the fiduciary relationship, our federal
and provincial governments are in a conflict of interest in
negotiations with the First Nations unless third parties are at the
table. Litigation is the likely result.
In conclusion, I call for new directions regarding aboriginal
affairs. British Columbians want to end the climate of
uncertainty, secrecy and divisiveness. This requires adoption of
the measures I have outlined.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, in this my maiden speech I would like to take this
opportunity to congratulate the Speaker on his election to such a
prestigious position and my personal congratulations to you for
your appointment to an equally prestigious position.
I wish to thank the mover and seconder of the speech from the
throne. I also wish to thank the people of
Perth-Wellington-Waterloo for electing me to represent them
in the House of Commons. I want to assure them that I will
represent them and serve them to the best of my ability.
I would be remiss if I did not also thank my wife and family
for their wholehearted support during my campaign.
(1800 )
The riding of Perth-Wellington-Waterloo is located in the
fertile lands of southwestern Ontario. It looks like and produces
as though it were the garden of Eden. It is the number one dairy
and pork producing riding in Canada, and second in white bean
and mixed farm acreage. The fact that this area is so productive
is because of the dedication and efficiency of its farmers, and I
congratulate them for their contribution to the wealth of our
country.
I have received several hundred calls from dairy, poultry and
egg farmers in my riding since the conclusion of the GATT
negotiations. They feared for their survival because article XI
has been removed from the treaty. I want to assure Canadian
farmers in these supply management sectors that the Liberal
government in Ottawa is committed to preserving the family
farm, the Canadian agriculture sector and the supply
management system.
Perth-Wellington-Waterloo's number one employer is the
automotive related sector, with factories in Stratford, St.
Mary's, Mitchell, Listowel and New Hamburg. The success of
this sector depends upon a well-trained and hard-working
labour force. This level of competence has been maintained
through a commitment by both management and workers to
improving their education and skill level in order to produce the
highest quality product for consumers.
Finally, I must recognize the most famous institution in my
riding, the Stratford Shakespearian Festival, North America's
most esteemed repertory theatre which performs on three world
class stages in town, a town that is renowned for its park
systems, shops and restaurants. I am proud to live in Stratford,
the home of Canada's national English speaking theatre, the
jewel of southwestern Ontario. This is a cultural success story.
The theatre achieves the highest artistic standards while
attracting thousands of visitors to the region every year and
pumping millions of dollars into the local economy. On behalf
of the theatre, I invite every member of Parliament to visit
Stratford and attend one of its several performances as my guest
and theirs.
The Liberals won the federal election of October 1993
because we provided Canadians with a vision of hope, hope for
improved job prospects, with initiatives such as improving the
economic climate for small and medium sized businesses. I can
assure everyone that my constituents support the proposals
contained in the throne speech, proposals such as encouraging
financial institutions to improve access to capital for owners of
small and medium sized businesses. Consultations with bank
executives by members of the government have already started
to bear fruit.
The establishment of the Canada investment fund will help
leading edge technology firms to obtain the long-term capital
they need.
We Liberals will create a Canadian technology network to
assist with the spreading of information about technological
innovations, providing further assistance to these firms. The
government will encourage partnerships between Canadian
universities, research institutions and the private sector to
strengthen the research and development required by
entrepreneurs in order to establish their own businesses. This
partnership will help to keep small business managers abreast of
new technologies and strategic information vital to their long
term success.
We Liberals recognize that the government often acts as a
catalyst in the areas of economic growth and job creation,
relying on the private sector to be the engine. We hope that the
residential rehabilitation assistance program will encourage
home owners to renovate their homes and thus stimulate what
has been a sluggish building industry.
523
We also believe there are important programs a government
can put in place to give hope and jobs to some of our youth, such
as the youth service corps. It will put thousands of Canada's
enthusiastic youth into the workplace on worthy community and
environmental projects.
Governments in every corner of the globe recognize that the
critical component of economic competitiveness in the global
marketplace is a well trained workforce.
(1805 )
We Liberals propose measures to improve job training and the
transition from school to the workplace. In these days of high
unemployment thousands of jobs go unfilled in rapidly
expanding industries such as telecommunications, computer
services and environmental sciences because skilled labour
cannot be found. While thousands of our youth are unemployed
we cannot tolerate the squandering of their energy, talent and
education.
We will in partnerships with the provinces and the private
sector establish a national apprenticeship program. This
program will establish national standards for apprenticeship
programs and establish new programs for fast growing sectors in
the economy. All of these programs are necessary. To simply
stay with the status quo would be intolerable.
Just as the goal of Liberal economic policy is to ensure
economic growth in the nation, the goal of our social policy is to
ensure the social well-being of its citizens. Change is a
relentless and often disruptive force in our modern society and
has rendered some elements of our social safety net
cumbersome and redundant. The role of the government is to
design legislation that is current and relevant to meet the needs
of the citizen.
Social planners who employ foresight in the designing of
legislation will ensure that the revision and amendment of such
legislation will require it to be amended in the future. We
Liberals are committed to the carrying out of a major study in
the social security system.
We will also study our highly prized health care system in
co-operation with the provincial governments and in
consultation with Canadians. The national forum on health will
be chaired by the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien.
We Liberals assure the people that our government remains
deeply committed to the principles of the Canadian Health Act
including the rejection of user fees in any form.
As I worked my way across the riding of
Perth-Wellington-Waterloo last year, at the farm gates and
the factory gates the most disheartening refrain I heard was from
the people who had given up on government. Many others were
just plain angry at politicians who they felt were dishonest or
indifferent to their needs.
There must be some good reason why Canadians are so eager
for honesty and integrity in government and why they
universally demand fairness and justice. I believe that for too
many Canadians the Canadian dream had become the Canadian
nightmare. They feared the loss of their jobs, their social safety
nets, their cultural identity and the integrity of their natural
environment. We Liberals have promised and we must deliver
on our promise to return honesty and integrity to Canada's
federal government.
In conclusion we Liberals believe that the very essence of a
civilized society is mutual interest, mutual forbearance and
mutual co-operation. We believe that today Canadians are
prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder to work together and
make sacrifices to the benefit of each other and to Canada.
We Liberals believe that the government's policy as outlined
in the speech from the throne will provide the road map for both
legislators and the citizens to follow in their common mission. It
provides hope through its many initiatives for job creation and
economic stimulation. It provides leadership through reforms
that will make the operation of government more transparent
and accountable and it provides vision through the
establishment of structures to examine and upgrade our social
security system. It is what Canadians and Canada need today.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): A few comments, Mr.
Speaker. The hon. member started his speech saying that the
Liberal Party was elected because it provided Canadians with a
vision of hope. This is partly true, I suppose, but since that
vision does not come across very clearly in the throne speech, I
am afraid Canadians' hopes will be dashed fairly quickly.
(1810)
There is nothing really significant in the throne speech:
merely a string of very general projects and good intentions,
with very little in the way of tangible proposals.
We must not forget that until the government has decided it
will deal with the whole issue of the deficit and the debt, any
economic recovery will be superficial. The debt and the deficit
are a drag on the private sector because they absorb such a large
share of financial resources.
The hon. member also referred to technological innovation. I
agree this is important. It was said earlier in the House that
Canada's contribution, participation or investment in research
and development is well below that of other countries. We invest
1.4 per cent of GDP, while countries like Germany, Japan and
the United States invest twice as much in technology, and that
creates jobs. There is practically nothing in the throne speech to
provide any hope in this area.
524
The hon. member also mentioned home renovation and the
construction industry. In Quebec, we have a major problem with
the underground economy. It is all part of the same problem,
which is that taxes are too high, and until the government has
given a clear signal in this respect, it would be wishful thinking
to expect construction and home renovation to pick up.
And now a final comment on national standards for
apprenticeship. It seems the Liberal Party, like the Tories, will
not learn from past mistakes. National standards are a major
barrier to regional development. The federal government likes
to suggest and dictate national standards. Initially it provides
subsidies to go along with those standards, and then it withdraws
them, and the result, as we know, is that the provinces are left
holding the bag of financial problems that were, in fact, created
by the federal government. Occupational training is a provincial
responsibility, and the federal government has no business
regulating this area. The members of the Bloc Quebecois,
reflecting the position of Quebecers, will demand full
responsibility in this area.
[English]
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for his close attention to my speech. It helped to refresh
in my mind what I had said.
I would like to pick up on one or two things about hope. Every
one of us is in great need for a dose of hope whether we are from
the party of the hon. member or from my own party. Every
farmer every spring has some hope.
In the throne speech there were all kinds of seeds and those
seeds were in the speech in the form of the things that I have
mentioned and the things that you have reiterated. There was not
anything tangible there but those seeds have to be scattered on
the land. Given the right situation in the right environment they
will sprout, grow and bear fruit.
(1815 )
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, esteemed
members of the House of Commons, it is a great privilege for me
to speak in response to the throne speech which outlines the
government's priorities for the first session of the 35th
Parliament.
I would like to start by thanking my constituents of Simcoe
North for entrusting me with the responsibility of representing
their interests in Ottawa. I would also like to thank my wife,
family and hundreds of volunteers without whose help I would
not be here today.
[Translation]
Last October Canadians clearly told us that the policies of the
former government and the way things are done in Ottawa had to
change.
I am happy to see that the throne speech reflects the promises
of renewal included in the electoral platform of the Liberal
Party. As a member of this House, I will be happy to support
these policies.
[English]
The 35th Parliament must do its utmost to restore confidence
in the federal government among Canadians. Members of
Parliament must be allowed a meaningful role in the
development of public policy and legislation. During a recent
election I campaigned on the slogan: ``We need Simcoe North's
voice in Ottawa, not Ottawa's voice in Simcoe North''. I remain
committed to that principle.
I am pleased that the government will take measures to
enhance the credibility of Parliament but that is not enough. I
believe that every member of Parliament must do whatever he or
she can to restore confidence in the electorate and encourage
their participation in the process. That is why I am seeking to
create community advisory committees in my riding. These
committees will provide me with advice and support on various
issues of importance to my constituents.
Since the election I have met with a great number of
individuals who represent small business, the agricultural
sector, environmental groups, municipal councils as well as
cultural organizations.
Their participation in these advisory committees will be
crucial for me in delivering my message to Parliament from a
generally grassroots perspective.
[Translation]
The government must address economic development and
unemployment issues as soon as possible. By helping small and
medium size businesses to obtain the capital they need to grow,
by creating the youth service corps, by encouraging the
development of a Canadian technology network and by
rebuilding our infrastructure, Canada will be on the right track
towards a vigorous economic recovery.
[English]
Simcoe North is the home of the Industrial Research and
Development Institute whose physical plant will be built during
the coming months. This organization will elevate Canada's
technological expertise in tool, die and mould production to the
highest standards in the world resulting in many spinoffs for the
Canadian economy. IRDI embodies the partnership between
525
industry, academia and government called for in the speech
from the throne.
We must be sure to continue to support our agricultural
industry which is the backbone of the economy in many regions
of Canada. Lately our farmers have had much to be concerned
about with the recent proclamation of NAFTA and the changes
that will occur as a result of the GATT. It is very important that
the government continues to foster our agricultural industry
using whatever tools it has at its disposal.
[Translation]
It is easy to realize that Canadians feel that they pay far too
many taxes and that their money is being wasted at every level of
government. The Auditor General's Report tabled in this House
last week did not do anything to allay these concerns.
People hope that the new government will improve things; we
must not let them down. They can already see that the
government is trying to reduce overlap and duplication with the
provinces and that we want to eliminate the GST.
(1820)
But it is not enough to make a few changes here and there.
Canadians expect a full review of the tax system and its
inequities. Our government must ensure that, in the future,
corporate and individual citizens, rich and poor alike, will all
pay their fair share of taxes.
[English]
While Canadians demand substantial changes, they are also
saying that they will not accept any watering down of our
important social safety net, including medicare.
I am confident the government realizes we are facing a
revenue crisis in this country, not a spending crisis.
It is evident that our country's fiscal difficulties can only be
resolved by first addressing the unacceptably high level of
unemployment in Canada so that the victims of the recession can
contribute to our tax base. We need more people paying taxes,
not people paying more taxes.
The government must also address important revenue drains
such as capital gains exemptions, the family trust rules and tax
loopholes associated with offshore affiliates of Canadian
companies.
It is obvious that we must address the deficit but it must be
done by augmenting revenues and eliminating wasteful
spending, not cutting our social programs.
Canada's native population has been ignored for far too long
and it is with a keen sense of excitement that I see the federal
government begin its discussion on aboriginal self-government.
The outcome of these discussions will be especially relevant to
band members of the Chippewas of Beausoleil and the Rama
First Nation, both of which are located in my riding.
[Translation]
Although most of my constituents speak English, there is a
large francophone community whose language and culture
continue to grow. I sincerely believe that if Quebec decides to
leave Canada, the French language and culture outside Quebec
could very well disappear. There are about 1 million
francophones outside Quebec. Being one of them myself, I am
proud to consider myself a Canadian and I am not afraid to say
that all the regions of this country are well served by federalism.
That is why I am asking the hon. members from the Bloc
Quebecois not to abandon us.
[English]
Canadians want the government to get to work to make our
country a better place. Our work must concentrate upon job
creation and economic growth, not constitutional wrangling. We
must reduce the deficit and debt.
It is true we have fewer resources with which to work but, as
my hon. colleague from Madawaska-Victoria has said, a lean
government does not have to be a mean government.
In conclusion, I pledge to represent my constituents and to
work co-operatively with all members of the House to provide
accountable and responsible government.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. I would like to thank my colleague from Simcoe North,
whom I know very well, for what he said. I found it very
interesting. However, I picked up something he said in his
speech, that Quebec's separation would mean the end of French
outside Quebec. He knows very well that French is not at all
strong outside Quebec. The city he lives in is a perfect example
of what happens to francophones outside Quebec, in Canada.
(1825)
Rights are not respected. The schools which francophones
were promised are not given them. They do not manage their
own school system. Francophones outside Quebec do not have
many things. The hon. member surely knows all that.
So I would like to end with this comment. I think the main
reason that Quebec needs to become sovereign is to ensure the
survival of French culture in North America.
Mr. DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I expected such a question from
the hon. member for Québec-Est. Personally, I cannot say that
francophones outside Quebec have no problem getting their
rights respected now, but in Penetanguishene, in the riding of
Simcoe North, we have a French school for which we fought,
and we finally had our French school. I believe that we can have
our rights respected if we really want to.
526
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to add a few comments to this debate being someone
who comes from southern Ontario, very much an anglophone
region.
Ultimately, my question is: Is it a matter of language or is it a
matter of other things that we might have in common? I would
like to very briefly tell an anecdote for the benefit of the hon.
members of the Bloc.
Some 15 years ago I was a journalist at a newspaper in
southern Ontario when an event occurred in Quebec that some of
the Bloc Quebecois members will remember. It was called the
Saint-Jean-Vianney landslide that occurred in the region of
Lac-Saint-Jean.
I, as the only reporter at my newspaper with only my school
French, and very poor French I have to say, was sent to that area
on the anniversary of the landslide to do a story on a year's
aftermath. I had a great deal of difficulty, with my poor school
French, to communicate with the people in the area because the
accent was very different than the accent I had been taught in
school.
However, I have to say that the people were very nice. They
took me to their local club, an Odd Fellows hall, in which I must
say I felt very much at home. I was able to communicate with the
people through a person I had met in the club from northern
Ontario. He was able to translate my bad French into the
Quebeçois French-and possibly my very bad English as
well-which was very useful for me.
What was so striking about this event was that even with the
language problem I felt very much at home when I sat in this
little Odd Fellows hall. We then went across to the beverage
room, as we would say in English Canada in those days. I
suppose Le bar is what they say in the Lac-Saint-Jean region.
As a journalist in those days, I very much favoured drinking
Scotch. Journalists in those days drank scotch in order to show
that they really were newspapermen. At the bar I asked if I could
have a scotch. I was told that they did not have scotch, only rye,
but I still felt very much at home. We really share a Canadian
thing in that.
What I finally found out during my investigation of the
landslide was that when the catastrophe occurred the majority of
the people in Saint-Jean-Vianney were watching hockey. I felt
very much at home.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, it is
a great honour for me, as I start my maiden speech here in the
House of Commons, to speak on the subject of agriculture. Since
I have the privilege of being the official agriculture and
agri-food critic, and I am delighted because I know that
agriculture is a very important sector. As the hon. member for
Simcoe North said earlier, and I must say I agree, agriculture is
the backbone of a number of regions in this country. Agriculture
is a wonderful industry and an important one. Unfortunately,
Canadians do not realize how important agriculture is.
(1830)
There are approximately 200,000 producers in Canada with a
gross income of about $23 billion, which is quite substantial.
There are almost 2 million jobs, both directly and indirectly, in
the agricultural sector in Canada. If I had more time, I could say
a lot about the job creation potential of this sector. I will not
have a chance to do so this evening, but there is considerable
potential for job creation in the agricultural industry.
Agriculture is so important in Canada that if we include farm
production and the entire agri-food chain in this country,
agriculture is our most important industry. It is more important
than the automobile industry, being worth another $8 billion.
When I say the whole agri-food chain, I am referring to
everyone involved, the distributors and manufacturers and
everything in the agri-food sector in this country. This
represents $838 billion per year as part of our GDP. In Quebec,
agriculture is worth $4 billion more than the pulp and paper
industry.
Agriculture is therefore a very important and a very
significant industry. That is probably why we have a full House
this evening, to listen to my speech on agriculture. It is also one
of Canada's leading edge industries. We must not forget that.
Going back in history, one could say that agriculture is probably
one of the industries that form the basis of Confederation. It also
contributed to Canada's image as the bread basket of the world.
However, today, in 1994, it has also become a very modern and
very progressive industry. In some sectors, such as Western
grain and red meat, we rank number one in the world. Dairy
production especially is very important. We have a highly
developed industry in which advances in technology have been
considerable. On the international scene, exports of genetic
material are worth about $85 million, and this may include
Holstein cows, for instance, for reproduction purposes.
Without getting into too much detail, I want to say that
agriculture is a very important industry in terms of the economy
and also in terms of the advanced technology that is being used.
We rank among the first in the world.
The problem is that unfortunately, people underestimate
agriculture. It is not fashionable. Agriculture may be
misunderstood. To many people, agriculture is folklore.
Farmers are still seen as potato producers. People do not realize
how complicated a farmer's life is today. It takes a lot of
technology and a lot of knowledge. He has to know about
machinery; he has to know about herbicides and pesticides and
fertilizer; he has know his animals, construction and whole lot
of other things. He has to be an expert and a jack-of-all-trades.
527
(1835)
The problem also is that farmers, although they account for a
great deal of our country's total production and expertise, make
up only about 3 per cent of the Canadian population, a very small
proportion indeed. This only creates another problem, the fact
that governments neglect agriculture.
I have the impression that consumers generally take food for
granted in Canada. They do not take the time to appreciate how
important this industry is to the country. My hon. colleague
from Essex-Windsor said a few days ago that a country that
cannot feed itself soon will not be a country. Self-sufficiency is
an important, even fundamental, consideration.
The other problem is once again that the media in Canada are
not very interested in agriculture, again because it is not
fashionable. The media are more concerned about urban
problems than they are about rural problems. Agriculture is
therefore much neglected. And consequently, governments
neglect this industry as well. That is obvious. My God, is it
obvious!
The throne speech makes no mention whatsoever of
agriculture. It is an obvious oversight. Fifteen years ago, I
worked for Eugene Whelan when he was the Minister of
Agriculture in the Trudeau Cabinet. I never learned so much
about agriculture as I did then. Mr. Whelan was a great minister,
maybe even the most important Minister of Agriculture in the
history of Canada, and even he had a very hard time convincing
his colleagues of the importance of this industry. Moreover, the
Trudeau government was doing nothing, zilch, to help
agriculture. Well, maybe it was doing something, but only the
bare minimum.
I feel that nothing much has changed in the intervening years,
even if we have changed governments. We had a Conservative
government in power and now we have a Liberal government,
with a Prime Minister who was a member of that very same
Cabinet years ago.
Mr. Trudeau himself displayed open contempt for farmers. I
remember very clearly one time when we were in Winnipeg
where farmers had gathered to confront him about the grain
export crisis in the West. The grain was not moving and they
wanted to know what the Prime Minister was going to do to help
them. I remember what Mr. Trudeau said to them: ``Sell your
own goddam grain''!
Which only goes to show that Prime Minister Trudeau had no
patience when it came to agricultural issues. I think that the
current Prime Minister also has a tendency to neglect, and dare I
say it, to misunderstand, this industry. The recent GATT talks
will have a major impact on the entire agricultural sector in
Quebec and Ontario, including the supply management system.
The dairy and farming sectors work with quotas and the GATT
talks jeopardized the value of these quotas.
Quotas, by the way, account for approximately two thirds of
the value of a farm. The Prime Minister of Canada was asked if
the farmers who stood to lose as a result of the fallout from the
GATT negotiations would be compensated. The Prime
Minister's answer was no, because they had not paid for their
quotas. His exact answer was: ``There will be no compensation
for farmers because they did not buy their quotas.''
(1840)
This is the statement made in French by the Prime Minister in
an interview published by Le Droit, and I might add that this
statement was not mentioned by the English Canadian press. I
mention this minor detail, because it is nevertheless an
important one: I am telling you that the Prime Minister's
statement was only reported in French. Obviously, the Prime
Minister was wrong about the quotas, because we know for a
fact that farmers paid for their quotas and they paid dearly. In
fact, this is the very basis of the borrowings they make. It is the
basis of their credit. It is the basis of many very important things
for farmers.
All these factors, which I mention very briefly, illustrate that
in fact this government has no constructive and positive policies
for the agricultural sector. This government does not have a
vision for agriculture. In fact, Canada has never had a
constructive vision for that sector. The truth is that our
agricultural policy is nothing but a stopgap measure which has
always been influenced by the Americans and the international
community.
No initiatives are taken by Canada; we only react. The recent
developments with GATT, the current situation and the
agreements which are being negotiated with the Americans are
blatant illustrations of this lack of vision for the agricultural
sector in Canada. The facts prove that we only react. Right now,
the situation is complex and worrisome for farmers, not only in
the East but also in the West. Wheat production in the Prairies is
second to none. We have a lot of durum wheat and other grain in
the West, and Americans want to restrict exports to their
country. It is true that exports have increased considerably since
last year and the years before that. Wheat is very important for
Western farmers, and Americans want to restrict that export.
When you think of it, Americans have no reason to do that. We
signed a free trade agreement with them. The very basis of that
agreement is to promote trade with Americans, including wheat,
and now they want to be bad sports. They want to force Canada
to restrict its exports. Once again, Canada is on its knees. It
seems that we cannot, through the Minister of Agriculture,
defend our rights and protect what is ours. Western farmers
should be allowed to export as much wheat as they want to the
528
United States under NAFTA, and under the Free Trade
Agreement signed with that country.
Another illustration of a government which is on its knees,
which is always giving in, which is not able to protect us against
Americans or foreign interests and events, is how we have lost
under the GATT, an opportunity to develop agriculture. We have
lost control over a system which may have been one of the best
in the world. During the GATT negotiations, we wanted to
strengthen Article XI, because Canada's supply management
system-and I know you all agree with me-was the best one in
the world. There are no two ways about it, it was the best in the
world. With that system, there was no overproduction, no
dumping; everything was controlled and, in fact, that system
was a model for the rest of the world.
(1845)
To please other countries, we have had to sacrifice that great
system that we had devoted so much time and energy to
building. Had Canada really wanted to protect itself properly, it
could have had Article XI reinforced. The fact is, and the hon.
member will acknowledge it, that many countries and the
Americans themselves managed to get all kinds of exemptions
under the GATT. So, Canada could have had the provisions of
Article XI strengthened, but did not. Canada backed off, it caved
in, making people believe it had been isolated. In the end, we
were left without a leg to stand on when in fact the Canadian
government could have better protected supply management if it
had really wanted to. Basically, it was not interested, and not
having Article XI reinforced caused us another worse problem
in agriculture.
This other problem generated by Canada's lack of resolve at
the GATT talks is that it is more difficult now to maintain, in
order to protect our supply management system with regard to
areas where quotas are applied, the tariff rates that are supposed
to protect supply management. Because of our failure at the
GATT, the least we can do to allow the system to exist for a few
more years to protect the farmers and give them time to adjust to
the new global market environment, is to maintain a tariff
barrier high enough to give our farmers a chance to adjust. It is
only normal. Agriculture is not like a toy factory. You cannot
just shut down overnight when you are dealing with livestock.
You have to plan over a number of years.
So, the problem is that this tariff barrier which is supposed to
protect supply management for at least a few years has already
started to crumble. So soon! The ink is not even dry on the
agreement that the government is backing off, reneging on the
promises made to the farmers. The Minister of Agriculture has
repeatedly promised Canadian farmers that he would do his
utmost to protect Article XI. He did not. Then, the Minister of
Agriculture said: ``I will do everything in my power to make the
tariff barrier high enough to maintain the supply management
system in Canada.'' That was just five weeks ago, but
discussions are already under way with the Americans to
eliminate the tariff on agricultural products such as ice cream
and yogurt.
I could have gone on for another 20 minutes, but let me at least
conclude my remarks.
[English]
In spite of the fact that the minister of agriculture for Canada
is a very kind and well spoken lawyer and not a farmer, I am
beginning to think we have a rather wishy-washy minister of
agriculture, because in the great tradition of ministers of
agriculture for Canada he is unable to say no to Americans. He is
unable to stand and defend the rights and privileges we have won
in negotiations with the United States and other countries. We
have a minister who unfortunately because of this weakness puts
into question a lot of the strengths of Canadian agriculture. It is
most regrettable.
[Translation]
I think that there are many good things to say about
agriculture, but I will have to wait for another day.
(1850)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague. He no
doubt realizes that almost everyone wants him to explain his
statement and most Canadians who were watching their
television set will understand why. His message was, to say the
least, a bit confused; it was as clear as mud.
At the beginning of his speech, he spoke about the rights of
the francophones outside Quebec, like me. He then talked about
agriculture.
I would like to ask him a question about the francophones
outside Quebec since I am one of the 500 000 francophones
living in Ontario. If I am not mistaken, the Bloc Quebecois
position as it was explained to us twenty minutes ago is more or
less as follows: Quebec should split from the rest of Canada
because the rights of francophones in Ontario have not been
properly respected. I must say I have a hard time understanding
that statement.
If Quebec were sovereign, how would that improve the
respect shown for the rights of francophones in Ontario? How
would that improve the situation of Franco-Ontarians?
After that, maybe the member could explain- no. I will stop
here and let my colleagues ask other questions.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is accusing
me of being confused. He is the one who is confused since I did
not mention the rights of Franco-Ontarians. In my speech, I
talked about agriculture and, frankly, I am rather hurt that he did
not ask any question on this very interesting topic.
529
However, I have a lot to say on the issue of Franco-Ontarians.
It is true that I was born in Ontario and it is true also that I
believe that if we are to preserve the French language in North
America, Quebec must become sovereign. There is no doubt in
my mind on that issue.
It is not because Quebec wants to reject francophones outside
Quebec, that is for sure. Quebec does not want to do that. It is
simply because, in the end, and the hon. member certainly
experienced it, in English Canada, Canadian history is the story
of the assimilation of francophones.
From the beginning, from Lord Durham on, Canadian history
boils down to an attempt to assimilate francophones.
In the West, at the beginning of the century, they passed all
kinds of laws to eliminate French. In my own province of
Ontario, French was banned for 40 years. Today, there are
anglophone provinces where, in spite of rulings by the Supreme
Court of Canada, the established rights of francophones are
being ignored.
There have been several rulings by the Supreme Court of
Canada stating that Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were
wrong in not enforcing the francophones' acquired rights. Even
now, this ruling is being ignored.
I want to say to my hon. colleague that if the constitutional
rights of the English minority had not been respected by Quebec,
there would have been a general outcry the very next day.
However, in the rest of Canada, ignoring francophones' rights
goes unnoticed.
The assimilation of francophones is a huge problem and I do
believe that Quebec's sovereignty will solve it, at least for
francophones in Quebec. This will ensure the survival of the
French language in North America. I truly believe that it will
give a sense of renewed hope to francophones outside Quebec.
(1855 )
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I will
leave the French language question to the hon. member.
I want to ask him a question regarding agriculture because I
was surprised by some of the comments he was making
regarding the minister of agriculture and what we in the Liberal
Party did with regard to supply management.
The hon. member must be aware that when his leader was on
this side of the House representing the Conservative Party, it
was his party and his leader at that time who told Canadian
farmers they would be protected, that they were going to protect
them under the NAFTA and they were going to protect them at
the GATT. In fact he was being a little less than honest with
Canadian farmers as was the previous government in terms of
what they were doing at the GATT. Also, what they were saying
internationally was a different story from what they were telling
Canadian farmers at home.
I am somewhat surprised. I take it the hon. member is the
agriculture critic. I am surprised during this debate when we
were making representations internationally that in fact we
heard nothing from the Bloc. In fact during the first week in
Question Period there was no question directed toward the
Minister of Agriculture from that whole side regarding this very
important issue, an issue of great concern to Canadian farmers
which is the issue of ice cream and yogurt.
I want to ask the hon. member who is an agricultural
representative from the Bloc why it is that when his leader was
on this side of the House he was telling Canadian farmers
something different from what he is now saying on that side of
the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was probably
absent from the House on Monday because there was a question
on that very subject.
[English]
We asked a question last Monday on agriculture and ice cream
and yogurt. Maybe the hon. member was not there.
Mr. Speller: I was there. That was a week later.
Mr. Marchand: A week later than what?
Mr. Speller: Than when the House opened.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I remind the hon.
members that they must address their comments through the
Speaker.
Mr. Marchand: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. That could be
attributed to inexperience.
[English]
The only reason the question was asked last Monday was
mainly because negotiations are ongoing and we wanted to have
it in good time.
Also, I think criticisms about the Conservatives and how the
Conservatives did not do their job are cheap shots. It is so easy to
say it is the fault of the Conservatives, that they did not do their
job. Those are just cheap shots.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has made reference to certain quotations of
former Prime Minister Trudeau indicating to the effect that he
would not sell our goddamn grain.
The statement that he has attributed to the former Prime
Minister is not accurate. The statement that was made by the
former Prime Minister was: ``Why should I sell your wheat?''
He then proceeded to answer the question and told the western
Canadian farmer as to why he would sell the wheat for the
western Canadian farmer. I know this because I was there.
530
The hon. member commented about the agriculture minister
being a lawyer but not a farmer. I am a lawyer too. I am also from
a farm and I also own land. The agriculture minister, the hon.
member for Regina-Wascana, is also from a farm. He
understands Saskatchewan farm practices. He understands the
agriculture industry in Canada.
The hon. member has also made comments about why sales of
grain cannot now be made just across the border because of
NAFTA and GATT, primarily NAFTA. Just sell grain across the
border, sell all the grain we want into the United States. The
United States is an exporter of grain except for one specialized
commodity which is durum. Other than that they export. One
state in the United States produces more wheat than the whole of
Canada.
(1900)
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to stand in this place today to speak for
the first time on behalf of the constituents of Windsor-St.
Clair.
I congratulate you, Sir, upon your appointment to the Chair
and congratulate all hon. members on their election victories.
First I want to thank my supporters who worked for me and the
electors of Windsor-St. Clair who have placed their confidence
in me. I am grateful for the opportunity to represent them here.
Windsor-St. Clair is located in southern Ontario along the
shores of the Detroit River and Lake St. Clair. Lake St. Clair is
the smallest of our Canadian Great Lakes. Windsor-St. Clair is
comprised of three communities: parts of the east end of
Windsor; all of the town of Tecumseh; and all of the village of
St. Clair Beach.
Our riding is an urban constituency but our location makes us
one of the great water sports centres of the world. There are
more pleasure boats per capita in our part of the Great Lakes
than anywhere else and the pickerel fishing is hard to beat.
The commodore of the Windsor Yacht Club tells me that this
summer the great Canada's Cup yachting race will be held on
Lake St. Clair. The Canadian entry to that race and its crew will
be hosted by the Windsor Yacht Club as they compete to return
that cup to Canada.
The Tecumseh Corn Festival is held at the end of August every
year. It is a tremendous event that brings close to a quarter of a
million people into Tecumseh for a great weekend of food, fun
and enjoyment. Tecumseh itself is a spirited historical town with
a tremendous sense of community.
St. Clair Beach is a picturesque village at the far eastern edge
of the riding. It is the home of that great Canadian athlete, Chris
Lori, who is the captain of our National Olympic Bobsledding
Team. St. Clair Beach will be watching closely as Chris Lori and
his teammates represent Canada at Lillehammer next month. I
suspect that we will be seeing Olympic gold in St. Clair Beach
before very long.
Windsor-St. Clair is also an industrial riding. Many
manufacturing endeavours make their home in Windsor which is
known as Canada's motor city. Among them of course we have
the big three auto makers: Chrysler, Ford and General Motors.
Other industries exist there as well.
Any mention of Windsor-St. Clair industries must include
one of our oldest manufacturers, the Hiram Walker distillery
located in the Walkerville section of Windsor. Hiram Walker's
of course is the home of the world famous Canadian Club
whiskey.
Windsor-St. Clair was also the home of a very famous
Canadian who once stood in this place. It is humbling to know
that in coming here I am a successor to that great Canadian
statesman, the late Hon. Paul Martin, Senior or ``Oom Paul'' as
he was known at home, the architect of many aspects of our
present day social safety net. He sat here as the Liberal member
for what was formerly Essex East, in later years was
Windsor-Walkerville and today is Windsor-St. Clair.
Paul and Nell Martin contributed unstintingly to the life of
our constituency and to the country as a whole. It is quite a
legacy and these are indeed some great shoes that I seek to fill.
Mr. Speaker, if you or other hon. members visit my riding of
Windsor-St. Clair, you will undoubtedly travel along
Riverside Drive through all three of our municipalities. As you
do, you will be able to look not very far away casting an eye to
the north to our great national neighbour, the United States of
America. It is a unique geographic fact that Detroit, Michigan
and its eastern suburbs are actually located north of Windsor.
It is also a unique geographical fact that we live in
Windsor-St. Clair very clearly in the shadow of that great
country which is so close that going to the States for lunch is a
matter of course for some of my constituents. This is at once part
of the charm and the advantage of our area. It also at times can
be a great disadvantage.
(1905 )
Over the last nine years of Tory rule we in Windsor-St. Clair
have often felt that Canada in the eyes of the former government
stopped somewhere east of us on highway 401. However, that
531
has not stopped us or prevented us from remaining fiercely
Canadian and fiercely proud of our heritage.
Under the former government's policies we suffered at home
but we fought back. We fought back against fiscal policies that
fostered the closing of our manufacturing plants. We fought
back against taxation policies that encouraged the phenomenon
of cross-border shopping and we fought back against cultural
policies that resulted in events such as the closing of our only
television station, CBC station CBET on channel 9.
Canadians discovered Windsor in December 1990 when
10,000 of our citizens crowded onto the river front to fight back
against those cuts. They fought back again in 1993 when they
voted overwhelmingly Liberal.
They voted Liberal because they read the red book and they
recognized in it a plan that was practical and yet hopeful. They
know that the Prime Minister is a man of his word and that his
government, our government, is going to deliver for them. They
also know that they can count on us to watch out for their
interests.
In the near future the city of Windsor is about to embark on a
great adventure as it becomes the home of the first Ontario
casino. The last federal government refused to recognize that it
had a role to play in ensuring that the casino project was a
success in our community, but our government has moved
quickly to make certain that we anticipate the needs of that
community and that we can continue to meet them and that we
can move quickly to do so.
The municipalities in our riding have appreciated the
infrastructure program which is moving forward at a rapid pace.
Windsor-St. Clair is poised to take advantage of these new jobs
and this infusion of cash into our communities so that we can
make them even better places in which to live and in which to
make a living.
Windsor-St. Clair wants the kind of government that this
side of the House has to offer. It wants a government that
understands the need for economic growth as a tool for deficit
control. It wants a government that cares about the quality of life
of its citizens and that governs fairly, practically and with
compassion.
These are the qualities that those in Windsor-St. Clair want
and these are the qualities that this government has displayed in
the throne speech last week. That is why I urge this House and
these hon. members to vote in favour of the motion by the hon.
member for Bruce-Grey and seconded by the hon. member for
Madawaska-Victoria.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. speaker, the hon.
member just mentioned in her speech that the Liberal
government is worried about our people, it wants to do what is
right for our people and it wants to have programs that are going
to help our people. I would just ask the hon. member one
question.
The RRSP homebuyers plan has helped more than 200,000
Canadians buy a home. These are people who could never buy a
home before. This has helped to create many jobs not only on the
construction sites but in areas like forestry, home furnishings
and appliances. I know that we understand that spinoff effect. It
has been done with no cost to the treasury.
Here is my question to you, dear. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, it is
my question to the member. Will the hon. member commit that
she will try to get her government to extend this plan beyond its
March 1 expiry date?
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the terms of
endearment from 50 per cent of the Conservative caucus. This is
an incredible feat I think for a Liberal backbencher.
In any event I want to point out that question more
appropriately might be put to the Minister of Finance but in his
absence I am happy to answer it.
I can tell you that this government is very concerned about the
tax program and taxation in this country. We have seen, over the
past nine years, taxes become more and more unfair. It would be
imposed more and more on the backs of the very people the
member just referred to the middle class, the working class and
homeowners in our country. This taxation has caused so many
problems in my riding in terms of the loss of jobs and other
results of their inherent unfairness.
(1910)
The RRSP program and other programs I am sure are being
looked at by the Minister of Finance and his people now.
Certainly he is consulting widely in this area. I would suggest to
my friend that any steps the Minister of Finance takes to make
the former Conservative taxation system more fair in this
country will result in more jobs for Windsor-St. Clair, more
jobs for Saint John and more jobs for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, part of the
statement by the member for Windsor-St. Clair dealing with
the importance of the automobile industry in her riding gives me
an opportunity to recall that the auto industry in Ontario has an
extremely important position compared to the auto industry in
Quebec. Quebec makes only 7 or 8 per cent of all the
automobiles assembled in Canada.
That part of the country surely had tremendous economic
development due to the auto industry, among other things. In the
last recession, the riding of Windsor found out what less
well-off cities go through and what tough economic times are
like. That does not please me, on the contrary. Perhaps since that
part of the country, that part of Ontario, had such difficulties,
Ontario may be a little more sensitive to the realities of other
Canadian provinces.
I close with a question. It is widely agreed that the
Conservative government's monetary policy was partly
responsible for the economic difficulties that we are still in. I
have trouble understanding, however, with regard to the
Windsor-St. Clair region, which suffered a little from this
monetary policy-why the Liberal government finally chose the
previous governor's deputy to be the Governor of the Bank of
Canada. I have trouble with that because it seems to me that their
problems may recur,
532
since the same people or the same mentality will direct Canada's
monetary policy.
[English]
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I am again happy to stand in and
answer questions that might more appropriately be addressed to
the Minister of Finance. However, I can say to this House in
response to the comments by the hon. member that
Windsor-St. Clair did indeed suffer during the recession as a
result of the policies of the former Conservative government.
However, Windsor-St. Clair and the entire region managed to
survive in spite of those policies. That survival was in part
because of the vision of our community leaders and because of
the vision of our local people who realized the importance of
diversifying the economy and moving into other areas.
The appointment of a new governor at the Bank of Canada will
not, I do not think, significantly change the progress that is
being felt at the present time in our community. However, the
attitude of the new government will change that and will assist
in growth that I believe will be unprecedented in the history of
my community.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, this being my
first speech in the House, I want to at this time congratulate the
Speaker on his appointment to the chair and also congratulate
the other Speakers so appointed.
(1915 )
Your job, Mr. Speaker, is a very important one and I think
especially so in this 35th session of Parliament because this
country really is at a crossroads. Given the mix of parties and
given the mood of the public, the Speaker's position I think will
be very important in terms of balancing the debates and keeping
order.
I must admit that I am somewhat awed to speak in this House,
and to be quite honest that surprises me. I will explain why. This
is a place where I did not expect to be especially on this side of
the rail because as little as 15 months ago I was completely
disillusioned with the House of Commons, with the government
of the day and with the bureaucracies that serve the various
ministries.
I was completely disillusioned with the process and the House
of Commons and the government because I had spent the last
nine years going before committees to give our organization's
point of view and felt that it had been a waste of time and I had
not been heard. As experienced parliamentarians like to call it
``this place'', I felt this place had lost touch with the people that
it was supposed to serve. The election of so many new members
this time and of a Liberal government with a plan of direction
via the red book signifies that.
However, through the course of this Parliament we must
ensure that ``this place'' becomes ``our place'' from the
perspective of Canadians. I think all of us on both sides of the
House have a responsibility in seeing that this place becomes
``our place'' from the perspective of Canadians, whether it is
from what we like to call the emerald isle of Prince Edward
Island, the province of Quebec or Saskatchewan. This place
must be where the voice of Canada and Canadians is heard.
As I mentioned a moment ago that certainly did not happen
during the last nine years. The throne speech speaks of
providing members of Parliament greater opportunity to
contribute to the development of public policy and legislation.
That is perhaps one of the most important things that we can do.
We can change the direction from the past and give people the
opportunity to speak and be heard. It is a very important
direction and a direction in which ordinary MPs can be given the
opportunity to have some power in the House of Commons to
speak on behalf of their constituents and their country.
Certainly in that context, giving ordinary MPs some power,
there are differences. There is debate. We have seen that in the
House already. That is what a democracy is all about. It is about
the thrust and pros and cons of debate and out of that debate
coming up with the best solution possible.
I want to take a moment to very sincerely thank the people of
Malpeque for giving me this opportunity to work with and for
them. My riding really stretches from Summerside, Prince
Edward Island, bypasses Charlottetown and goes to the
community of Marshfield. In my riding farming, fishing and
tourism are the major industries and agriculture is certainly the
big one. We have many small industries and two large potato
processing plants, but as an island we are very dependent in
terms of exports, be it potatoes or other products from the
island.
I think one thing that is significant about Prince Edward
Island is that it is basically a community of communities and we
believe strongly in community spirit and helping one another in
times of difficulty. I think we have to relate that to Canada as
well.
I come from kind of a unique experience in that I have
travelled this country during the last 20 years, the last 10 as
president of the National Farmers' Union. I just wish that every
Canadian could have that kind of experience. We are great at
criticizing our own country. I have lived about half the time in
Saskatchewan, but I have travelled across the country and have
seen its potential: how great a country it can be if it remains
united. When foreign countries look at Canada they wonder why
we are fighting among ourselves and think that with our
tremendous resource base, land base and people base we should
be using them to good advantage in building a nation.
533
(1920)
The speech from the throne starts to build on some of our
opportunities. Indeed there are many challenges before us as
well. In the three months since the election the government has
to a great extent been keeping its commitments. Last week in my
province there was the announcement of a $36 million
infrastructure program. It will develop critical infrastructure
work and create direct and indirect jobs. Also the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans has indicated that he will be providing
assistance to fishermen who are having great difficulty as a
result of the cod crisis.
I recognize that we do, though, face enormous challenges that
have been left with us as a result of the last nine years. I
recognize the government has entered into NAFTA and GATT. I
share the concerns of many Canadians about both these
agreements. I worry that in these agreements there is a
considerable loss of sovereignty. Will we really have the right to
govern or will we just be administrators of the various trade
agreements? The Prime Minister has spoken to this somewhat.
He has given his commitment and the commitment of the
Canadian government to ensure that these trade agreements
work in the interests of Canadians. That is our objective and that
is our commitment.
I take exception to the comment of a Bloc Quebecois member
who spoke two speakers ago. I repeat what he said. He said that
the minister of agriculture was negotiating to eliminate the
tariffs. That statement is wrong. The minister of agriculture is
negotiating in the interests of our dairy farmers to keep the tariff
levels high so that we can enhance and protect the supply
management system. The government is committed to
agriculture. It is committed to the supply management system. It
is committed to the Canadian Wheat Board. This government
offers hope for the future.
In conclusion, we are faced with a challenge to take charge in
these difficult times and institute our agenda as outlined in the
red book. The throne speech and the progress made to date are
good starts. I emphasize again the point that by giving power to
MPs, as we have indicated in the throne speech, we bring
democracy back to the country, give everyone their input and
certainly work in the interests of people.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to direct a question to my colleague who just finished a very
excellent presentation. Certainly he tried to clarify the major
concerns we hear about the GATT negotiations the minister has
successfully worked on for the Canadian farm community.
What are my colleague's thoughts with regard to the difficult
job the minister inherited coming into the GATT discussions,
putting in tariff barriers and making sure that much of the
agriculture production under supply management has a fair
amount of protection? Does he feel that our supply management
system will be pretty stable and in a very positive direction?
That is a question many people in agriculture have asked.
Certainly the minister has responded in favourable ways. What
are my colleague's thoughts in that area?
(1925 )
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, certainly in terms of the GATT
negotiations the retaining and the strenghthening of article
XI(ii)(c) was the preferred direction of the government. It ended
up that it was not in the cards. What we tried to achieve at that
time was the tariffication approach and to establish very high
tariffs to protect our supply management industry.
The agreement does not come into place until July or August
1995. That gives us some time in order to meet with the supply
management groups and other groups and to set up the system in
such a way that we can have a growing and prosperous industry
in the future. The supply management system in Canada, I
believe and we believe as a government, is a model for the
world. It provides a high quality product at reasonable prices to
consumers and is a great food security policy.
The minister of agriculture is very committed in his
discussions with the secretary of agriculture of the United States
to trying to achieve the objectives we set out during the election
of protecting and enhancing the supply management system.
It is a difficult job. We were left with negotiations when so
much had been given away by the previous administration. It is a
very difficult negotiation, but I believe the minister of
agriculture will prevail and the supply management system will
indeed survive.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, just a brief
comment, because I did not understand. The member referred to
Mr. Marchand saying the Minister of Agriculture was
negotiating the abolition of tariffs. I do not think the member for
Québec-Est, critic for the Official Opposition, said that.
According to me, what he said was the Minister of Agriculture is
now negotiating with the United States and the negotiations deal
with the abolition of tariffs. If one country is trying to do away
with tariffs, it is certainly not Canada, it is the United States.
Still, Canada has to face that first problem, merely five weeks
after the signing of the GATT agreements.
[English]
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the last part of the
questioner's comments. The record certainly will show what
was said. What I copied down was that the minister was being
accused of negotiations to eliminate the tariffs.
534
That is the opposite of what the Minister of Agriculture is
trying to do. I want to emphasize that fact. The minister is very
much in negotiations with the secretary of agriculture for the
United States and is very definitely trying to negotiate an
agreement to keeps tariffs high, which is our right and should be
our right under the GATT. That is exactly what he is trying to do.
He is trying to have them high enough to keep our supply
managed system in place, in tact and secure.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Mr. Speaker, this
is the first opportunity I have had to speak in the House of
Commons. I wish to commence by congratulating you, Sir, on
your appointment and congratulating all newly elected members
on their first venture to the House of Commons. It is quite an
exciting place to be.
I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the former
member for Regina-Lumsden, Mr. Les Benjamin. Les
Benjamin served his constituents and his country for 25 years.
He was a very strong voice on behalf of the people of
Saskatchewan and the people of Canada. In particular he was an
ardent defender of issues such as the wheat board, the Crow rate
and rail transportation. It is with some sadness that I report to
the House that he is now in the hospital and is very ill. I
understand he is doing well in spirit. On behalf of the
constituents of Regina-Lumsden I pay tribute to his service to
the country.
I represent a district which has the capital city of
Saskatchewan, Regina. It is an urban area with some rural parts
to it, including the farms and towns of Lumsden, Regina Beach,
Grand Coulee and Pense. There is also a major steel and pipe
producer in our riding by the name of IPSCO. It employs a
substantial number of people and is a significant contributor to
the economy of both Regina and Saskatchewan.
(1930)
I thank very much the families and the voters of
Regina-Lumsden who have given me their support and their
confidence during the last number of months, and in particular
during the election campaign. I am honoured to be their
representative. I am proud to speak in the House on their behalf.
My commitment to them is to work as hard as I can on their
behalf to ensure they have a voice in Parliament and that they
have someone who will speak about their priorities.
Their priorities are the priorities of the majority of Canadians.
They want a government that is open, honest and accountable for
its actions. They want a government that does all in its power to
ensure that more Canadians are working and that we have a
strong economy. These people in my district-and I think it is
throughout Canada-want more fairness in taxation policies.
They want social programs which meet the needs of our people. I
will work as hard as I can to ensure that the priorities of the
people of Regina-Lumsden are the priorities of the
government and of Parliament.
The throne speech was one of the shortest throne speeches
ever. It is 17 minutes short if it is read very slowly. It leaves
Canadians to wonder if this means the government does not want
to tell us what it is going to do or that it does not know what is
going to happen next. What concerns me is that it is probably the
problem.
This new Parliament is faced with a job crisis in Canada. Over
two million people are out of work. Unemployment is at record
levels, even worse than during the great depression of the 1930s.
Underemployment is widespread and much of the blame has to
rest on the shoulders of the previous government. The previous
Conservative government chose to deregulate industries
causing lost jobs. It chose to have a high interest rate policy. It
cancelled the manufacturers' federal sales tax. It brought in the
GST and implemented other monetary policies which drove jobs
away from Canada.
As well the previous government chose to sign the
U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement and the North American
Free Trade Agreement, both opposed by the Liberals in
opposition but endorsed and embraced by that same party while
in government. The FTA and NAFTA have not only cost
Canadians hundreds of thousands of lost jobs but have reduced
our ability as government to make sovereign decisions which
affect our lives.
As we go through some of the policies of the previous
government one concludes they were all meant to serve the
corporate agenda that allows the powerful corporations the
ability to make their own economic decisions unfettered without
contributing their fair share to the economy. This Conservative
agenda has increased corporate profits, created high
unemployment, driven up government deficits and debt, and
jeopardized our ability to provide the population with jobs and
decent social programs.
What is the answer to the serious problems in our country? By
reading the speech from the throne the Liberal government's
answer appears to be that it does not know. Canadians had better
brace themselves because it looks like the job crisis and the
corporate agenda will continue. What the government must do is
put people first in its agenda rather than the wealthy
corporations and the wealthy families.
It seems to me the government has already shown its lack of
concern for jobs by backing down on NAFTA and by
flip-flopping on the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement which
weakened our economic well being and our manufacturing
sector in particular.
In their throne speech the Liberals have backed down on their
promise of jobs, jobs, jobs by not announcing the apprenticeship
program. An apprenticeship program is desperately needed
across the country by 400,000 jobless young Canadians. Does
this mean the Liberal promise of jobs training for these young
people has been forgotten? It may be forgotten by the Liberals
535
but not by New Democrats or by 400,000 jobless young
Canadians.
(1935 )
There was no mention of creating jobs in agriculture. In fact,
there not even a reference to agriculture in the speech from the
throne. This was an incredible omission considering the recent
GATT decisions in Paris and since the Minister of Agriculture,
the member for Regina-Wascana, has worked so earnestly in
cabinet on behalf of farmers throughout Canada. It is
unbelievable there would be no reference to agriculture after all
his work.
No reference was made to the natural resources sector. This is
a sector that built this country. It was totally ignored in the
speech. It is clear that not only western Canada was ignored in
the throne speech but that unemployed and overtaxed Canadians
everywhere were left wanting as well.
This speech made comments about major overhauls to the
social security system but gave no details about one of the latest
acts of Parliament, Bill C-91, which extended the patent on
some prescription drugs for up to 20 years and guaranteed drug
manufacturers monopoly prices and substantial profits at
Canadians' expense.
Prescription drugs in Canada are the most expensive in the
world as a result of this bill. Yet the Liberal government has
taken no steps to repeal it. Repealing Bill C-91 would reduce the
financial burden on health care consumers in need of
prescription drugs and on provincial government drug plans
which are under great stress as we speak here today.
Repealing this devastating law would also stimulate the
creation of new jobs in the Canadian generic drug
manufacturing sector. As long as this act remains law,
Canadians will continue to suffer life-threatening hardship.
Since this bill was given royal assent, the cost of prescription
drugs has dramatically increased. People using prescription
drugs are being forced to decide between buying life sustaining
drugs or buying life sustaining food, in particular those people
on fixed or low incomes in my riding.
We cannot allow this unfair monopolistic law which allows
international drug companies to charge whatever they want
without competition to continue to hurt those people who
through no fault of their own need help the most. Bill C-91 must
be repealed and must be repealed immediately.
We in the New Democratic Party applaud the recognition by
the government in the throne speech that in some countries
today: ``Democracy is under stress, its future uncertain''.
Canada is under stress too, particularly those Canadians who are
jobless or who are worried about losing their jobs. Canadians are
also anxious and under stress because of their concern for the
possible loss of their social programs which provide a sense of
security to them and their families.
Historically the New Democratic Party has strongly
supported initiatives that build and strengthen democratic
governments and promote peace. We in the New Democratic
Party are Canadian nationalists. We do not believe in a regional
nationalism or an ethnic nationalism. We believe both these
manifestations of nationalism are destructive to our Canadian
unity. We believe strongly that the government should balance
the economic powers in the country to ensure that there is
fairness in the programs for our people.
We have always believed in a strong central government but it
has to reflect the changing realities of our times. We believe
government works best when people are working. If people are
not working, democracy is under stress.
It is hard to talk to people about national unity when they are
unemployed or under employed. When people cannot afford to
have things which they need to live, democracy will always be
under stress.
I am putting this government under notice that the NDP will
not permit the Canadian agenda to be set until the jobless are
working. These are important issues to us and to all Canadians.
I hope the government will follow the quote I have taken from
somebody who said this before with respect to organizing the
government and putting together a program to rebuild our
country. Somebody once said the true test of our democratic
society is not whether we add to the abundance of those who
have much but whether we provide enough for those who have
too little.
(1940)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully
to the speech by the hon. member from the New Democratic
Party. His statement about regionalism caught my attention. He
also said that he favoured a strong central government.
I just want to tell the other members that the only NDP
member ever elected in a by-election in Quebec did not run
again in the last election because of his party's insensitivity. I
think it is worth underlining that aspect to show the insensitivity
of a so-called democratic party towards people from across the
country and particularly towards Quebec. In the end, I think that
the population judged them on that.
536
[English]
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I missed the end of the member's
question. I would appreciate it if he would repeat it.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would ask the hon.
member for Lévis to briefly repeat his comment and question so
that the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden can respond.
Mr. Dubé: Thank you for giving me more time. I basically
said that only once in Quebec's history was an NDP member, the
former hon. member for Chambly, elected in a by-election.
Despite his potential, this devoted and dynamic person decided
not to run again in the last general election and, in our opinion,
his decision was due to his party's insensitivity towards what
was happening in Quebec.
Does his party, having noted the results of the democratic vote
held last October 25, want to review its position regarding a
strong central federal government?
[English]
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the member has put a very
important question. The New Democratic Party believes in
democracy. We went through an election campaign and ran
candidates in every constituency in this country on the basis of a
jobs plan that we felt would work. I thought the jobs plan was
very attractive and popular with many people. As a matter of
fact it was so popular that the Liberal Party basically took it and
put a red cover on it and sold it as their own. Unfortunately it had
a little more success in marketing its program, which was based
on ours, than we did.
I agree with the hon. member that I am not very well versed in
all of the dynamics in Quebec. However we as a party really
believe that government does work. Liberals and Conservatives
fight campaigns on the basis that governments do not work,
elect us and we will prove it.
We believe that government does work. New Democrats have
been in government in Saskatchewan for 36 of the last 50 years
and nationally we have adopted many of their programs, one
being medicare. If we were of the view that government did not
work we probably would not let our names stand to try to
become the government. We want to ensure that government
serves the people from which it derives its power.
I very much believe in the public service. I believe that all of
us in this Parliament have come here with honourable
intentions. I believe that truly. I think all of us want to see
something better for our country after four years in this
Parliament than when we first got here.
I still believe that government has to have certain authority
and certain influence and certain economic instruments to use in
tough economic times. When the economy is very difficult and
there is a lack of jobs, it is extremely important that government
take the initiative and use whatever economic instruments it has
as a central government to create jobs. I still believe very much
in a strong central government. Perhaps it is not understood
across the country as much as we would like, and that is one of
the reasons I made reference to it tonight. I thank the member
very much for the question.
(1945)
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your
appointment to the chair. I would also like to take this
opportunity to congratulate my fellow MPs on their election or
re-election. I would especially like to express my appreciation
to my constituents in Lisgar-Marquette who have put their
trust in me to represent them in this 35th Parliament and to my
good wife, Fran, who has been my constant support and friend
for the last 32 years.
The constituency of Lisgar-Marquette is a very diversified
area. Agriculture is the prominent industry and we grow
everything from vegetables such as commercial potatoes,
onions, carrots, to fruits such as apples and blueberries. We also
grow all coarse grains plus special crops such as lentils, sugar
beets, yellow mustard and oil seeds like canola, sunflower and
flax. We also have beef, dairy, egg and poultry producers.
In manufacturing we produce everything from small line
machinery and grain trailers to recreational vehicles.
Beautiful scenery abounds in Lisgar-Marquette. We are
blessed with the Pembina Valley which offers an abundance of
recreational activities. From the fertile land of the Red River
Valley to the beautiful and unique desert in Spruce Woods Park
at Glenboro, Lisgar-Marquette is truly a rare and exceptional
place to live.
The voters of Lisgar-Marquette sent me to the House of
Commons with one strong message: that the House of Commons
again become the voice of the people and that politicians and
bureaucrats become accountable to the Canadian taxpayers.
The people of Lisgar-Marquette have become very disturbed
about the moral, financial and political state of our country.
What took our forefathers 100 years to build has been
mismanaged to the point of bankruptcy by Liberal and
Conservative governments in the last two decades. The ordinary
working people of this country have continually increased
production so that our country has not had a manufacturing trade
deficit for the last two decades. During one of the most
productive times in our history the elite of our country have not
only mismanaged our
537
economy but have mortgaged the future of our children and
grandchildren.
It is very sad and unacceptable to see two million Canadians
depending on food banks during this past Christmas season as a
direct result of a quarter of a century of political malaise.
In Manitoba a recent survey stated that 20 per cent of the
school children go to school hungry. A United Nations
children's fund report notes that Canada has one of the highest
child poverty rates among the wealthy industrialized nations. In
1989 this House passed a resolution pledging to eliminate child
poverty by the year 2000; in fact, more than 1.2 million
Canadian children were living in poverty in 1991, a 30 per cent
increase in two years in the number of people under 18 whose
families can scarcely afford the essentials of life.
Given that 1991 and 1992 were recession years, it can be
safely assumed that the rate is now even higher. Teachers see it.
Police see it. The courts see it. We all see it, if we dare, the result
of governments' economic mismanagement. Poverty that leaves
our children disadvantaged, apathetic and often hopeless;
poverty that brings Canadian families to turmoil. The cost to our
country is beyond value.
While we in the Reform Party have been given a mandate by
the electorate to streamline government spending and slash the
deficit, an even more important impetus comes from the single
most important future resource, our children. It is on behalf of
these future generations that the Reform Party has accepted the
task of changing some of the policies that have denied Canada
the prosperity it deserves and has cast doubt on the promising
futures that our children deserve.
(1950)
Only through an influx of new attitudes can we build this new
Canada for future generations. Imagine a fiscal reform initiative
where public funds are regarded by governments as funds held
in trust instead of assets that must be spent too often unwisely.
Simply put and speaking as a farmer, it does not seem right
that a banker can tell farmers they will have to pay higher
interest rates because their products are being sold for a bargain
basement price, a price which they have no control over.
At the same time, because of the bank's bad investments in
foreign countries for projects like Canary Wharf, they will again
pay higher service charges and interest to cover the bank's
financial mismanagement of the country's wealth. Where is the
justice in this type of reasoning? How can our youth translate
this type of logic into a promising future?
I heard the Prime Minister say the other day that MPs' salaries
were still far below that of professional hockey players. Well
hockey players are paid for their performance. How should we
rate the performance of MPs over the last two decades? They
have stick-handled their way through the taxpayers'
pocket-book resulting in taxes that are eating up half of their
pay cheques. Any farmer or businessman who continually puts
his or her operation into debt year after year for a quarter of a
century would have long ago been bankrupt and not rewarded
with a gold plated pension.
I have never gone to sow a field in spring from which I have
not expected a bumper crop. As a new politician I also expect a
bumper crop of positive changes in this 35th Parliament. If these
changes do not happen in this Parliament there are 52 very
capable Reform MPs determined to make those changes in the
36th Parliament from the other side of the House.
The Reform spirit was born at Beaver River, has spread into
Ontario and will not be deterred until it reaches the east coast of
Newfoundland. It is only through political, financial and
judicial reform that there will be a future for this great nation of
ours, a future that our children will be anxious to embrace.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the
hon. member for his concern for young people. In my party I am
the critic for youth, and I would say that the problem is the large
number, more than two million, of young people living in
poverty. I think it is extremely important not to forget this fact.
However, a little further in his speech he says that the way to
improve the situation is to lower taxes. He does not even
mention any program that could help people, especially young
people, get out of poverty. Could he comment on that?
[English]
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sure has my
feelings along the line of child poverty.
During my years of farming I saw hundreds or thousands of
farmers go bankrupt because of interest rates as high as 24 per
cent. Today, these farmers are either taking away jobs from
people who are living in the cities or supplementing their farm
income if they have been able to hang on to their land. When one
reads the statistics that over 50 per cent of net farm income
today is received from off farm jobs, we can see why there is
such a problem of destitution among young families, small and
large.
(1955)
I think it is very important that we correct this situation or
there will be no future for this country even if we do clear up the
deficit or whatever we do.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the
hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette if he and his party, the
Reform Party, have reviewed the throne speech to see how much
of it was ongoing items and initiatives that had been
recommended or adopted by the previous government?
538
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there have been
too many adopted. There is an old saying on the farm that kind
words and good intentions do not feed any critters. That is pretty
well all I have heard in this Parliament during the first few
weeks I have been here. I think that is all the farmers and the
unemployed heard in the last Parliament.
I think it needs action, not just words and good intentions.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville):
Congratulations, Mr. Speaker, on your election and
appointment. I also wish to congratulate the Prime Minister and
each of the members elected to this House.
I pledge to support the positive reforms the government
introduces and condemn any and all policies and legislation
which does not have the support of the majority of Canadians or
my constituents.
I have lived in a number of countries in the world and I always
keep coming home to Yorkton-Melville, the heart of Canada's
parkland area.
An issue which has been raised in the House more than any
other is which riding is the most beautiful riding in Canada. I
suggest, when the more pressing issues are behind us, that this
matter could be resolved once and for all in a special day-long
debate.
The voters of Yorkton-Melville deserve a special thank you
for their participation in the democratic process and for electing
me as their servant. I pledge to faithfully represent my
constituents' views in Ottawa regardless of the party or
candidate they supported. I am their spokesperson. Through me
their voices will be heard in this Chamber.
I saved my most important thank you for the last, that being to
my wife Lydia, my family and friends. Without their support I
would not be here.
The throne speech mentions a lot about the need for reform of
the social security system. Unfortunately our so-called safety
nets have been catching more people than the fish nets in
Newfoundland have been catching cod in the last few years. In
fact, in addition to the 1.6 million unemployed there are another
869,000 workers who are so discouraged that they have given up
looking for work. If this is not discouraging enough, the Globe
and Mail reported last week that almost a third of Canada's work
force is locked into insecure jobs. The end result:
unemployment insurance now costs employers, workers and
taxpayers almost $20 billion a year.
Between 1972 and 1992 the number of welfare recipients has
more than doubled to over 2.7 million people. In 1992-93 it cost
the federal government $7.3 billion. Taxpayers get hit again and
again as the provincial and municipal governments have to pay
their share as well. These statistics are clear evidence of a
failing economy.
In Newfoundland it seems that the only nets that are full are
the safety nets. The system, not the people, is to blame.
The replacement of both unemployment insurance and social
assistance with an income supplement plan which would direct
over 85 per cent of the money currently spent on these programs
to the people in Newfoundland who are most in need was
recommended by the Economic Recovery Commission report
recently published.
The report is a condemnation of the existing social security
system. Page 6 of this report states: ``On the whole, the current
system has induced an unconscionable degree of dependency
which is unfair to contributors to the unemployment insurance
fund and, in light of recent fiscal restraints, is not sustainable''.
(2000)
In Saskatchewan our safety nets are also full and overflowing.
In the last 20 years the amount of money spent on social
assistance programs has increased seven times. In 1991-92 the
case-load was over 28,000 people, 47 per cent were considered
fully employable. The taxpayers would not feel so bad if they
saw that the money we were spending was actually solving the
problem. But it is not.
It does not matter whether you live in Cornerbrook,
Newfoundland or Yorkton, Saskatchewan, the system is sick and
getting sicker.
I would like to commend the government for the commitment
to announce an action plan for a major reform of the social
security system within the next two years and for its
commitment to involve Canadians in the consultative process.
I also wish to commend the provincial governments that are
leading the way on income security reform in this country,
particularly the provinces of New Brunswick, Newfoundland
and Alberta. The time for protecting each other's turf is long
past. The time for true innovation and common sense solutions
is at hand. Canadians not only expect this of us, they deserve it.
While we are encouraged by the government's commitment to
undertake a consultative process for the next two years, we are
surprised by the lack of detail about what direction
modernization and restructuring might take. Yes, Canadians
want to be directly involved in the process of change, but they
expect some leadership when we are embarking on what appears
to be a complete overhaul of our income security system.
If the government's action plan is to succeed it will have to
pass several tests. First of all, will our social programs be
financially sustainable or will we keep mortgaging our
children's future?
Second, will unemployment insurance be returned to the
principles of a true insurance plan?
539
The third test is will the government's restructuring address
the weaknesses identified by the Newfoundland Economic
Recovery Commission?
The fourth test is, considering our forty-five billion dollar
deficit this year and our half trillion dollar debt, why is it
necessary for this process to take two years when so much data,
analysis and public input already exists on the subject?
The Reform Party's blue book provides some leadership,
direction and grassroots input. Principle 10 of the Reform Party
Constitution states: ``We believe that Canadians have a personal
and collective responsibility to care and provide the basic needs
of people who are unable to care and provide for themselves''.
Our blue book goes on to state that government should first,
develop a family or household oriented, comprehensive social
security system administered through the income tax system.
Basically, one system would replace all others.
Second, explore all the options including a guaranteed annual
income, security investment fund and a negative income tax, to
name a few.
Third, design several programs that would encourage
families, communities, non-governmental agencies and the
private sector to resume their responsibilities in the social
service areas.
Fourth, target social service benefits to those who need the
help the most.
Last, ensure that our social programs are financially
sustainable in the long term.
In closing, I would ask all members and parties to co-operate
and collaborate as we reform our social safety nets. A net can
have two uses. Nets can stop a person from getting hurt when he
or she falls, but a net can also trap its victims so they cannot get
out. Let us help release many of the people who are trapped in
our safety nets.
In 1989 a report issued by the Economic Council of Canada
said: ``We need to turn our safety nets into trampolines. People
want and need work not welfare. People want and need to be
trained and retrained to survive in this global economy''.
Judith Maxwell, former head of the Economic Council of
Canada, was quoted last week saying: ``Measures to encourage
skills training and mobility could create ladders to help people
climb out of low paying, insecure jobs. Canadian workers need
to know how to hitchhike down the new information highway''.
(2005)
I also believe Canadians have a right to live anywhere they
want in this great country, but they do not have a right to become
permanent wards of the state. We need to create incentives in the
new system that make people independent of government, not
dependent on it.
Let us help people help themselves. Let us eliminate the
duplication of effort by federal and provincial bureaucracies.
Let us provide help to the people who need it most. Let us make
sure our social spending is an investment in the future. Most of
all, let us show the voters of this country that their tax dollars are
being well spent.
I appeal to the House to support freer votes so that all
members have the freedom to vote as their constituents wish and
I appeal to all members to support any and all motions before
this House that reduce the tax burden on all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to comment on what the hon. member for
Yorkton-Melville said. Granted, certain aspects of Canada's
social programs and health programs could be reviewed. But to
do so at the expense of UI and welfare recipients is akin to
blaming the present economic situation and government finance
problems on the have-nots of our society, when we know full
well that this is not the case. The system is allowing abuse to
continue. Just this week, more cases were identified. Reference
was made to tax shelters being commonplace and family trusts
being tax exempt. We could also question the $12 billion Canada
invested in national defence. Another very concrete example
was given this week when the leader of the Reform Party asked
why it was that the Governor General did not pay taxes when he
is earning something in the neighbourhood of $97,000. It looks
good to ask a question like that, but the same people are
denouncing social programs as the cause of our current
economic problems. That makes no sense. I think that Canadians
should be made aware of the need to show compassion for the
less fortunate. I am not saying that there is no abuse. There
probably is. But, goodness gracious, let us not sacrifice what
makes Canada the envy of other nations.
Just this week, we were told that the health care system in
Canada represented 7 or 8 per cent of the GDP, while in the US, it
was 12 to 15 per cent. It is simply not true that our system is
expensive. What is true, on the other hand, is that our public debt
is costing us a lot. In fact, it is too expensive and it is the
ultimate reason why we apparently have to go and cut social
programs. That is the easiest area to make cuts in, because it
affects the less fortunate.
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I am not
exactly sure if a question was asked or whether a statement was
merely made, but I would like to pick up on something that
member said.
It is precisely because we are sympathetic to the
disadvantaged and poor, those who are less fortunate in society
that we need to redesign these programs. That is because we
cannot continue to run deficits and continue to build up our debt
to the
540
point where everything will collapse and we will be left with
nothing.
We need to redesign these programs, to streamline them so
that they meet the needs of Canadians. This is what I am
advocating. It is precisely because we are trying to protect that
element in society which will remain unprotected if we do not
try to do something.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for
Yorkton-Melville on his maiden speech and say it was a
pleasure to hear it.
My question regards the blue book. I wish the hon. member
would elaborate a little on the negative income tax and financial
fiscal management in that regard.
(2010)
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): It would take a bit of
time to elaborate on the negative income tax. Basically
something like that would work in this way: If a person was
below a certain income, instead of paying income tax he would
receive a certain percentage. I must say at the outset that the
purpose of this is to create an incentive for people to work and
earn money, not that the minute they do this they are penalized
the amount they earn by not receiving a certain amount in social
security payments or Canada assistance or whatever it is.
That is the purpose of a negative income tax. A level would be
developed. If someone did not reach that level he would get a
certain percentage. If someone went over that level of course he
would begin to pay income tax. In that way an incentive to find
work is built into the system and people are not penalized for
finding work.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, before and during the election campaign we in the
Liberal Party, and several other parties as well, criticized the
Conservative government for promoting high unemployment
and pursuing the wrong policies for debt reduction. We said that
the government's obsession with inflation and government
spending was wrong. The economy went into recession, we had
record bankruptcies, unemployment soared to 11 per cent and
the national debt tripled.
We said that while some expenditures had to be cut, especially
wasteful and non-productive expenditures, the principal
emphasis had to be on job creation and economic growth.
Under the Tory approach, people were put out of work, tax
revenue declined, welfare and unemployment insurance
payments increased, and the deficit grew.
Under the plan put forward by the Liberal Party, Canadians
would go back to work, companies would make profits, both
would pay taxes and there would be less unemployment
insurance, welfare and bail-outs to certain companies, and the
deficit would be reduced.
In the speech from the throne the Liberal government
committed itself to these goals, and I quote: ``The government
attaches the highest priority to job creation and economic
growth in the short term and the long term.''
We have put forward our commitment for the municipal
infrastructure program; the residential rehabilitation assistance
program, which is a program to restore our older housing and
thereby create jobs and leave us with a better bank of housing;
the youth service corps, which will help young people build the
bridge between school and the workplace; better access to
capital for small business; the Canadian investment fund to
develop new technology; more research and development; and
improved training and retraining.
These are only some of the things that have been put forward
in the speech from the throne. During this debate the various
ministers have come forward to explain in greater detail some of
those programs.
While I am a strong proponent of training, retraining,
advanced education and lifetime learning, we cannot presume
that this alone will solve the unemployment problem. Some
people have suggested that a greater percentage of the
unemployment insurance fund should be used for training.
However, I must remind them and others that a substantial
number of unemployed Canadians are already fully trained.
Their problem is not training but the lack of jobs.
Furthermore, we must assure that the training programs are
directed to the real economic needs of the country. On the one
hand too often we are training people for trades that no longer
are demanded by business and the public sector and on the other
hand we have no courses for trades that are often in demand. I
have seen that very often in my own city of Montreal where
people are taking training courses. They finish the courses and
there are no jobs available. On the other hand employers and
businesses are looking for people to train and there is no one
being trained in those areas.
(2015)
In any case I welcome the review of income support and social
security programs such as proposed in the speech from the
throne to be initiated by the Minister of Human Resources
Development. I believe we will be debating that proposal on
Monday.
I would now like to deal with some of the objections that we
hear with respect to the government's economic program to
create jobs and stimulate growth. First we heard during the
election campaign, and we still hear it today, that the
infrastructure program is simply a large scale attempt to fix
potholes and will not create any permanent jobs.
To begin with this program has the support of all the provinces
in Canada and the great majority of all the municipalities. It is
much more than fixing potholes, which is a very simplistic
response to a very important program.
541
The minister and the Prime Minister have said that the
interpretation of infrastructure will be a very wide one. It will
apply to roads, highways, ports, airports, sewage systems,
public transportation, communications systems, water
treatment facilities, bridges, and so on. These public works will
create direct and indirect jobs while being built. The indirect
jobs of course are those which will be supplying the construction
materials, all the materials that are needed in bringing about the
renewal and building of such infrastructure projects. We also at
the same time create a better environment for private investment
in the renewed, better equipped cities and towns.
This is what attracts tourists, attracts business and attracts
economic growth. Such a restoration of our infrastructure will
also help restore confidence which is an important ingredient in
stimulating investment and growth.
Another objection was raised in this House, and it was raised
by several members of the Reform Party, but in particular by the
leader of the Reform Party on the first day that we had a
Question Period. I refer to a question which he asked of the
Prime Minister. He referred to a question which had been sent to
him by Dr. Dean Eyre of Ottawa who said, and I am quoting from
Hansard:
The government proposes to spend $6 billion on infrastructure and create
65,000 jobs. Has the government calculated how many jobs might have been
created if that $6 billion were simply cut from the taxes of individuals, property
owners and small businesses?
To begin with, as I stated a few minutes ago, all our cities and
provinces need up to date infrastructure if they are to operate
efficiently and attract private investment. We need highways,
we need railroads, we need canals, we need the St. Lawrence
Seaway. Mr. Speaker, that was a great infrastructure program
many years ago and it is very close to your constituency. We
need airports, we need telephone and telecommunications
systems, we need schools, we need universities, justice systems
and police forces which are all part of what might be called in a
broader sense our infrastructure. If we do not build and keep our
infrastructure up to date we become a third-class nation.
As I said earlier not only do we create direct and indirect jobs
in building and restoring our infrastructure, but once we build a
modern infrastructure system we attract investment for still
further jobs.
However there is a supposition in the question put forward by
the leader of the Reform Party on behalf of Dr. Eyre, that if we
return $6 billion to the taxpayers we would have even more jobs.
There is certainly no guarantee of that. Every society has to
guarantee that it has the essential infrastructure to operate as a
modern state.
(2020)
We are not at all what sure would happen if we simply
returned this particular $6 billion to Canadian taxpayers. I want
to make it clear that I believe a very good percentage of our
incomes must be left to spend as we wish as individuals and as
consumers. On the other hand, as a society we have to ensure
that we have the social capital to exist as a modern state.
Some of the people might spend a good percentage of that
money, if we returned it to them, outside the country either as
consumers or investors. Some might use it entirely for
consumption, for consumer goods. Some might use it for illegal
cigarettes or other types of illegal products, drugs and so on.
Some might put it in their drawer or their sock. No doubt there
would be some investment. There would be some private
investment if that money were returned to taxpayers.
However there would be no guarantee that it would be
invested in jobs, while society through its government can
ensure that it is used for basic essential infrastructure that will
attract business and in the long run will put more money in the
pockets of our citizens.
We in the Liberal Party believe in a mixed economy. The
greatest eras of prosperity in Canada, the United States and
Europe have been accomplished under mixed economies.
Experience shows us that the extremes of socialism or the
extremes of free market systems do not work as well.
That is the message in the speech from the throne. Jobs and
economic growth are our highest priority. We believe the
Government of Canada, along with the provinces, has an
important role to play with business and labour in achieving
these goals.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
am wondering if the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce
remembers the early eighties when we had 24 per cent interest
rates that were caused by his government. We also had a
transportation policy formed by his government that did away
with thousands of miles of railway track. It put thousands of
farmers out of business. It closed oil drilling rigs.
I am wondering how all of a sudden infrastructure is so dear to
his heart. Would he please explain that?
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I remember well the eighties. I
remember the seventies, the sixties and the fifties as well. To
attribute the interest rates of the eighties entirely to the federal
government is an extremely simplistic approach. There were
high interest rates in many western countries at the time. It was
immediately after the OPEC oil crisis. Many other pressures
were brought together in the world at the time. All governments
were struggling to deal with the high interest rates and the
conditions that were described.
542
If the member wants to remember periods of Liberal
government, I remember the period of Mr. Pearson in the early
sixties when we had 2 to 3 per cent unemployment for four
consecutive years. As a student I can remember the period under
Mr. St. Laurent when we had five to six years of full
employment. I can remember the period under Mr. Trudeau
when we averaged between 5 to 7 per cent unemployment.
I am saying that there is a role for government in our
economy. I am not a socialist. I do not believe in a fully
controlled socialist economy. Nor do I believe in the approach
taken by the Reagans, the Thatchers, and the Mulroneys who
believed they could withdraw altogether and just wish that
things would go well.
I believe there is a role to play by governments with labour
and business. Under those types of governments we had the
highest eras of prosperity in Canadian history and Canada has
become a great nation because of that approach.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, I was very
pleased to hear the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce
remind us that, in the end, the high cost of social assistance and
unemployment insurance is directly related to an excessive
unemployment rate. Really, it is a lack of jobs, I do not think I
misinterpret him when I say that. There is, indeed, a lack of jobs,
which means that people are not necessarily unemployed
because of a lack of skill. He was right when saying that.
(2025)
Representing a riding with includes Laval University, an
institution centuries old with over 35,000 students, I am rather
aware of that reality.
I have a question for the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. Does he think that work-sharing could,
in the future, be a way to get trained young people, full of
enthusiasm but unable to find a job, out of unemployment and
social assistance? If we shared better what we have, would that
not be a solution?
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, a very interesting proposal which
is now under serious consideration in many countries of the
world is the fact that we share our employment more equitably
among various people. For example, several European countries
are now discussing the shorter work week or the shorter work
day so that they could spread employment more fairly among a
greater number of people.
In this modern age our production for the most part is
achieved through technology, machines and robots, not simply
by the sweat and blood of workers but by the use of their brains,
their intelligence, their imagination and through high training.
As a matter of fact that is what will happen. There will be a
greater sharing of work and there are many means to achieve
that. I would hope the committee on human resources which will
be established in the House in a week or so will examine that as
one of the possibilities in looking at a better distribution of work
and a better approach to income support and social security.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate you on your new position in the House. I would like
to let you know that the Speaker and his deputy speakers can
count on my support as I have counted on your friendship over
the past few years. As you preside over lively debates in the
years ahead, I hope we all remember how lucky we are to live in
a democracy in which lively debates are not only allowed but
encouraged.
I also welcome the 205 new members of Parliament.
[Translation]
As the Prime Minister was saying last week, the
unprecedented number of new members brings to the House of
Commons a tremendous energy for renewal.
[English]
Most of all I thank the voters of Hamilton Mountain for giving
me the honour of representing them again in Parliament. I shall
do my very best to fulfil their trust.
Indeed the issue of trust is central in the throne speech. I
remember well when the Prime Minister came to Hamilton
during the election and held up his now famous red book entitled
``Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada''. The
Prime Minister promised that if elected he would make the red
book the basis for a Liberal government. With this throne speech
the Prime Minister has kept his word. He has honoured the trust
of the voters.
Frankly I am surprised to hear opposition members complain
that the throne speech is merely a restatement of our election
promises. They should be applauding the fact that the Prime
Minister is going to do what he promised to do. They should
applaud the fact that the Prime Minister is keeping faith with
Canadians.
From the day he was sworn in, the Prime Minister has kept his
word. We can look at his record in the first two months. The
Prime Minister said that he would cancel the $5.8 billion
helicopter deal, and he did. He said that he would have the
smallest cabinet ever, and he has. He promised to cut $10
million from the offices of the cabinet ministers, and he made
those cuts. The Prime Minister said he would reduce the
expenses of Parliament, and he has already reduced those
expenses by $5 million. The Prime Minister stopped the costly
privatization of Pearson airport. He is stopping excessive
spending overseas by integrating our embassies with those of
Australia. He appointed a new Governor of the Bank of Canada.
He is reviewing the pensions of members of Parliament. He is
selling the prime ministerial airbus.
543
(2030)
In the House we have seen major changes in the first three
weeks of the first session of the 35th Parliament. We have had
debate in which we could all participate before a bill is
presented by the government. We have debated peacekeeping
and nuclear arms. Next week we will be debating social policy.
Also for the first time we will all be able to participate in a
pre-budget debate.
Those are all major accomplishments but, even more
important, the government has already made major changes to
our country's policies for economic growth. The new economic
approach will make a real difference for my constituency and
my city of Hamilton.
The government is implementing the national infrastructure
program. We will sign agreements with every province and
projects to put Canadians back to work will start in a matter of
weeks.
In the very first Question Period of this new Parliament the
Prime Minister pointed out the support he had received for the
infrastructure program from the mayor of Hamilton. New
municipal projects mean new construction jobs. New
construction jobs mean new steel jobs. That is what Canadians
want, and that is what the government is delivering. That is what
Hamiltonians want, and that is what the government is
delivering to Hamilton.
Canadians do not expect miracles from the government but
they do expect realistic hope and realistic job policies. That is
why the infrastructure program is so important. It provides a
kickstart for our economy at a time when the economy most
needs that kickstart.
This same sound approach is at the heart of the government's
policy with respect to trade. The Prime Minister said that he
would only agree to implement NAFTA if he obtained an
agreement from the United States and Mexico to negotiate on
the issue of subsidies, dumping and countervail. This new
government obtained those agreements.
The new NAFTA working groups on dumping and subsidies
are a major step forward in stopping American harassment of
Canadian exports. The road ahead is not going to be easy, but it
is very important to note that this government has managed to
get the United States to agree to a two-year timeframe to deal
with the critical issues.
The new working groups are particularly important to the city
of Hamilton since there have been more American trade actions
against steel than against any other Canadian export during the
last several years. The added benefits is that Mexico will also be
party to these negotiations, a significant advance when we
consider that Canadian steel is currently facing four separate
trade actions by Mexico.
I do not pretend that the government has solved all of
Canada's problems in our first two months in office, but I do
believe that the government has taken major steps and we have
acted quickly to make good on our election promises. Job
creation and integrity in government were the Prime Minister's
electoral commitments and he is carrying through on those
commitments. Of course there remains much to do.
We need better access for small businesses to capital funding.
We need to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers. We need to
create the Canada investment fund to support leading edge
technology firms. We need to reduce the regulatory burden on
business. We need to reduce the deficit through more measures
for long-term job creation. We need to protect and strengthen
our health care system. We need to make our communities and
our streets safer. We need to bring in a youth service corps. We
certainly need to replace the GST.
(2035 )
We cannot do everything at once but we can and we must take
those actions necessary to give every Canadian the opportunity
to be the best that he or she can be. We can and we must treat
every Canadian with dignity, fairness and compassion. We can
and we must ensure that Canada is competitive, tolerant,
independent and proud.
[Translation]
There is much to do in Parliament. During the last two months
and in the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister has
demonstrated his leadership qualities.
[English]
As I said at the outset I think we are extraordinarily fortunate
to live in a democracy where we can have lively debates. I hope
that we remember as we have those debates that we are here to
represent Canadians who expect us to put job creation and
integrity first. I look forward to working with all members of
Parliament as we pursue those goals.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, first I
want to congratulate the hon. member and thank her for her
speech. In fact, we have something in common. I am referring to
a shared concern about the steel industry, which is important in
my riding as well. We have two big steel mills, Sidbec Dosco
and Stelco McMaster.
I found the feverish enthusiasm with which the hon. member
described the achievements of her government, so far, and those
of the Prime Minister, almost moving. She mentioned several,
starting with the cuts in the House of Commons budgelt.
544
At this point I think I should remind the hon. member that
theoretically the House of Commons is entirely independent of
the government and that not the government but the parties
represented in the House made these budget cuts. Members
themselves reduced the House budget-at the request, of course,
of the Prime Minister, but in any case, the consent of the parties
was essential. I may add the Bloc Quebecois did its share in this
respect.
The hon. member also mentioned the debates we had Tuesday
and Wednesday on the presence of Canadian peacekeepers in
Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia and on cruise missile testing
on Canadian territory.
The hon. member will also remember that yesterday we
protested the fact that these debates were held before the
government announced its defence policy. What was said
yesterday may no longer be relevant if the government decides
to take a different stand. I think the debate itself was entirely
appropriate but the timing was wrong.
The hon. member also talked about all kinds of other
so-called successes which I will not mention here. I would
rather emphasize what this government has not done or rather
where it has failed so far. Did the hon. member forget that the
government failed miserably on the issue of free trade, for
instance? During the election campaign, the Liberals said they
would not implement the free trade agreement unless they
obtained a certain number of guarantees on the environment and
resources, and unless they were given a definition of the word
subsidy. They did not obtain any of these guarantees or
definitions before the agreement was implemented.
Similarly, on the subject of GATT, the government caved in
miserably and failed to protect Article XI which is so important
for farmers. I imagine the hon. member does not have any
farmers in her riding. I do have a few, in fact I have quite a
number of farmers in my riding, and that is one difference. So I
would say we are a little disappointed in the government's
performance.
Finally, I would like to ask the hon. member, since she
mentioned the government's achievements, whether it will take
very long for the government to do something about cigarette
smuggling and then about tax equity.
Could we have some answers on these issues which are still
pending?
(2040)
[English]
Ms. Phinney: I thank the hon. member for his kind words. I
do not think we are going to have to wait very long for very many
decisions. The decisions and the problems that the government
is looking at right now are going to be handled with the help of
all Canadians.
Most of the ministers have spoken already in the House and
talked of the process where they are going to be opening up the
decision making. The changes that the Canadian people have
asked for are going to come about by their input and by all the
people in the House of Commons participating.
I am interested that he has a steel industry in his community
and I hope that he will participate even further in what is going
on in the House of Commons by joining the steel caucus.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the
people from the riding of Drummond for their confidence in me;
I will try to discharge my mandate to the best of my knowledge
and with total dedication.
What I heard last Tuesday in the Senate does not reflect in any
way the strong program that Quebecers and Canadians had a
right to expect to regain a feeling of hope and confidence in the
future. That is why I want to convey to this House and to the
government my concerns and those of my colleagues concerning
the throne speech, and the health care system in particular.
Unfortunately, the meagre content of the throne speech in this
respect creates more fears than hopes. Our fellow citizens are
expecting solutions to the problems associated with our
deteriorating health care system, such as bed closures, crowded
emergency wards, higher drug prices, and so on. Let us take for
example the acute crisis prevailing in Sainte-Croix Hospital of
Drummondville in my riding. Inadequate funding and severe
budget cutbacks have led to obsolete equipment, a lack of
specialists, frequent service cuts, split shifts and patient
transfers. All this makes life harder for staff and patients alike.
What hope does the throne speech give us that these
unacceptable situations will be resolved? Very little, I'm afraid,
Mr. Speaker.
Let us talk about federal transfer payments and established
programs financing. We must first recognize that the finance
minister's commitment to improve equalization payments every
five years is certainly reassuring for all provinces.
But we must not confuse equalization payments with transfer
payments. In 1986, the previous government, criticized on many
occasions by the current Prime Minister, started to reduce
federal transfers for established programs financing. In 1987,
the Tories announced that Canadian provinces and Quebec
would receive $270 million less for health care and
post-secondary education.
Worse still, they announced in February 1991 that per capita
transfer payments for established programs financing would be
frozen until 1994-95. All these measures were applied
unilaterally, without the consent of Quebec and the other
provinces, despite the formal agreement reached by the parties
in 1977. So, between 1978 and 1993, the federal government's
contribution
545
to health care and post-secondary education programs in
Quebec fell from 47 to 34 per cent.
As we all know, whenever transfer payments are reduced, it is
the poorest provinces that suffer the most. What we are talking
about is fairness for the provinces and Quebec. A freeze in
federal transfers for established program financing is in itself a
serious threat to the principles set forth in the Canada Health
Act.
(2045)
Therefore the Official Opposition intends to promote a review
of the transfer payment procedures, in a way that will respect the
financial capacity of Quebec, the provinces and Canada.
We must also stress that as the federal government got out of
funding this program, the provinces and Quebec faced increased
costs for health care. This growth is due to several factors, like
the aging population, the appearance of costly advanced medical
technology and higher drug prices.
The taxpayers of Quebec and Canada entrust the federal
government with large sums of money, part of which has always
been intended for health care under the 1977 agreement. The
problem is that for 10 years, the federal government has not
given the portion due back to the provinces and Quebec and thus
diverts funds meant for health care. Instead, what it transfers to
Quebec and the provinces is its deficit, a consequence of the
previous government's inability to control its spending. We are
talking about a reduction of nearly a third in transfer payments
here. This has had major consequences on the financial health of
Quebec and the provinces. If the present Liberal government
just froze transfer payments, it would mean a cut equal to the
increase in the cost of living.
The federal government would be making the choices which
Quebec and the provinces have to make more difficult as they try
to cover their shortfall and reduce their tax burden. Since greater
efficiency is unlikely in the short term, Quebec and the
provinces would be faced with two equally unpleasant options:
reducing the quantity or quality of services or going further into
debt. In either case, we are not telling anyone anything new
when we say that it is still the poorest people who will suffer the
most.
Let me point out to this House that neither Quebec nor the
provinces are asking for charity here. They are only demanding
the money which is their due under an official agreement,
remember.
Furthermore, we question the federal government's right and
justification in requiring the provinces to maintain certain
health insurance procedures, after the Conservative government
in its nine years in power systematically went back on its
financial commitments with respect to transfer payments.
As a result, the provinces and Quebec have been forced, in
spite of themselves, to propose various so-called palliative
measures in recent years, such as user fees, service charges,
deductibles and so on. All these alternatives have one thing in
common: they make health care and services less accessible.
The federal government must be sensitive and above all aware
that by increasing the financial burden of Quebec and the
provinces, a two-tier system will be created: on one hand, those
who can afford access to health care and services, and on the
other, those who for financial reasons will delay treatment or
even do without necessary care.
We believe in the great principles of universality,
comprehensiveness, accessibility, portability and public
administration. What we oppose is that these great principles are
seriously threatened in all provinces and Quebec by the federal
government's very inability to meet its commitments.
(2050)
As my hon. colleagues realize as well as I do, in Quebec like
elsewhere, it is always the same people who have to foot the bill.
In terms of transfer payments, the federal government takes
money out of the pockets of the taxpayers and transfers it to the
provincial government. Basically, the taxpayers' money is
taking a round trip to Ottawa.
But this trip has a price. In Ottawa, the bureaucracy takes its
cut. Consequently, some of the taxpayers' money does not come
back. That part is kept here to satisfy the appetite of the federal
administration.
Just last week, the Minister of Finance warned us not to
expect any gifts when transfer payment agreements expiring
next year are renegotiated.
Would it not make more economic sense and make the
taxpayers feel safer if they were to pay directly to their
provincial government the money they owe for health care,
thereby eliminating the federal intermediary, the additional
costs and, more importantly, the risk that the federal
government will grab this money to reduce its deficit?
In view of the fact that the federal government did not manage
to make good its promises in the past, we are convinced that the
people of Canada would be better served in terms of health care
if each of the provinces and Quebec took things in hand and
looked after implementing the Canada Health Act themselves.
This way, the bureaucratic load would be significantly
reduced and management would be exercised much closer to
home and be much easier to adapt to the specific requirements of
the situation, as it would be more responsive and effective in the
short term. It would also take away the sword that hangs over the
heads of Quebec and the other provinces with every new federal
budget!
546
Health also calls for prevention. As we all know, an ounce of
prevention is better than a pound of cure, however good the care
system is. This is to say that in terms of prevention, any budget
cut that is not immediately compensated by an equivalent
increase in the efficiency of the programs affected would
translate into a cost increase higher than the expected savings.
The best prevention with regard to health is to enhance the
socio-economic condition of the people of Quebec and Canada.
A large segment of the population could be negatively affected
by the precarious state of the economy in Quebec and
everywhere in Canada.
From Saint John's to Victoria, women and men, young and
old, live in socio-economic conditions that do not allow them to
develop their full potential. We all have in our ridings families
living under the poverty line and barely surviving.
Pregnant women are not eating appropriately, preventing the
foetus from developing normally. Several newborns are
underweight and require prolonged hospital care. Others are
born with diseases due to deficiencies in their mothers' diet and
require treatment during several years. The prenatal nutrition
programs announced in the throne speech will have to provide a
real solution to this important problem.
School children are even reported to be starving because the
fridge is almost empty at the end of the month. These children
often do badly in school and drop out before getting a diploma.
We must do something for these children.
People who cannot find decent housing are even worse off. As
it was pointed out in the health and welfare policy issued in 1992
by the Quebec government, living in a run-down apartment with
poor heat and poor ventilation is particularly harmful to the
health of young children and seniors.
(2055)
Therefore, the social housing problem is extremely serious in
every province, including Quebec. This situation cannot go on
forever.
One of the best ways to reduce health costs is to enable
everybody to live in adequate and decent conditions. And it is by
providing decent jobs that we will be able to improve the
situation.
Also, even though we agree with the efforts of the Department
of Health to reduce tobacco consumption, we deeply regret the
program implemented by the previous government to increase
taxes on tobacco. This program, which is a disaster, has
generated four major adverse effects.
First, the creation of a contraband network and a black market
which have generated uncontrollable and unnecessary illegal
and criminal activities. Second, tobacco sales have dropped
everywhere, resulting in a sharp drop in profits for businesses.
Consequently, tax revenues have also been reduced drastically.
Finally, and this is both unfortunate and ironic, the emergence of
this black market has not only prevented the expected reduction
in tobacco consumption, but has in fact provoked an increase in
consumption among young people, if only because of the appeal
of cigarettes as a contraband product.
It is a real shame that this House is responsible for having
provoked such a serious and unnecessary crisis when there are
so many real problems to tackle. Therefore, we ask the new
government to reduce drastically taxes on tobacco products.
The throne speech states in less than two lines that a Centre
for Excellence for women's health will be established to ensure
that women's health issues will receive the attention they
deserve. This project is certainly commendable, but will it be a
true program for support, research and action for women's
health or will it be merely a documentation centre as the Liberal
government program seemed to suggest?
What funds will be targeted to research on women's health?
There are deficiencies in the research on breast cancer,
gynaecology and obstetrics, chronic and degenerative diseases,
mental health, violence and occupational illnesses. If it is the
socio-economic situation of women which determines their
health needs, what concrete measures are needed to eliminate
these unfortunate conditions? It is urgent to act and to go to the
roots of the problem. Women are poor and that is the reason for a
lot of their health problems.
Everybody has a brother, a sister, or a friend struggling with a
drug or alcohol addiction. We urge the government to give
special support to organizations which work for the detoxication
and rehabilitation of those who are affected by such problems.
The throne speech mentions a national forum on health to
foster a dialogue on the renewal of Canada's health system. We
can only praise the government for this initiative but, at the
same time, we are concerned that this type of exercise might
take too long to get under way, might cost too much and might
end with a report which will be shelved. The Bloc Quebecois
will strongly criticize any attitude which would lead such an
initiative to flop.
The Bloc will also ensure that the government does not use
this forum to justify unilateral changes in transfer payments
which would be to the detriment of Quebec's and the other
provinces' interests. Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois' mandate is to
547
ensure that the poor will not have to suffer from changes made
for fiscal consolidation purposes.
This is why, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, we
are adamant that the government must set up a House committee
whose mandate will be to review each budget item in order to
eliminate unnecessary and frivolous expenses.
(2100)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in order to protect the health of
Quebecers and Canadians, the government must guarantee to all
the provinces that they will get their fair share of the money paid
by taxpayers to this end, as well as the all services which
Quebecers and Canadians desperately need.
The Official Opposition intends to intervene in a useful way
and, if necessary, as energetically as required, to ensure that
each citizen of Quebec and Canada has access to the health care
and services which they need.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate
the hon. member for Drummond on her maiden speech to the
House. It is obvious that she has some interesting ideas.
First of all, I have a comment. I think she should put some
questions about the issues raised in her speech to her leader,
since he was a member of the former federal government and, as
she well knows, that government was responsible for almost all
of the cuts that were made and for causing serious hardship to
people across Canada. Her leader often supported this
government in the House, as did many of his colleagues. I think
she should be putting the questions about the problems the
country is now experiencing to him, not to this government.
I believe the hon. member also broached the subject of the tax
on tobacco products. What course of action does she advocate?
Would she prefer to see the tax remain in place, along with the
associated loss of revenues, or would she prefer that it be
replaced with another tax? The former government tried
something else. It imposed an export tax on cigarettes.
Obviously there were some problems with this decision because
the government later suspended the tax. What would the hon.
member have the government do now? Impose a new tax,
suspend the tax altogether or what? She was not very specific. I
would like to hear her answer.
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon.
colleague on the other side for his remarks. What the Bloc
Quebecois is calling for is the removal or elimination of federal
taxes on cigarettes. The black market is thriving and this is the
only way to curb the illegal activities now taking place.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I want to agree
with the hon. member's comment that the social economic
condition is extremely important to health care. The Minister of
Human Resources Development is certainly looking at ways of
improving the social safety net and making better use of every
dollar spent.
The hon. member made a comment that I am intrigued and
curious about. It was along the lines that a return trip to Ottawa
is at a cost, I think implying that the trips of MPs and others
coming to Ottawa that you leave dollars here and it is a drain.
(2105 )
The perception is that Ottawa is English Canada and it is a
drain on all the taxpayers of Canada. Now I am not a lover of the
bureaucracy by any means, I am a critic of it and we have to
make improvements there.
However has the hon. member given any thought or does she
know the economic spinoff in terms of the central government's
efforts, Parliament and all the ministries, that go to Hull as a
result? What would the losses be to Hull and to the province of
Quebec if the Bloc ever got its desire to separate Quebec from
Canada?
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that
he did not understand me at all when I referred to the return trip
taken by taxpayers' money. As you know, health care is paid for
by taxpayers, by the provinces, including Quebec. Taxpayers
send money to pay the federal government for health care. The
federal government administers and manages; the department of
health administers and provides health care to pay for medicare.
But the federal government does not do a favour to taxpayers.
Taxpayers pay their share. What I am saying is that when the
money which comes from the provinces, from the taxpayers,
goes to the provinces who then send on here the taxes paid by
people for these services, it costs a lot of money to administer.
The federal government takes its share, it takes its money, and
then gives some back to the provinces so that they can
administer their health programs.
And it is this administration by the federal government which
costs a lot of money. If each province was in charge, and if
taxpayers gave their money to the province, which would
manage its own health care program, it would be cheaper and
hospitals would not have a deficit such as is the case right now.
That is what I wanted to say.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to start with a comment on the presentation made by the
hon. member for Drummond who is to be commended for her
excellent speech.
First of all, I entirely approve of her proposal that the
provinces should themselves raise, and be allowed to keep, the
amounts they need to operate the health care system. However,
as we know, under the present system this is unthinkable. So we
must ensure that transfer payments to the provinces are not
affected, so that the provinces can continue to be responsible for
and provide health care services to their residents. I may remind
hon. members opposite that during the election campaign, the
Prime Minister promised that he would not tamper with transfer
payments to the provinces.
548
The hon. member also made a very careful analysis of the two
perverse consequences of a possible reduction in transfer
payments for health care. First of all, there would be a reduction
in services. And, as she so astutely pointed out, the neediest
members of our society would suffer most because they are
unable to pay the user-fee or health tax that might be introduced
by the province if transfer payments were cut. They would either
postpone medical appointments or not go at all.
Furthermore, as I pointed out myself, this might increase the
tax burden, because if the federal government reduces transfer
payments to the provinces, that does not necessarily mean it will
lower its tax rates. Consequently, the provinces will have to pick
up the slack, either by increasing their own tax revenues or by
asking residents for a bigger contribution to the health care
system. And this illustrates the other perverse effect I was
mentioning previously. It is a kind of vicious circle: increased
burden for the taxpayer on the one hand, and reduced services on
the other. I believe, therefore, that the perverse consequences
are too important to even consider a reduction of transfer
payments to the provinces.
(2110)
Besides, I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime
Minister promised not to cut transfer payments to provinces.
However, we will have to watch carefully to make sure that
those payments are not frozen at their present level, since that
would amount, in the long run, to a reduction equivalent to
inflation. The government will have to keep the promise it made
during the campaign and index transfer payments to provinces
to the consumer price index.
[English]
Mr. Harry Verran (South West Nova): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair. Your
guidance and leadership will be appreciated by all in this House.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this first session of the
35th Parliament as a duly elected representative for the riding of
South West Nova. It is a pleasure, indeed an honour to have been
elected by the people of South West Nova to represent them and
to bring their concerns to the government and to this House.
The Prime Minister and this government have been given a
clear mandate by the people of Canada to implement the
programs as outlined in the now famous red book.
South West Nova is a riding in the southwestern part of Nova
Scotia. It was represented by Coline Campbell for many years.
Coline did not seek re-election this time and I want to wish
Coline and her husband Ron, God speed and good health in the
future.
South West Nova is a riding rich in history and dates back to
Champlain's landing in 1604. The riding has a diverse cultural
mix of native Canadians as well as English and French speaking
people. As a matter of fact, the Acadians in South West Nova
proudly celebrated their 225th anniversary this past year with
festivities mainly centering in and round the University of St.
Anne at Church Point in the district of Clare. This small degree
granting university has the distinction of having the best
immersion program in this country.
I want to say that I intend to maintain a close personal
relationship with the people of my riding and to the best of my
ability give them personal service.
For generations our people have made their living through the
use of natural resources, the sea, the land and the forests.
However, in recent years our people have found it difficult to
make a living from those resources. The fishing industry has
been crippled mainly because of mismanagement.
Our ground fishermen are second to none in this country and
have co-operated with management to help keep this fishery
alive. The thanks these same fishermen received in return for
their co-operation from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
was a mid-season quota cut which resulted in great monetary
loss for bought quota and a reduction of 40 per cent in their
catches.
These fishermen were betrayed and lost all trust in the
department of fisheries. Our fishermen want better management
of these fishing industries where justice and fairness play
leading roles. The fishermen of South West Nova want to work
and they want to fish.
(2115 )
Recently I had the privilege of meeting with the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans to voice my concerns for those fishermen
of South West Nova. I am pleased the minister indicated to me
and to the deputy minister that he too wanted fairness in his
fisheries policies so that the people in the industry could regain
that lost trust.
The fishermen want to co-operate but insist they must have
some input into the decision-making process. I am pleased that
at a meeting with the minister of fisheries just today he again
reinforced his commitment to visit the fishermen in South West
Nova in the very near future. I will be reminding the hon.
minister when the near future is here.
In the forest industry our riding is also experiencing some
problems. Small woodlot owners have great difficulty trying to
549
survive. Years ago when a small woodlot owner ran into
difficulty and when things were tough and hard, he was allowed
o go into the woods and cut a few cords of wood and sell it to the
local people. Under the present regulations a man cannot even
do that in order to bring bread to the table for his family. It is
time to realize that this is also a problem. We have to work to
rectify it.
The only mining activity in our riding was centred around the
tin mine in Yarmouth County. This mine is closed because of
falling world tin prices. The result is 400 more people out of
work. This, together with the closing of the textile mill in
Yarmouth has left the town and area with over 600 more people
unemployed. The people of Yarmouth, Argile and Clare are
working together in an effort to bring new business and industry
to the area and are in great need of this government's assistance.
In Bridgetown, the friendly town, one of the two main
industries has closed with the loss of many jobs. The people of
Bridgetown will not give up as they continue to try to attract new
business.
Farming in the constituency continues to survive reasonably
well even though the traditional family farm is slowly
disappearing and with it the opportunity for young men and
women to live and work at home. Because of this we need to find
alternative ways to keep our children employed, one of which
could be the expansion of small business.
Small business in South West Nova has provided employment
for many of our citizens but has depended largely on the success
of our natural resources. The decline of these natural resources
automatically means the decline of others and this is a situation
we are currently facing.
Our government must look closely at the rural areas and small
towns of our country and encourage small businesses. We must
provide the economic climate necessary for people to risk their
time and capital.
Last but certainly not least is the issue of CFB Cornwallis, an
issue that is very near and dear to my heart. As a young sailor I
served at CFB Cornwallis and it has always brought back fond
memories for me. South West Nova has been the home of this
base for over 50 years. Since 1949 it has served as the only
English speaking recruit training centre for Canada.
In December I had the opportunity to meet with the Minister
of National Defence with regard to this issue. I explained to the
minister the history of CFB Cornwallis as a recruit training base
and I spoke to him about a recently developed peacekeeping
training plan. I explained to the minister that this peacekeeping
plan was developed entirely in South West Nova by the people in
and around Cornwallis.
I explained to him the work, the time, the research and the
money spent by the community on this plan. I informed the
minister that this was our plan and we would be upset if the
military tried to steal that plan and implement it in any other part
of this country.
(2120 )
I explained to the minister the necessity of blending the
advice of military officials with the concerns of the people of
Cornwallis and the surrounding area.
The Minister of National Defence has heard from me exactly
how the people of South West Nova stand on the issue of
Cornwallis. I hope that the minister will seriously consider the
input of the local people when the final decisions are made.
Before concluding, I want to say that the most important
resource we have in this country today is that of our youth. As a
father of seven children and the grandfather of 25, I have great
concern. I am pleased to hear that our government is working to
implement the youth training corps to begin putting young
Canadians back to work.
In conclusion, before coming to this House I made a
commitment to the people of my riding that I would fight as hard
as I could to ensure that their interests were represented. To the
people of my riding, I pledge accessibility and accountability.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the hon. member for South West Nova. I have
confidence in his description of the problems in his riding
caused by the introduction of fishing quotas, the difficulties
experienced by the mining and textile industries, the decline of
farming, the small and medium sized businesses that are also
struggling.
He talked about problems but his speech did not suggest any
solutions to these problems. What he described could apply to
several regions or sub-regions across Canada; this problem, in
my opinion, is due in part to the distance separating these
regions from the central government.
Since I am the critic for Youth and he spoke about the Youth
Service Corps, I would like to draw his attention to the concerns
expressed so far during the consultations held with the
organizations responsible and ask him whether he thinks, for
example, that $61 a week for young people could be a solution
for his region from an economic standpoint?
[English]
Mr. Verran: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
his question.
Yes, we probably do have similar rural areas in our
constituencies in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Quebec.
There is no doubt I feel certain parts of the government are too
centralized. They should be partly relocated to the areas where
they generally would fit into the activities of that area.
550
As for the youth of the country, the hon. member heard me say
that I am deeply concerned about youth as a person with so many
grandchildren of my own. At the same time, I realize that the
minister has made a great effort and is putting the youth training
plan into place.
To a large degree, it would be a real benefit compared to what
we have had in the past. It may not be everything at the start of
the program but it will certainly be a start that was not there. I
am sure it will grow and prosper. Our young people will prosper
by it.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, first I want
to congratulate you on your appointment to the chair.
I know the citizens of Stormont-Dundas, which you
represent, are very proud of the effort you have put forth to help
them solve their problems throughout the time you have been
here. I know that will continue but they can be equally proud for
the leadership that you will show in this House. I congratulate
you for that. Some comments have been made jokingly about
what is the most beautiful riding in this country. To me there is
no question that the most beautiful riding in this country is
where the heart is and my heart is in my home riding of
Essex-Kent. Essex-Kent is the most southerly riding in this
country, southwestern Ontario, and very much a rural,
agricultural riding, one that has a smattering of small towns like
those throughout rural Canada.
(2125)
There is a great deal of concern in rural Canada about
agriculture and agricultural problems. It is really one of the only
industries that is so controlled by the weather, by outside forces
that governments or others do not control. As a result sometimes
they run through very difficult times, although they use the very
best technology available to them. Although they are excellent
producers they do run into rough times.
Just this past week we had severely cold weather in our riding
and much of the soft fruit industry production is in jeopardy
because of that hard freeze. That is the reality that agriculture
faces. It is not protected from the elements many times and so
the economy of much of rural Canada has to be looked at very
critically and very carefully by governments.
Certainly Essex-Kent is an area where the people are
vibrant. They work hard. They are well educated. They do the
very best they can to make sure that their opportunities are
fulfilled. There are times when government must be there with
support. I feel that it is a concern in rural Canada today and we
should make sure that their voices are heard and they are
represented well.
I believe this Liberal government will address those concerns
as well as all of the other concerns that I heard over the time that
we were campaigning for election.
The red book has been mentioned a million times if it has been
mentioned once. That red book was not just something that was
grabbed out of the air at election time. Three years of
consultation, hard work, round table discussions and efforts to
develop policy went into that red book and the statements it
contained.
The red book tried to address as best it could in 125 pages the
concerns and many of the solutions that Canadians would see a
Liberal government follow. Quite frankly, there is no question
as the Canadian people became more aware of that red book they
were quite happy with the solutions the Liberal Party put
forward. That is why there are 176 members of the Liberal
caucus here in government today.
I believe that the speech from the throne was a very strong
reflection of the document that was put in place during the
election. There is no question that the document was the
blueprint of the direction we shall go. The speech from the
throne was not a big political paper of 50 or 60 or 80 pages. It
was as reasonably short, concise document that reflected the red
book very carefully and brought forward the concerns this
Liberal government has. It is important that governments go
ahead.
The number one issue that I heard in my riding and as well
colleagues across the country whom I have talked to heard was
jobs. Certainly we feel that there is a definite direction to fulfil
those jobs. A national infrastructure program was put in place so
that each community across this country could see some
immediate support from the federal government, the provincial
governments and municipal governments to make certain that
new jobs are brought into their areas.
Every member of this Parliament will see programs in their
riding which will reflect this new job development. I have no
doubt that when the list came out in my riding just two days ago
of the number of dollars that were available for communities to
motivate and start up new job creation programs, moneys that
will eventually build into longer range job creations, they were
very content and very happy. The communication that I received
back just two days ago was extremely positive throughout my
riding.
(2130)
The national apprenticeship program, which is a program to
help those who are unemployed retrain and redevelop, is there.
It is certainly strategic to bring the skills of Canadians up to the
levels required by business. It is very important that business,
government and the labour force of this country work together
as a unit in order to bring about job creation and job training
551
which will benefit those businesses, benefit the workforce and
benefit our country in general.
That is the type of program that comes forth in national
apprenticeship programs.
A youth service corps is contemplated in order to get young
people into the labour force. Young people who are now
presently at 19 per cent unemployment need to find a beginning,
need to build resumes of work established. They have that
opportunity through this youth corps. It is wonderful when I stop
and think of the opportunity they will be provided with. We look
at the high unemployment rate and know the government is
taking a positive step to make certain the youth corps does
develop.
Business has always had major problems in accessing capital
when times were very tough. That is one of the complaints I have
heard from business and one of the areas where this government
will do its very best to make certain that there is capital
accessible to them for development, for improvement and for
dally functioning.
It is also important to realize that one of the major complaints
of business is the huge amount of paperwork they have to do.
The paper trails are getting greater and greater and greater. By
putting programs in place to reduce this paperwork is the
direction this government intends to go and a direction that will
be welcomed by the business community throughout this
country.
Last of all it is important to mention the Canada Investment
Fund to support the leading edge of technology. We know that
jobs of the future are going to be created if we do support that
leading technological edge and move forward as the new
horizons develop.
The debt and deficit have been a major concern across this
country. The Reform Party has been talking very much about the
debt and deficit. I believe the Prime Minister has not only talked
about the debt and deficit, but he has actually taken very strong
and major steps within his own operations.
I believe that the Prime Minister riding in a Chevrolet rather
than a limousine is a true message to Canadians. I believe when
he cut his support staff in the Prime Minister's office, sold the
air bus, created a smaller cabinet, started on public
consultations about the budget with the finance minister, is now
talking about restructuring some of the tax issues that are there,
eliminating overlaps in government services, cancelling the
helicopters were all actions of which we can be very proud. They
are actions which are going to bring us into a better financial
situation. They are also actions that give the Canadian people
something to believe in, something to say yes, this government
is ready to move in a positive direction.
Integrity was very strong concern voiced by the people in my
riding. I believe that we need a tremendous amount of
parliamentary reform in order to bring about a better image of
this Canadian Parliament. You do not change your image by
promising things, you change your image by taking action. I
believe that the appointment of an ethics counsellor to stop the
open lobbying, or at least bring out in public the lobbying that is
going on, is of major importance.
We also know that opening up debates here in this House,
allowing MPs more input before the legislation is passed or
presented in the House, gives MPs a much better say in what is
going on.
(2135 )
We saw it in the peacekeeping debate and the cruise missile
debate and in the future we are going to see a pre-budget debate
giving MPs their opportunity to have their say before the issue is
placed in a motion so that one does not have any opportunity to
change it.
Committee structural change is also very important to this
place. As I look upon things that have been brought about not
only in the financial area but in the area of government
operations and I look upon the challenges that this government
faces in the future, just to wrap things up, I believe we are
looking for consultation with the public, better opportunities for
MPs to put their concerns forward and a much better
representative government for the people of this country.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I was
very interested in what the hon. member had to say especially in
the final remarks of his comments.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, I congratulate
him on his presentation. I think he spoke very much from his
heart. There was much eloquence in what he said. It is wonderful
to be able to stand up here and speak without lots of notes. I have
not quite reached that point yet but I certainly do acknowledge
that.
The hon. member did say something that I would like to
clarify in my own mind. When he talked about changing his
image he said: ``You change your image by taking action''.
I would very much like the hon. member to tell me his opinion
of the mechanism of recall as we have suggested in our caucus
and how he thinks we can move forward to implement a
mechanism such as this.
Mr. Pickard: Mr. Speaker, it is a very important point to
make at this place and at this time.
We have had government that has not projected a very
positive, open image to the Canadian public. We have certainly
not supported the policies that have come down year after year
in this place. Canadians have felt left out. They felt that they
were opposed to many ideas and yet those thoughts were never
listened to as carefully as they should have been.
The difference between a Liberal government and the
previous government that we had was that we consulted with
people for three years. We asked them what their concerns were.
We tried to formalize round table discussions and openness with
the public. That is the reason why we came up with a very
concise, consolidated red book.
552
It is important at this point in time to realize that this
government now is opening up debate in the House of Commons
to allow members of Parliament to bring forth every concern
they have from their ridings before the legislation is formulated
and put in front of us. It is a total change of direction to allow
members to represent the people in their ridings in this place and
have some input ahead of time.
I am not into the Reform policy directions. I am not buying
into its directions. I do believe our directions are those of
openness, consultation and acceptance of ideas before we take
action. That is extremely important. It gives the members of
Parliament more power in this place and it gives the people they
represent a way for their voice to be heard before the legislation
comes down.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise before this House for the
first time and give my maiden speech.
I would like to also express my gratitude to the constituents of
New Westminster-Burnaby for choosing me on October 25,
1993 to represent them in the House of Commons. Mr. McVey, a
grade school teacher of mine, must be smiling today.
(2140)
New Westminster was the former capital of British Columbia.
In fact it was given its name specifically by the Queen. It is now
proudly referred to as the royal city. The city of Burnaby is a
large urban community and residential area lying between
Vancouver and New Westminster.
Situated on the banks of the Fraser River, New Westminster
has seen history pass its shore. There was the gold rush of 1858
and the massive town fire that unfortunately destroyed its
downtown core. In more recent years it has been a centre for the
processing of forestry products. With the prospect of urban
sprawl New Westminster's geographical significance was
eclipsed and now the revitalization of the waterfront and sky
train connections brings a tremendous amount of growth to the
city.
New Westminster is a city of proud history from the early
days of the province to its re-emergence as a prominent place in
British Columbia. Burnaby has seen a tremendous amount of
growth in recent years primarily with the emergence of
Metrotown along with a pleasant mix of parks, recreation
centres and libraries.
I am pleased to say that while there is snow and freezing
temperatures in Ottawa today, in my riding the lawns are green.
The flowers are starting to come up. Although we have not seen
snow in my riding this year let it be known that it does not rain
every day in New Westminster-Burnaby.
Like other communities the issue of safer streets and the
equitable performance of the justice system to properly balance
the issues of the victims as opposed to that of offenders
continues to fester.
To focus my remarks I wanted to comment on a paragraph in
the throne speech referring to community safety and crime
prevention. Listening to the throne speech my reaction was one
of stunned disbelief for misplaced priorities. Across Canada one
particular issue has been the Young Offenders Act, yet it did not
rate a mention in the speech from the throne.
There was no outcry in New Westminster-Burnaby for
changes to the human rights act or demands for the court
challenges program to be restored. It took questioning of the
minister from our side to hear any comment to do with the Young
Offenders Act. I heard that in just the last few hours the justice
minister did hint at a direction but not very precisely.
Let me say clearly that in my riding the folk are upset about
deficits and the conspicuous consumption by government and
the lack of fiscal leadership by example. However, if one wants
to identify one particular statute that is in disrepute then it is the
Young Offenders Act.
As a criminal justice professional I participated in the
national consultations leading up to the act being passed in the
late days of the previous Liberal administration. I recall that in
1984 the government of the day was quite verbose in promoting
the efficacy of the compromise achieved with the provinces.
However, I also recall other voices predicting that it was a
flawed piece of legislation.
The verdict of my community is in. There is little community
support. In fact I have never met one policeman who supports
this legislation. We have now had about ten years of
implementation and during that time the act has acquired very
few defenders.
The flawed act was subject to a number of court appeals for
clarification. It was also amended several times by the
Conservatives. However, the Young Offenders Act remains
today the single piece of legislation that is most vilified by the
public.
The Young Offenders Act has a title which implies its
application. I say to the government as a professional who has
been left in the community to administer this act, let the Young
Offenders Act truly deal with young offenders and not youthful
adults.
If the justice minister does nothing else about this act and all
its tangled provisions, it can do one thing to change the mood of
this country concerning young offenders. Consider specifically
section 2(1) under definitions of a ``young person''. What if we
change the number 12 to 10 and the number 18 to 16? It is just
two numbers.
553
The government needs to change just two numbers in the
beginning of this statute and that would then fundamentally
change the administration of justice across this nation.
However, I doubt that the government has the courage. The
throne speech indicates misplaced priorities. The answers of the
minister so far outline a plan perhaps to tinker only with the
internal technical points of the Young Offenders Act.
However, the thrust of this act has never achieved acceptance
in my community. I am also getting calls on what the
government really means by its throne speech reference to this:
``Amendments will be proposed to the Canadian Human Rights
Act''. There are a few newspaper articles but not much else.
(2145)
Where is the political mandate for that? I do not believe there
is any specific reference to it in the infamous Liberal red book.
Where does this come from, left field? Where is the political
mandate to perhaps fundamentally alter how Canadians define
themselves? If there is a sleeper time bomb in this throne speech
then this is it.
I ask the government to be open now and test the marketplace
for ideas on this one. The implications of this measure to
policies, to Revenue Canada, the social safety net, insurance
companies, pension plans and union contracts is sweeping.
If the government is hiding the intent until the last moment I
challenge to issue intent now and if there is national-wide
protests then so be it. It just seems that pursuing this agenda is a
misplaced priority from what my community wants. It begs the
question what special interest group has the ear of the
government?
In our let the people speak phase of the election it was clear
that my community wanted fiscal reform. Specifically in justice
issues it was the Young Offenders Act that was of concern, not
the human rights act and definitely not the court challenges
program.
I remind the government to pay attention to what the people
want rather than what it thinks the people need or should want.
Specifically in the field of criminal justice, reform bring
forward legislation on the Young Offenders Act first, especially
in line with what I have mentioned rather than window dressing.
I also want to commend this government for permitting open
debates on peacekeeping and on cruise missile testing. I am sure
the varied moods of the communities were reflected by the
members, much to the confusion of members of the media who
all seemed to want the old style of being handed a set paragraph
policy statement that is the formula set position of the day.
Now fiscal reform has been and is being dealt with at least at
the talking level, albeit some ministers have not yet got the
message with their use of government aircraft. There are
indications that the Criminal Code matters will be heard.
That leaves parliamentary reform. I am encouraged as I have
said about the open debates so far but I ask if the Prime Minister
could go just one bit further and say to this House that the
government will not consider the defeat of a government motion
including a spending measure to constitute an expression of
non-confidence in the government unless it is immediately
followed by the passage of a formal non-confidence vote.
The genie is out of the bottle concerning the public's
expectation to be heard on issues that fundamentally alter the
way Canadians define themselves. The referendum was the
watershed for that, but criminal law is part of it.
But more than appreciating the 199 new members of
Parliament who have never been here before the fresh air that is
needed is an attitude change by just one man, the Prime
Minister, who can gather the courage to usher us into a new age
of democracy. The Prime Minister is looking to make his mark
in Canadian history. I believe that this is where he can do it.
It is not a strategic question of caucus support or insider
concerns, all of which were the same arguments used by the
British Prime Minister many years ago in his reluctance to
abolish slavery. The main thrust, the change was right. Then as
now the national mood was right but a consideration for a united
caucus and parliamentary manoeuvring delayed too long what
that nation wanted. I think the nation wants this measure from
the Prime Minister to free us from the slavery of caucus
solidarity. This one step could open the House to a new meaning
in relevance to those who have sent us here.
In closing I pledge my co-operation and constructive advice
on legislation. I will minimize my personal philosophies and
emphasize what my constituents desire as I will attempt to
represent the broadest of political views. For this House does
not belong to parliamentarians. It is not our private club. It
belongs to the people. I pledge to conduct myself accordingly
for in the long run I trust that if the people are given the truth and
the whole story more often than not consensus will emerge that
is wiser than any technocrat can devise.
Finally, as the government brings forth its legislative program
let the people speak and we will have fulfilled our duty. May the
government hear what has been tested in the marketplace of
ideas and it will not go wrong. Lead by example and sacrifice
and the nation will support it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would like to ask the
House to consider the following. We will be adjourning shortly
at 10 p.m. The hon. member for Elk Island has been seeking the
floor. If there was consent to forgo the five minute question or
554
comment period to the last intervention from the member for
New Westminister-Burnaby I could immediately recognize
the member for Elk Island before we adjourn this evening.
Would there be consent?
(2150)
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I will begin in the
traditional manner by congratulating you on your position and
assuring you of my respect and co-operation. I consider it a
great privilege to have been chosen by the electors of Elk Island
to serve them as their member of Parliament.
As most other speakers have done I will also express thanks to
the many people who voted and worked to give me this honour.
Especially I am grateful to my wife Betty and my family for
their sacrifice, support and trust.
The Elk Island constituency lies immediately east of
Edmonton in Alberta and is noted for the fact that it contains Elk
Island Park, a national park operated by Parks Canada.
The constituency has approximately 85,000 residents. Many
live on acreages and farms. Our people earn their living by
working in our industrial and chemical plants, by farming, by
operating numerous small businesses and by many other forms
of endeavour which add to the economy and well being of the
community and the country. In addition many work in the city of
Edmonton.
I am very proud and thankful to be a Canadian. I remember as
a youth hearing my immigrant parents, grandparents and their
friends talk of the hardships and the lack of freedoms which
caused them to look to this land for hope.
More recently our son Brent has been working as a volunteer
in a relief agency in the countries of Sudan, Kenya, Somalia,
Bosnia and Croatia where he was helping to give aid to the
tremendously disadvantaged because of war. We have been
deeply touched by his first-hand accounts of children, young
people, women and men who are starving or suffering intensely
because of the inhumanity of selfish aggressive people. I am
very grateful that in this country we govern ourselves with
ballots and not with bullets.
It is in this context that I give my address today. While we
have it so good, I am committed to doing my part to ensure that
we do not lose our freedoms and privileges. I hope also that we
will be able to continue to share our abundance and our help with
many other unfortunate people in our hurting world.
It might sound as though I am complaining when I draw
attention to the shortcomings of our past governments. I am very
concerned that we run the risk of losing it all here in our
wonderful Canada because of the mismanagement of
government over the last 30 years.
It seems so obvious to me that the policies of the Liberals and
the Conservatives of the past have taken us into the slavery of
debt. I hope against hope that this new government will be able
and will have the political will to begin to turn this around.
Just think there is no country in this world as blessed as ours.
We have a wonderfully rich heritage of natural resources from
fish to forest, from bounteous grain fields to plentiful energy in
oil, gas and water, from beautiful scenery attracting tourists
from all around the world to our wonderful land from
Newfoundland to British Columbia to the far north.
I could go on and on. Add to that the enormous wealth we have
in our people. We are all immigrants, even those who we proudly
call our natives. Our first nations originally came here from a
different part of the world. We have of course the French and the
English, but we also have many others including the
Scandinavians and the Orientals, the Europeans and the
Africans. The list is endless. Over the years we have lived
together in harmony and co-operation.
Mr. Speaker, you do not know how it hurts me to hear some
who are working toward tearing up this country. If there is not
room for all of us here in Canada, how can we expect the other
nations of the world to stop warring with each other on this
planet?
I would like to say to my friends sitting next to me how we
wish they would change their minds about leaving Canada. How
we wish that they would give it one more try. How we wish that
they would stop saying Canada and Quebec and would start
saying Quebec and the other provinces of Canada.
(2155 )
Will they consider doing what we have done in the west? For
years and years we have paid much more into Confederation
than we have received in dollars. For those same years we have
been practising what many of us learned in Sunday school, that
is to share and not be selfish, to give and not always to expect
returns.
At the same time I must be honest. The patience of our
position has on occasion been tested. We are looking forward
seriously to the day when all the provinces will be able to better
make it on their own and to decrease their dependence on others.
It is very encouraging to see the generosity and benevolence of
others too. We desire deeply that all Canadians and all provinces
live together in peace and harmony as equal partners in
Confederation.
That little diversion from the topic of debt was intentional. I
thought that it would be a good idea to highlight our wonderful
advantages, but let me now return to the topic of our burgeoning
debt. How can it be that with this vast legacy of natural and
human wealth our governments of the past have managed to dig
us so deeply into debt? Is there any hope for the future?
555
The government is proposing in the throne speech to borrow
more money in order to produce jobs. It will say it is not
borrowing more, just spending money that it saved on the
helicopters or other areas, but the fact is that there is still a huge
deficit predicted for the next fiscal year. That means that we are
doing what we are doing with borrowed money.
It is clear that the collective wisdom of the citizens of this
great country is moving more and more toward a demand to live
within our means. I wish I knew of a way to communicate this
forcibly and convincingly to the point where the majority
government opposite would actually change its fiscal policies to
reflect this reality.
I was elected largely on the merit of the Reform Party's deficit
and debt reduction commitment. In my constituency there were
five voters who voted for Reform's plan of fiscal restraint for
every two voters who chose the Liberal's plan of borrow more,
spend more. Even in Ontario where the government received a
rather overwhelming number of seats, almost one million
individuals expressed themselves in their vote for fiscal
restraint.
I would have been so pleased if we would have had at least a
commitment from the government to set some realistic written
goals and to cap spending. It is very doubtful if we will ever
achieve a goal if we are not even willing to state it.
During the campaign a simple fact struck me forcibly. We
have no mechanism actually to control spending. We have no
means of ensuring that the wishes of our constituents, the
taxpayers, are expressed and enforced in the workings of
government. I appreciate the new openness of the government.
It is breaking with precedent in actually having pre-decision
debates on various issues including the budget.
However, we will not have true freedom of expression on
behalf of the people we represent until we have true, free votes,
even on the budget. This can only happen if we can agree that the
defeat of a bill, even the budget, does not automatically mean
the defeat of the government. There is no choice if we can only
vote yes, even when we disagree.
I respectfully and forcefully request that the government
allow all members on both sides of the House, the democratic
representatives of the people who elected us, the freedom to
send the budget back to the bureaucrats if it is not good enough.
Let them fix it and not bring it back until the unencumbered
majority of members of the House agree that we have reached a
satisfactory decision.
I end my speech with a pledge not only to this House but to the
people in Elk Island who elected me, the people of Canada who
are looking to Parliament for leadership. I will do all I can to
participate in bringing fiscal reality and responsibility to this
place. I will exert all the influence I can in changing the way
Parliament works so that it can become a better and more
democratic place.
In the end I believe we will be a better country. We will not
only have increased prosperity and well-being for ourselves,
but we will also have the freedom and ability to do more for
others.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being ten o'clock p.m.,
pursuant to the order made earlier this day, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 10 p.m.)