CONTENTS
Thursday, January 20, 1994
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 71
Bill C-201. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 72
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 76
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 77
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 78
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 84
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 93
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 97
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 98
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 99
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 99
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 100
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 101
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 101
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 101
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 101
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 101
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 102
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 102
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 102
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 102
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 103
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 103
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 105
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 105
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 105
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 106
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 107
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 111
Consideration resumed 113
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 114
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 119
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 122
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 125
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 126
Amendment to the amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 52; Nays, 214. 131
71
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, January 20, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the
House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
group of the Interparliamentary Union.
This is the report of the official delegation representing
Canada at the 90th Interparliamentary Conference held in
Canberra, Australia, from September 13 to September 18, 1993.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from my electors that asks the government to undertake
a comprehensive review of taxation at its earliest convenience to
remove the current injustices.
These petitioners indicate a particular injustice in the current
legislation; single income families with special needs children
are discriminated against for their decision to remain at home
with their children.
They point out that there is a significant cost that is incurred
by families advised by physicians to place their children in day
care catering to special needs children. I may add as well that
these costs remain the same whether the family has a single or
double income. This is, in the opinion of these petitioners,
unfair and discriminatory.
(1005)
[Translation]
These constituents are asking for a report on what is being
done about taxes. They want the injustices to be removed.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a petition on behalf
of the constituents of Wild Rose, in and around the town of
Sundre, which states: ``The undersigned, your petitioners,
humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation
providing for a referendum of the people binding upon
Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English
and French, for the government and the people of Canada; the
acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be
determined by a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole
of Canada, together with a majority vote in a majority of
provinces with the territories being given the status of one
province. And as, in duty bound, your petitioners will ever
pray''.
On behalf of these petitioners, I submit this today.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to
present before this House petitions that have been signed by
constituents from not only my riding but from around the greater
Toronto area. They call on Parliament to recognize that the
incidence of violence against women and children is
unacceptable.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to
accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women
and children, encourage and support women to report incidents
of assault or abuse, provide assistance and support for women
reporting assault or abuse and the need for abuser rehabilitation.
They want to concentrate special effort on the training of
police, lawyers, court workers and judges to become
knowledgeable about women and child abuse and also to focus
public attention on this very important and long ignored
problem.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, it is a pleasure to introduce a petition from
72
the workers at Base Moncton who are petitioning the
government to maintain the depot facilities that are there.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton): Mr. Speaker, second, it is
my obligation to introduce certain petitions pursuant to
Standing Order 36 dealing with language and referendums.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I rise to present a petition on behalf of
constituents and people of my province. They ask that
government ban the sale of the serial killer board game and
prevent any other such game or material from being made
available in this country.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, I have a
similar petition signed by my constituents in Simcoe North. It
deals with the importation of the serial killer cards. It denounces
the sale and the importation of these cards into Canada.
I am cognizant of the danger of restricting freedom of
expression in a democratic society, but nevertheless I must
endorse this petition and its denouncement of the glorification
of the horrors of these crimes particularly when one considers
that many of the victims of these killers are women and children.
(1010)
The Speaker: My colleagues, with unanimous agreement,
may we revert to private members' bills for one moment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-201, an act to amend the Parliament of
Canada Act (oath or solemn affirmation).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to present a
bill amending the Parliament of Canada Act so that from now on
members would make an oath of allegiance not only to the
Queen but also to the country, Canada and the Constitution.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
72
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from January 19 consideration of the
motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in
reply to his Speech at the opening of the session; and of the
amendment; and the amendment to the amendment.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), I would advise the Chair that
Reform members speaking in this debate will be dividing their
time. For each 20-minute time period two speakers will speak
for 10 minutes each for the rest of this debate on the throne
speech.
The Speaker: The notification is duly recorded.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that the five minutes
for questions and comments will follow right after the first ten
minutes and not come at the end.
The Speaker: Yes, usually that is the case. Today it will be
that way as well.
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to join in this
debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne at
the beginning of a brand new Parliament and the beginning of
the mandate of our new government.
In that government I am very grateful to have the opportunity
to represent the people of Regina-Wascana. I want to thank
them for the trust they vested in me in the election of October 25.
Regina-Wascana includes the southern half of the city of
Regina and a rural area running south and east from the city. I am
proud to represent Saskatchewan's provincial capital, together
with several thousand rural residents. I would note that most of
the rural voters now in Regina-Wascana were previously in a
Saskatchewan constituency known in earlier Parliaments as
Assiniboia which I had the honour to represent in this House in
the 1970s. I am pleased that a respected friend and colleague
from that earlier Parliament has been chosen by this House as its
chief presiding officer. I also want to congratulate you, Mr.
Speaker, upon your election to this high responsibility.
I want to pay tribute to the two distinguished members who
moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from
the Throne. They are representative of the diversity, strength
73
and depth of the government caucus, of which I am very pleased
to be a part. That caucus has worked hard to get to this House and
to get to the government side of this House and I know they are
determined to play a strong and positive role. They have already
done so in working with me in my responsibilities as Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. They have been vigilant,
mature and highly effective in advancing the interests and
concerns of their constituents on agricultural issues.
(1015 )
As Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, I am responsible
for a very important component of Canada's economy and a
major source of economic growth. This sector employs more
than 1.8 million Canadians and generates 8 per cent of Canada's
gross domestic product. Food production and processing are
important activities in all parts of Canada, east, west and
central, rural and urban. Our agri-food policy was spelled out
very clearly in the famous red book during the election
campaign.
The two broad thrusts of that policy are to provide the
agricultural sector with stability and certainty for the future and
to ensure that it contributes to economic growth and jobs. We
ran on that platform, we were elected on that platform and we
plan to implement that platform. We will work hard with
industry and with the provinces to ensure that the job gets done.
A secure agricultural sector means safe, reasonably priced
food for Canadians, financial stability for farmers and others in
the sector, stewardship of our resource base, and a predictable
trade environment.
Economic growth requires that we take advantage of export
opportunities, that we promote innovation, that we support
market development and reform policies that might tend to
impede growth.
In that overall process international trade must be central to
any attempt to rebuild the Canadian economy and to broaden our
opportunities in agriculture and agri-food. One and a half
million Canadian workers-that is one in five-depend directly
on exports for their livelihoods. Total two-way trade in goods
and services accounts for almost half of our GDP. Only Germany
among the Group of Seven countries is more dependent on trade
than is Canada.
Given those facts, reaching a new GATT agreement was
essential for Canada's future. It is one step on the road to
achieving the goals of job creation and economic development.
This government came into the GATT negotiating process as
the clock was very close to nearing midnight. There were barely
six weeks between the time the cabinet was sworn into office
and the GATT deadline date on December 15. But once at the
table in Geneva we battled hard to reach the best possible
agreement for Canada. My colleague, the Minister for
International Trade, and I made a number of visits to Geneva and
Brussels to deliver Canada's message personally to trade
negotiators and ministers from other countries. We fought hard
and I believe we have a good agreement.
It is true that we did not get everything we wanted in the
bargaining process, but we gained much more than we may have
given up.
Although much of the focus in this round of the GATT has
been on agriculture per se, the agreement over all will benefit all
Canadians. It should stimulate the world economy and help
create badly needed jobs in our country. The OECD has
estimated that the agreement will give the Canadian economy an
$8 billion boost by the year 2002. It is in my opinion a good deal
for Canada.
Agriculture, of course, was a major part of this Uruguay round
at the GATT. For the first time in the history of GATT we now
have an agreement that brings agriculture under effective
trading rules. The agreement will reduce the risk of damaging
trade actions because rules will apply equally to all countries
and countries' specific exemptions will be eliminated. A
framework of rules will help to prevent the misuse of things like
sanitary and phytosanitary measures as disguised trade barriers.
A strong new international body, the World Trade
Organization, will help to resolve trade disputes. Canadian
farmers and processors will be less subject to unfair competition
resulting from foreign export subsidies. Improved market
access in Japan, Korea, Europe and the newly industrialized
countries will bring exciting new trade opportunities for
Canadian exporters. While the timing of export subsidy cuts is
certainly slower in the GATT than we would have wanted, the
cuts that were in fact achieved will result in significant subsidy
reductions by the end of the six-year period of this new GATT.
That should help to stabilize and improve prices in the grains
and oilseeds sector of our economy.
(1020 )
While in the bargaining process we found virtually no support
in other countries for our strengthened and clarified article XI,
our preferred method for safeguarding supply management, we
are confident that our supply management systems in Canada
can continue to do well under the new concept of comprehensive
tariffications.
The livestock and red meat sector will be winners under the
GATT because of greater security of access to markets.
Replacing import restrictions, import levies and other trade
distorting measures with tariffs will result in additional export
opportunities for beef and pork products to Europe, Japan and
Korea and over time this will create a more equitable trading
environment for Canadian exporters.
74
The new trade regime, while by no means perfect, should
provide the stability and the predictability that we need to plan
and invest for the future. We must now work together as
Canadians to ensure that we reap the maximum benefits for all
sectors of the agri-food industry in all parts of this country.
We have 18 months to prepare ourselves for the
implementation of the GATT. If we do our homework well in
that period there are abundant opportunities for us to capitalize
upon and the future for agriculture and agri-food can be and I
believe will be bright indeed.
To deal with the special needs of the supply managed sectors
of agriculture I have asked my parliamentary secretary to head a
small consultative task force involving producers and
processors and government officials on the broad question of
supply management renewal. This process has been endorsed by
all of my provincial colleagues across the country. The purpose
of the task force is to identify for governments all of the issues
that we will have to address and to recommend processes by
which those issues can be addressed in this 18-month period
before the GATT comes into effect because we all as
governments, federal and provincial, want to be fully ready for
July 1995.
Changes in the world economy will profoundly affect the way
that we trade. We are witnessing the increasing globalization of
markets. It is no longer unusual to see fresh produce from New
Zealand or southeast Asia in our local grocery stores. In
addition, commodity prices are experiencing a long-term
decline in real terms.
Canada can no longer depend on primary product exports to
the extent we have in the past for improvements in our standard
of living. We will have to rely more and more on value added
exports to new and changing markets.
I think there is tremendous potential in value added.
Three-quarters of all agri-food jobs are found beyond the farm
gates. My Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food is now
positioned and ready to help farmers and businesses take
advantage of the kinds of opportunities that new markets
represent.
The department has a new branch, Market and Industry
Services, with offices right across this country in all provinces
specifically designated to work with the industry on enhancing
its global competitiveness and increasing its share of domestic
and international markets.
The federal government also has 50 full-time employees
working on agri-food trade development in more than 150
foreign markets. The team includes 13 specialists dedicated to
agricultural issues in priority export markets including Japan
and Taiwan. Their job is to help improve market access and
provide up-to-date market information and intelligence to
Canadian exporters. Agri-food specialists in other key
international locations may well be appointed in the future.
One of the Prime Minister's first major initiatives after taking
office was to travel to Seattle to meet leaders of the 17 nation
Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation group. These APEC
countries represent the most dynamic and fastest growing
economic region in the world.
(1025 )
While western industrialized economies have stagnated in
recent years, annual growth among APEC countries has been
between 6 per cent and 9 per cent and they account for 40 per
cent of world trade. World Bank figures indicate that half the
increase in the world's wealth between now and the year 2000,
as well as half the increase in world trade, will come from Asian
countries. There are huge opportunities for Canada in this
burgeoning market, particularly in products like pork and other
value added products.
Speaking to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture last
November, Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute described the
Asian marketplace as the greatest opportunity in farming
history. As Asian countries become more affluent their demand
for high protein products will rise. It is a demand that they may
be hard pressed to meet and that is where we come in. Canada
has a well earned reputation for producing the highest quality
food products in the world, and it is a reputation we can
capitalize on to penetrate new markets.
Next to Asia, Latin America is the fastest growing trading
area in the world. For Canadian agri-food exporters it has
trailed only the United States as the second fastest growing
market for our products. In recognition of the importance of
trade and the need to develop these markets for Canadian
products, the Prime Minister has appointed two secretaries of
state within foreign affairs with responsibility for trade with
Asia and Latin America as well as with Africa.
With the GATT and the NAFTA in hand the government has
been turning its attention to other outstanding trade issues, in
particular our ongoing bilateral disputes with the United States.
While in Geneva in December, I had the opportunity to discuss
some of these issues with my American counterpart, the U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture, the hon. Mike Espy. I met with Mr.
Espy again earlier this month in Toronto and we have had a
number of conversations by telephone since.
I remain reasonably optimistic that the various areas of
disagreement between Canada and the United States at the
present time from wheat to peanut butter, to sugar, to some dairy
matters can be resolved to the satisfaction of both countries, but
we may rest assured that the Canadian government will be
vigorous and vigilant in advancing the Canadian interest in
respect to these products.
75
The issue of outstanding wheat and barley rights with respect
to the European Community is also a top priority. My officials
and I will continue to work with the Europeans, as will
representatives of international trade, to seek adequate
compensation for our historic GATT rights with respect to high
quality wheat and barley in Europe.
Another key priority will be to develop new whole farm safety
net programs for the future. In two weeks time I will be meeting
with provincial and industry representatives in Winnipeg to start
work on the future of safety nets in agriculture in Canada. In my
view we need a safety net system that meets the basic needs of
all agricultural sectors and does not distort market signals, one
that lets farmers make sound decisions based on comparative
advantage and not based on government programs. Money is
tight. We cannot afford a patchwork of ineffective programs.
However I believe we can afford a safety net system that works,
and that is what we will all be working toward.
Even as we strive to reduce expenditures I intend to place
increased emphasis on agricultural research. Good research is
not a frill to be cast aside in tough times. It is fundamental to
make Canada a world agricultural and agri-food leader. In our
platform, the famous red book, we talked about the importance
of research and the need to increase joint venture funding. Since
we do not have a lot of money I will be looking for ways within
my own department of reallocating priorities so that we can
continue to move forward on research despite the necessities of
budgetary restraint.
I believe the federal government can play a leading role in
innovative research and development, for example in
biotechnology which has a very strong reputation in my
province and other exciting new areas like ethanol.
However R and D spending cannot just be turned on and off
like a tap. Inadequate and inconsistent support for research has
already resulted, in my judgment, in some missed opportunities.
(1030)
We must effectively bring together the drive and dynamism of
individuals and entrepreneurship with the brain power and
strength of our universities and research labs. If we do that
effectively the combination can be very powerful for Canada
and very powerful in the field of agriculture.
As I conclude I recall that 90 years ago this week Sir Wilfrid
Laurier declared that Canada would fill the 20th century. It has
become fashionable to compare today's reality with Sir
Wilfrid's sentiment and to say that he was wrong.
However when we consider carefully what Canadians have
achieved in this century, a country with one of the highest
standards of living in the world, a country with a peaceful
democratic society, a country that is the envy of people
everywhere, maybe Sir Wilfrid was not so far off the mark after
all.
Over the next four years we will have the opportunity to show
that the 20th century did indeed belong to Canada. We will have
the opportunity to make history, to restore the faith of Canadians
in themselves and in their country, and to prepare Canadians for
the next century with the same confidence they had at the start of
this one.
This government is looking forward to meeting that
challenge.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Madam Speaker, first I
would like to thank the hon. member for Regina-Wascana for
the speech he made in this House. He stressed the importance of
his department and, as the Official Opposition's deputy critic for
agriculture and agri-food, I would like to voice the concerns of
my constituents in the riding of Shefford. There are many
farmers in my riding, and today they are very worried.
Last December, I attended the UPA convention in Quebec, and
I must say farmers in Quebec and Ontario are extremely
concerned about what is happening as a result of GATT and
NAFTA. Chicken, dairy and egg producers are very worried, as
their future seems very uncertain.
I think the minister made it clear in this House that he
intended to expand the role of the Department of Agriculture.
Madam Speaker, you know as well as I do that agriculture has
never been an important department when the Liberals are in
power. However, we hope that this time, after the minister's
eloquent speech, agriculture will receive more emphasis, since
in Quebec more than 350,000 people depend on agriculture and
the agri-food sector. As the minister said so eloquently, this is
an area where we can develop markets and an area in which we
can compete internationally thanks to the quality of our
products. I would therefore urge the minister to stay his course.
We in the opposition intend to monitor very carefully the
decisions that will be made by this government. If it does it
right, it can be sure that on behalf of all farmers in Shefford,
Quebec and Canada, we will support those decisions.
[English]
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): Madam Speaker, I wish to
congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on his first speech in
this session of the Commons.
During his speech he was discussing GATT and the
marvellous solution that we have signed in that accord. He
mentioned the new rules and that ``rules will apply equally to all
countries''. Yet in the GATT we appear to have signed away our
rights under article XI which protected our supply managed
industries. The Americans appear to have maintained their
waiver under article XXII which retains their ability to keep out
dairy products, peanuts, cotton, sugar, et cetera. In spite of the
rules allegedly applying equally to all countries, we still have a
76
situation which has not changed whereby the constitution of the
United States still permits the Congress to overrule, at virtually
any moment, any international agreement that its president and
administration has signed.
(1035)
Given that the constitution has not changed and their waivers
continue, how can he say that we have in fact received an
improvement? If we did, why are we now negotiating rather than
insisting upon our rights for barley and wheat sales into the
United States, one of the highest priced markets for those
products, largely because the U.S. insists on sucking its own
market dry with its export enhancement program which has
created a marvellous opportunity for our product to rush in at a
good price?
Mr. Goodale: Madam Speaker, I appreciate both the
comment made by the previous member and the question just
asked by the member from my home province of Saskatchewan.
With respect to the situation prevailing at this present moment
the short answer to the member's question is that the new regime
under GATT has not yet come into effect. The implementation
date is July 1995, so the benefits we hope to achieve and that I
mentioned in my speech will be forthcoming after
implementation. I would dearly love to see those benefits come
in advance but unfortunately we cannot get them until the
process actually gets into place.
On the question of whether we have given up our ability to
have import controls under article XI where other countries have
not given up corresponding things, the facts are that all
countries have surrendered their rights to have those kinds of
border restrictions. In Canada those restrictions related to our
supply managed sectors under the auspices of article XI.
In the United States it is the section 22 waiver under the U.S.
agricultural adjustment act. In Europe it is the system of
variable levies. In Japan and Korea it is the limitation system
they had with respect to rice. All those methods previously used
as non-tariff barriers will no longer be permissible in future
under the new GATT once it is implemented in 1995. All of us
have surrendered something in that regard, getting instead this
system of comprehensive tariffication.
Will there be aberrations along the way? Undoubtedly so. We
will have to be vigilant, to watch out, to make sure that this
playing field is as level as it possibly can be. One thing we do
have to assist us in that regard now, or when the GATT is
implemented, is a new world trade organization which should be
a substantial improvement over the ad hoc and undisciplined
system that used to exist in the past.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Madam Speaker, last
year many barley growers in and around my riding enjoyed the
freedom of an open continental barley market. For the first time
in many years this free enterprise was working and they were
very pleased with it. Although this lasted only for a short time,
farmers were able to increase their sales by a huge margin.
I would like to know if the Minister of Agriculture could
explain to us why this opportunity no longer exists and if it will
be open again in the near future, as the barley growers are
anxiously waiting.
Mr. Goodale: Madam Speaker, I am fully aware that opinion
in some parts of western Canada is very sharply divided upon the
method of marketing barley.
(1040 )
The short answer to the member's question as to why the
system is no longer in place as it was temporarily in place in the
latter part of 1993 is simply that the previous government
proceeded by a method which the courts ruled to be beyond the
government's jurisdiction. The courts ruled that the process
undertaken by the previous government was in fact contrary to
law.
In terms of whether the system ought to be revisited or
reviewed in the future, some in western Canada are proposing
the idea of a plebiscite on the issue. The matter of a producer
plebiscite can be considered in due course. However, I would
caution members against rushing too quickly toward that
conclusion. That is because plebiscites sometimes are not quite
as simple and clean solutions as one might otherwise think.
In this case, for example, I think there would need to be a
legislative framework to ensure that the plebiscite was
conducted properly. One would need to have some definition of
a trigger mechanism to start the process of a plebiscite. One
would have to give careful attention to the wording of the
question. As the hon. member knows, whether the question is
phrased positively or negatively can have a profound impact on
the outcome. Then there are the thorny questions like who gets
on the voters list, who is entitled to vote on the issue, and
whether it is restricted in some way.
There are a good many complexities relating to the question
of a plebiscite. I think all of us would want to think it through
very carefully before rushing into that as necessarily the right
way to go in these circumstances.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Madam
Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech the Minister of
Agriculture just gave. As member for Beauharnois-Salaberry,
77
a mainly agricultural riding where grain production has been
increasing over the past few years, and given the recent
developments regarding GATT and NAFTA, I would like the
minister to tell me what is to become of farm income
stabilization, crop insurance, and the Crow rates as they apply to
western grain transportation.
Will these benefits be considered as some form of subsidy?
Will they be allowed under the terms of these agreements? There
does not seem to be too much of a problem for the time being.
However, should this type of insurance be regarded as subsidy
and should farmers be deprived of such assistance, what are you
planning to do for grain producers who are presently covered?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order, please.
Unfortunately the time allotted for questions and comments has
expired. Will the House allow the minister a short answer?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Goodale: I am pleased to have the opportunity to briefly
respond to the question. I am sure we will have other
opportunities to consider the questions raised by the hon.
member in greater detail. The member certainly has touched
upon some vital questions in terms of the future of Canadian
agriculture.
I mentioned in my remarks that we would be reviewing the
whole system of farm safety net programs and hopefully moving
toward the concept of whole farm income safety nets for the
future. They have a number of advantages from our domestic
point of view. The whole farm income concept also has the great
advantage of being largely production and market neutral.
Therefore it is less likely to be subject to any violation of the
new GATT. That is one of the reasons we are very interested in
this concept of whole farm income safety nets. That would touch
upon many of the support programs the hon. member has
referred to, including crop insurance and so forth.
The area is under review. We have a conference coming up in
February to begin the process of that review. Working with the
provinces, the farmers and farm organizations, I think we can
arrive perhaps at the end of 1994 at a much clearer
understanding about how we need to adjust our programs to
ensure they are doing the job properly for Canadian farmers.
(1045 )
The answer on the Western Grain Transportation Act would
necessarily be long. I assure the hon. member it is a subject
which is very likely to be affected at least in some way by the
implications of the GATT. It is a subject matter that we will
undoubtedly revisit in this House on many occasions as I
consult, as I ought to do, before any changes are made.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, this
is my first opportunity to address the House at length. I am sure
you are getting tired of hearing that but two-thirds of us are new
members. Many of us who have been here in the past are in new
roles, as are you. I congratulate you on your appointment to that
role.
At the beginning of these new roles or the beginning of our
careers we have the opportunity to think longer term about the
problems of our country than perhaps parliamentarians have
done in the past.
Many people in my constituency have built successful
careers, homes and families by thinking longer term in their
affairs. Now they have taken a brave step this time in electing a
new MP from a new political party to represent them for the next
four or five years.
I want to take a moment to say I am greatly honoured by that
election. It is an overwhelming honour and I plan to do my best
to fulfil their expectations. We certainly know what happens
when you forget who sent you here. The Prime Minister alluded
to that yesterday. I hope that I and this Parliament do not let the
people of Canada down, as I feel the last Parliament did.
In my particular case I was elected from an urban riding, a
riding entirely within the city of Calgary that has 100,000
people. It is in the western suburbs of Calgary. We have a large
military base. We have two post-secondary institutions.
In spite of that, my riding and our city reflect largely a private
sector character. We do not have a federal or provincial
government. We are one of the larger cities that does not.
Of course we have experienced the ups and downs that Alberta
has had in the past decade largely through and because of our
dependence on the oil industry. In spite of that there is a
broadening of our industry in Calgary historically from
agriculture to energy, now to services. This broadening reflects
our entrepreneurial spirit in the west, in Alberta and in Calgary
in particular.
This growth in the view of most Calgarians, I think I am safe
to say, has been not so much with the help of government as in
spite of it and in spite of the federal government in particular.
I was a newcomer to Alberta when a distant government
imposed policies that brought an end to the boom times that
brought me to Alberta to begin with. Of course I am referring to
the national energy program. No Canadian can live through an
experience like that without it influencing greatly his or her
thinking about government and about our country. In spite of
that thinking and in spite of the drain the federal government has
often imposed on Albertans, Albertans have never wavered in
their patriotism or in their optimism about the future.
Today the federal government presents not hopes but
obstacles to economic recovery. The obstacles are most clearly
represented by the national debt and the deficits adding to it
which we are experiencing and have experienced in the past
number of years. I am not going to recount the statistics. I am an
economist and that would be economics and that is a dangerous
78
combination. Let me talk instead about what these numbers
mean.
In the election campaign my colleagues and I in the Reform
Party argued strongly about the need to understand the
long-term link between fiscal mismanagement and economic
recession and decline. We argued against the view that we
should create jobs rather than fix the financial problem, not
because we oppose creating jobs but because these are not
conflicting objectives. They are the same objective.
(1050 )
Countries like companies or households that mismanage their
financial affairs do not create jobs. They destroy them.
Households, businesses, families and governments that
mismanage their affairs do not fulfil dreams. Those who
mismanage their affairs watch their dreams slowly slip away.
Many of my generation, young professionals, the backbone of
the future of Canada, have left Canada, are leaving Canada or
are thinking of leaving Canada because they fear the high taxes
and the declining services that this mismanagement has brought
about and may worsen in the future.
Let me not preach from the Reform Party policy manual. Let
me quote the government itself. For members who have not read
it, Canada's Economic Challenges contains a very good
summary of our economic and financial situation. It lays out
better than I could all the relevant numbers on the deficit and
debt and the impact on our economy, such as the fact that it
absorbs our domestic savings, increases our foreign
indebtedness, worsening our current account, lowering national
income, our potential growth, reducing our fiscal flexibility,
threatening our social programs, increasing our tax burden,
raising real interest costs and decreasing our competitiveness. It
is all there.
Those are not short-term problems. They are not caused by
the recession. A short spurt in growth or activity will not resolve
them. The chapter is illustrated with dozens of statistics.
Why then would the same government that released this book
also release the throne speech this week and turn its attention
instead to spending priorities and in particular to the much
ballyhooed infrastructure program. That is a $6 billion
commitment, $2 billion sought from this Parliament to kick start
the Canadian economy, as if it is possible to do such a thing as
kick-start an economy.
On reading the briefing notes for the program it will be
noticed there are no fewer than four program objectives and nine
related criteria. There are in fact lots of objectives. There are no
clear priorities. None of these objectives is new to the program
spending that parliaments have passed before. We are therefore
led to ask why the government believes that another $2 billion
would kick start an economy in a way the first $160 billion of
spending this year has been unable to do.
Let us be clear about the magnitudes involved. In the case of
Alberta we are talking about $88 million against an economy of
$70 billion and an infrastructure investment of at least $1 billion
a year. These are hardly kick start kinds of numbers. That is the
magnitude and context of the program.
I do not want to quarrel with infrastructure as a priority or
even a higher priority than it has been in the past. What I want to
do is simply suggest that it will not fulfil the objectives stated by
the government and the raised expectations of consumers,
taxpayers and investors. It is short-term thinking about jobs and
activities that has long-term consequences in terms of
employment and output and that has been the past generation as
we have seen it.
I ask members, especially government members, to give
strong consideration to this before they cast their votes on this
matter and on the legislative program that will flow from the
throne speech. Members opposite will be held responsible by the
public for the performance of the Canadian economy in the next
four years.
Possibly the infrastructure program will deliver some
short-term benefits and some short-term visibility. But in the
long term, by the next election-that at least we will talk about
as our long term-the infrastructure program will long be
passed and we will be stuck with the bills for it.
I suggest that until the government has contemplated a way to
credibly finance these things and to fit these within the $153
billion spending cap that we suggest it should re-examine these
priorities.
I ask government members to give strong consideration to this
aspect of fiscal discipline, the subamendment we propose, to
support and vote for it and to include it in the speech from the
throne. On that basis we would be building a more successful
government program, not just from our standpoint but also for
the potential of their own re-election in four years.
(1055 )
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by
congratulating the member for Calgary West on his maiden
speech in the House of Commons. I know it will be a
constructive experience over the next four or five years.
I would like to get right to my question because I know this
member by reputation and I know he cares about small and
medium sized businesses in this country, especially in his own
community and in his own province. I noted that he did not seem
79
to spend a lot of time in his opening remarks commenting on the
difficulty that small business is having getting access to capital.
The Prime Minister said repeatedly during the campaign, in
the red book and in the speech from the throne, that small and
medium sized businesses would really be the engine for putting
people back to work. The greatest hope for putting people back
to work rests with the entrepreneurial spirit in that small
business area. We all know that the banks are really not
co-operating with that sector.
I wonder if the member could explain to this House if the
Reform Party shares the view of our party that the financial
institutions of this country really have to deal with putting the
economy back on track. I wonder if the member would stand and
say that the Reform Party will join with us in making sure that
the banks do their job for small businesses.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his question and for his congratulations. I have
known the hon. member for some time and it is a delight to be
able to sit with him in this Chamber.
Of course there was not time in my speech to address all of the
concerns that the hon. member would like me to address. If in
future the rules of the House are altered so that I can speak at
greater length, I would be delighted to do so.
The member raises the question of small and medium sized
business and their access to capital. My supporters, particularly
my association, are predominantly people who work in small
and medium sized business and they voted for our party I
suspect precisely because they share our concerns.
I would suggest to the government that certainly there are
problems with access to capital in the banking sector. However,
I would suggest that what the government should do before it
starts figuring out how to run the banks and how to run small and
medium sized businesses and all kinds of other institutions that
it run itself so that small and medium sized businesses have
access to capital.
According to the projections of the Minister of Finance, in
this financial year we will be borrowing up to $45 billion in the
financial markets. Certainly some of this money, if not a large
part of it, would be available to small and medium sized
businesses if the government would undertake the credible
program of deficit reduction that is being advanced through our
subamendment. If we do not do that, it would be ridiculous to try
to alter the rules of the banking system if the capital itself is
being tied up by the Government of Canada which is more than
absorbing our domestic savings. That is all in the book his own
government has put out.
I would suggest that the way to deal with the problem of
capital access for small and medium sized businesses-and the
message from the people in my constituency-is to deal first
with releasing those funds through deficit reduction and only
then should we deal with the problems in other institutional
arrangements.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member's time
has expired.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, on a
point of order. Is not the question and answer period 10 minutes?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is five minutes on a
ten-minute debate. They are splitting their time.
Mr. Riis: Madam Speaker, a point of order. I have listened
very carefully to the very thoughtful comments of my colleague.
Considering the importance and the nature of the tax system and
the funding for small business, would the House permit two or
three other questions in response to the hon. member's
comments? Can we have unanimous consent to allow a few more
questions to be put to the member?
(1100)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the will of the
House to allow a few more questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I thought there was a
consensus and that the Speaker had been informed that we would
split the time allotted, that is ten minutes for a speech, followed
by a five-minute question period. I would like us to stick with
this formula to give more people a chance to speak to this
debate, otherwise each member could considerably exceed the
time limit and I do want as many hon. members as possible to
have the opportunity to speak.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Unfortunately consent
is denied.
Mr. Riis: Madam Speaker, a point of order. I appreciate the
point made by my hon. friend. If the concern is to allow as many
members to speak to this important debate as possible, we can
always extend the hours for people to do that.
My point was that the past speaker was a very important
spokesperson for the Reform Party and an obvious person of
whom to ask a number of questions.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There will be another
chance for questions unless the next speaker is willing to cede
his time.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Madam Speaker, I would
like to start by congratulating you on your election to the Chair
of this honourable House.
80
I presume that while you waited with bated breath, while your
colleagues took a second look before firmly ensconcing you in
the Chair, but I have no doubt whatsoever in your ability to lead
us in our deliberations with decorum and respect.
I would also like to congratulate the Prime Minister and his
colleagues. Who would have predicted that the red book which
was so long on rhetoric and so short on substance could have
lead to such a stunning and upset victory?
I would also like to thank the citizens of the St. Albert
constituency for the confidence they expressed in me. I spoke to
them during the election campaign about fiscal prudence and
sound management of the public purse. I believe it was their
desire that I stand in this House and carry that message to the
government.
Hon. members can be assured that I will persistently advocate
the principle of fiscal responsibility during my tenure in this
House.
To the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, my
congratulations. Of all the particular challenges that he could
have chosen, he selected a riding that was perceived to be the
most daunting. Yet he triumphed in the most outstanding
manner. I look forward to working with him and the rest of my
Reform colleagues as we explain to all Canadians our vision of a
new Canada which was so eloquently articulated by the member
for Calgary Southwest ``as a balanced democratic federation of
provinces, distinguished by the conservation of its magnificent
environment, the viability of its economy, acceptance of its
social responsibilities and recognition of the equality and
uniqueness of all its provinces and citizens''.
I would also like to recognize the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean and his colleagues. Their agenda differs from
ours but I hope that before the end of this Parliament the issues
that currently pull this country apart will eventually pull us
together to realize our hope of a new Canada.
His Excellency the Governor General spoke of his
government's desire to create jobs for the hundreds of thousands
of Canadians who are losing hope and faith in the economic
miracle that has been Canada's until the last number of years.
We have seen feeble attempts to maintain a robust economy on a
philosophy of borrowing and spending our way to prosperity.
That false god of prosperity without effort has taken this country
into the long dark tunnel leading to economic ruin. We now have
double digit unemployment, mushrooming welfare rolls,
regions dependent on government handouts; in essence,
breadwinners without bread. That story is repeated a million
times across this land. Canadians are crying out for leadership,
vision, hope, but most of all for jobs and careers. But where do
they turn when their hope diminishes with each passing day?
There is no plan in place for them to realize their hopes and
aspirations.
(1105)
Over 30 per cent of every tax dollar collected by this
government is now paid to bankers and investors as interest on
the money that we have already spent. As the debt continues to
mushroom, so too does the cost of servicing that debt. On our
current economic path Canadians can only look forward to a
future of higher taxes and declining services while they work to
fill the pockets of lenders and investors.
The Auditor General said in his report tabled in this House
yesterday: ``Looking at where we have been is not enough; it is
also necessary to see where we are going''. We are going down
the road to economic ruin. He also said: ``Hard choices lie
ahead''.
This government must choose the road to a balanced budget.
That is the hard choice. That road is not paved with more social
programs that destroy the initiative of Canadians to work. It is
not paved with simple quick fix band-aids such as the $6 billion
infrastructure program. A balanced budget means that we as
Canadians accept the consequences of the follies of previous
governments. The hard choice is that only 70 per cent of tax
dollars collected can be returned to Canadians by way of
services delivered. If we do not accept that consequence today,
tomorrow we will have to live with only 60 per cent, or even
less, being returned in services to Canadians.
That is the hard choice. Do we bite the bullet now or do we
wait until it is too late?
During the election campaign we, as Reformers, spelled out a
complete program to balance the budget. Two and a half million
Canadians voted for that program. They are prepared to make
that hard choice now, yet there is little evidence in the speech
from the throne that the government has even heard the message.
How long before the government does the right thing and makes
that hard choice?
We want jobs in this country. The myth that deficit financing
creates jobs was debunked long ago. If that theory worked there
would not be a single unemployed Canadian today.
Where do we go from here? I ask this government to make a
commitment now to balance the budget by the end of this
Parliament. Business is looking for a signal that the upward
spiral of government spending will come to an end. With that
signal we will know that tax increases will no longer be the order
of the day. Declining services will not be the way of the future. If
business can believe that this government has the resolve to
make these hard choices then investment will follow. That is the
creator of real jobs. The private sector will pick up where the
public sector leaves off.
Canada was forged by people who want to build a future for
themselves and their children. I came to this country to
participate in a young and vibrant nation but I have watched as
socialism has wrung this vitality dry. Our economy is feeble and
we must rebuild it for our children. Our heritage is free
enterprise. It created our prosperity. It developed products and
81
innovations that raised our standard of living. It was not social
programs that gave us wealth but the opportunity to work hard
and keep what we had made. That was the driving force that built
this country.
The hard choice has a great future. If we balance the budget
lower taxation will come. Jobs will be created. Horizons will be
opened up. We will have the money to educate our children, look
after our old, the sick and the poor and still be able to compete
with any nation in the world. Jobs come from trade not from
infrastructure programs.
To sum up, we must turn this country around and start anew. I
look for leadership and vision from my honourable colleagues
across the floor. Hard choices must be made. History has always
glorified leaders who have reached beyond themselves and led
their nation through the dark tunnel to the light, which in our
case is renewed prosperity without debt.
(1110)
I issue this challenge: will this government commit itself now
to balancing the budget by the end of this Parliament? The first
step down the hard road is to approve the subamendment by the
member for Calgary Southwest to cap federal spending at $153
billion. I urge all members of this House to vote in favour of the
subamendment.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate my hon. friend on his maiden speech in the House.
One of the main points he raised referred to the fact that we have
to get our deficit under control.
One of the causes of our deficit problem is the amount of
money the federal government fails to collect. It is an issue that
more of us should get very serious about when we consider that a
major preoccupation of many Canadians has now become
purchasing contraband cigarettes and illegal liquor.
We found from the Auditor General's report yesterday that
tens of thousands of businesses appear to be collecting the GST
and not remitting it to the federal government. This obviously
indicates a clear loss of faith in our tax system, to say nothing of
the underground economy that probably includes almost
everybody in one form or another through cash transactions or a
barter system designed to avoid paying tax.
Does my friend share the view that one of the major steps to be
taken in terms of reducing the deficit would be to close off some
of the more obviously unfair tax exemptions that exist in our tax
system to begin restoring faith in the system so that people will
again be prepared to participate in the revenue collection of the
country, knowing that our system is fair and more just?
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, in response to the question of
the hon. member for Kamloops, I mentioned in my speech that
we have a feeble economy. Taxes are too high. This is why we
find today that businesses are struggling to pay the taxes to keep
the government afloat. Even then the government still needs
another $40 billion or more to pay its bills.
If we are going to look for a vibrant and strong economy we
must look forward to the day when investment overtakes
spending by the government. We must also look forward to the
day when taxes start to come down and affordability of taxes
comes within the realm of everybody to pay their fair share.
We always agree with the need for equality but I think the
focus of the government has to be toward a balanced budget. It
can collect the taxes due in order to do so but we must look
forward to the day when we see taxes coming down and a greater
willingness by Canadian people to participate in paying for the
government of this country.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Madam Speaker, I listened
carefully to the hon. member's words. I was surprised to hear his
stand on social programs, because I understood him to say that
social programs destroyed the initiative of Canadians and
should therefore be eliminated.
This particular position is disappointing to me because what I
heard from the voters of Jonquière during the election campaign
was that Canada and Quebec have always been concerned about
the weakest and the most disadvantaged. My constituents said
clearly to me that they do not believe people who get rich by
profiting from private enterprise will be generous enough to
take care of the disadvantaged, the sick and the poor.
(1115)
I have a question for the hon. member and I hope he will have
the time to respond. I will be brief. Does he know of many cases
where people who became wealthy through their work or their
business were successful in setting up programs or providing
health care and social services, or services to the unemployed
and the disadvantaged on a scale equal to what we now have in
Canada?
[English]
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon.
member's question, I think we have to recognize that this
country was born and developed out of initiative. We very much
recognize our social obligations to Canadians who are old, those
who are sick and those in unfortunate circumstances who are
unable to look after themselves. Recognizing its responsibilities
in these areas shows the maturity of any society. I would be the
last to suggest that we shun that responsibility.
82
We also have a responsibility to those who are prepared to
lead the country in its economic growth. We have to give
recognition to them that prosperity comes from that direction.
As I said, we do not want the government to destroy the
opportunities and initiatives of people to develop the country
and continue to provide the growth and the jobs we so badly
need.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie): Madam Speaker, my first words in
this House must be those of appreciation for the privilege and
honour of representing the riding of Erie. I would like to thank
its voters for their trust and confidence without which I would
not be here. I am aware of my responsibility to my constituents
and indeed to all citizens of this country and I hope I will be
equal to this task. I will not forget where I came from or who put
me there. I will advance their position from the highest
government in the land. I cannot deliver perfection but I can
deliver accessibility, honesty and integrity.
On a personal note I would also like to thank my wife, Sherrie,
and my children, Megan, Patrick, Alanna, Andrew and Sarah,
for allowing me this privilege. I will endeavour to keep their
personal sacrifices as minimal as possible.
I wish to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your
appointment to this esteemed office of which you are most
worthy.
I would further like to take this opportunity to congratulate
the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold on his
election as Speaker to this 35th Parliament, a position of honour
and responsibility unequalled in this House. I have enjoyed his
sage advice over the years and regret the non-partisan aspect of
his office now denies me the privilege of his counsel.
I further wish to congratulate the mover of the Address in
Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for
Bruce-Grey, and the seconder, the hon. member for
Madawaska-Victoria, on their addresses.
It is indeed a great honour for me to be in this Parliament,
especially under such an honourable leader as the Prime
Minister. It is a pleasure for me in my maiden address to
introduce the riding of Erie to my fellow members of
Parliament.
Having been born and raised in Erie it seemed only fitting that
on finishing my formal education I would return to Erie. For
many years I served on a great number of local committees and
boards. This exposure to local issues and people made my
decision to enter federal politics a little easier. I believe that Erie
deserves the best representation possible in Ottawa and I hope I
am worthy of that responsibility.
As some may gather from the name, Erie riding follows the
north shore of Lake Erie, one of the fine Great Lakes. It extends
from the border town of Fort Erie in the east to the western
boundary of the regional municipality of Niagara. It is a
rural-urban riding encompassing the city of Port Colborne, the
southern portion of the city of Welland, as well as the towns of
Fort Erie, Pelham, West Lincoln, and the township of Wainfleet.
This is only geography and does no justice to describing the
heart of this riding. Erie riding was blessed with many Canadian
riches. Our history, agricultural climate, economic potential and
traditions in my humble opinion are unparalleled in any other
part of Canada.
Many historical battles of the War of 1812 were fought on Erie
soil. Erie also saw the likes of William Lyon Mackenzie during
the Upper Canada rebellion of 1837 and the Fenian raids of the
1860s.
(1120)
The early settlers of Erie were joined by the United Empire
Loyalists, a group of people dedicated to what would later
become the Dominion of Canada. Over the years our riding was
further blessed with healthy immigration from all European
countries and most recently from the Pacific Rim. There has also
been lateral migration from other areas of Canada: from the
west, from the maritimes and from la belle province de Québec,
all attracted by the lushness and opportunity that Erie offered.
The riding indeed reflects the multicultural heritage that makes
our country so strong. I hope I may embody some of their
independent, industrious and enthusiastic spirit as I work for my
constituents and dedicate myself to community and country.
On the very eastern boundary of Erie riding is the Niagara
River which divides Canada from our neighbour, the United
States. Our proximity to the American border offers us
opportunities for trade and industrial development that will help
enhance and diversify our economy well into the 21st century.
Apart from the historical significance, development potential
and beauty of the riding, the moderate climate and fertile soil
have made Erie famous for its fresh produce, bountiful orchards
and vineyards. The Niagara region is one of the best grape
growing regions in the world and forms the basis of Canada's
wine industry. Poultry and dairy farming represent a solid
mainstay in Erie's economy as well as that of our nation.
The climate and charm of Erie attracts a great number of
tourists who come to enjoy the water and beaches of Lake Erie,
to browse through our heritage museums and historic sites, to
marvel at the ships plying the Welland Canal, an integral part of
the St. Lawrence seaway system, or just to enjoy the pleasant
surroundings and chat with our friendly residents.
Due to the rural nature of my riding many Erie residents
embrace a traditional way of life. This lifestyle is rooted in their
heritage and must be preserved. This preservation is a goal of
mine during my first term in office. I support the maintenance of
83
rail and postal services to these people. I am happy to be a
member of a party that also encourages the rural way of life.
I would be remiss if I did not commend the Canadian public
for taking the opportunity of electing a majority Liberal
government. They knew that the Liberal Party was a party with a
plan, as we heard in His Excellency's throne speech. It is
obvious it is the priority of this government to put unemployed
Canadians back to work, to give them back their pride in
employment. Erie riding is struggling with an unemployment
figure of approximately 15 per cent of the work force, an
unacceptable level.
The throne speech outlines several initiatives that are
fundamental to this new Parliament, a new Parliament I may add
that is in a position to make a real difference to Canadians.
These major proposals impact on every community regardless
of a member's political affiliation and follow the themes of
integrity, economy and society.
Integrity in government is an issue that must be dealt with
before we begin debating our significant reforms. The conduct
and ethics of Parliament will determine how such debates are
carried out. We will achieve little unless members are permitted
the courtesy to voice their concerns.
In his address to this House on Monday the Speaker stated:
Yet perhaps never in our history have we enjoyed a less favourable opinion
on the part of. . .Canadians.
Before anything meaningful can be done in this House we
have a duty as representatives to earn the confidence and trust of
our fellow Canadians as we conduct our business.
Our government, as promised, is committed to integrity and
honesty. We have proposed cuts to members' services and
allowances, reduced political staff, the elimination of perks and
the reform of MPs' pension plans. The recommendation of the
appointment of an ethics counsellor, legislation to bring
lobbying out in the open and reform measures to give members
of Parliament and House of Commons a greater role in
Parliament are very refreshing and very necessary changes.
As a newly elected member of Parliament I am quickly
learning how complex many constituents' requests are, but I
would suggest that when circumstances are beyond our control
we deal forthrightly with the constituents in question.
We are all individuals representing distinct ridings. Therefore
it is unlikely that we will agree with every proposal and
perspective in this House. Nevertheless we must respect other
views and accept the outcome as decided by the greatest number
of members.
On Tuesday this government announced its plans to create a
more active economy. This goal is desired by all Canadians.
(1125 )
As I mentioned before, the Erie riding embraces the creation
of jobs through such programs as the renewal and expansion of
infrastructure. I am pleased to say I have already corresponded
with Erie riding mayors regarding the steps already taken by this
government to initiate renewal at the local level.
I applaud this government for its swift action on launching
and obtaining agreements on the infrastructure program.
Another change announced yesterday was the replacement of
the goods and services tax or the GST as it is commonly known.
It is one of the most reprehensible taxes ever imposed and
Canadians have demanded its discontinuation. We cannot
impose upon Canadians something that is so vehemently
objected to when we have been chosen by them to communicate
and reflect their views. This is an arrogance the government
does not need.
The youth of our country are our greatest asset. However, as
the father of five children I am well aware of the growing
despondency of our youth with respect to their futures. I
welcome the creation of a youth service corps and a national
apprenticeship program which will give more direction and
employment to our children and youth.
I was also particularly pleased to see so many initiatives
designed to strengthen the fabric of this nation which will
continue to make our fine Canadian society the envy of the
world.
The environmental assessment act will be well received by all
Canadians and the benefits of this act will be appreciated for
generations. Representing a riding that is affected by the Great
Lakes I hope to see measures within that act to continue to clean
up our waters and to prevent further pollution.
In the short period of time I have held this office I have heard
from my own constituents as well as many others across the
country who are deeply concerned about crime, justice and
personal safety.
This government announced its intention on Tuesday to foster
safer communities for all Canadians, especially for women and
children. I do not believe that any Canadian, male or female,
should be apprehensive about his or her safety. However, I know
that this fear exists and is real for many. I am pleased to be part
of a team that believes the problems of criminal justice and the
penal system are deserving of attention and action.
In the area of aboriginal affairs I welcome the announcement
that the implementation of inherent aboriginal self-government
84
will begin. Erie riding has a substantial urban aboriginal
population and I look forward to learning how self-government
will impact on this community.
As I sit in this Chamber among my colleagues I realize that
despite political affiliation we also have the same goals of doing
the best job possible for the constituency. Many great members
have come and gone before us with similar ambitions. I salute
all of those who have come to this place to represent Canadians.
As we all know, it is not an easy task.
A great man once stood in this House and in his maiden
address said: ``I suggest that the time has come for action. We
have a tremendous opportunity-the people of Canada look to
us; the people of Canada trust in us; the people of Canada are
counting on us; in heaven's name, let us not fail them''. That
man, a predecessor to the free spirits who now sit in this House,
was Mr. Tommy Douglas. Mr. Douglas had a vision of a new
Canada. I hope that within ourselves each of us also has a vision.
It is fitting to begin this Parliament at the start of a new year
for this is the time when resolutions are made. In a recent letter
received from Rural Dignity of Canada there was a quote from a
4-H publication. It reads: ``May the thoughts in our heads blend
with the compassion in our hearts, to guide our hands as they
safeguard the health of those things we care most for: our loved
ones, our communities and our world, throughout the coming
year''.
I encourage members to keep these thoughts in mind and in
action in the months and years to come as we work for Canadians
everywhere, as we work for a strong and united Canada. And
when at some unknown future time we leave this Chamber for
the final time we can proudly hold our heads high and each of us
will be able to say: ``I made a difference''.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata):
Madam Speaker, I am happy to see that some of our friends
opposite do care about what is going on in their ridings and are
committed to standing up for their constituents.
They can join us in so doing, as we are here to look after the
interests of Quebecers. Welcome, sir. Join the club.
(1130)
I would also like to take this opportunity to tell the hon.
member that our regions as well are faced with major problems,
which we certainly intend to bring up over and over again. In my
riding for example, the previous government shut down the CBC
station which provided a vital link within the community. So, I
will take every opportunity to remind this House of what a
vicious deed this was, as regions can no longer make themselves
heard from government because of the lack of communication. I
will make this point every time I rise in this House until the CBC
and the new government get the message that regions must be
given the means to communicate again, first among themselves,
and then with the rest of the country, from coast to coast.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Madam Speaker, dear
colleagues, I am pleasantly surprised to see the strong interest
shown by the hon. member for his riding, since I represent the
constituency of Abitibi, which may not be as beautiful as the
hon. member's riding, but which, for me, is nevertheless the
nicest one.
The people in the riding of Abitibi, possibly the largest one in
Canada after the Northwest Territories, managed from the very
beginning, early in the twentieth century, to clear the land and
develop agriculture. It is through their daily efforts that these
people were able to develop this region which is not as old as
that of the hon. member, but of which I am very proud.
I am also pleasantly surprised to see that some members of
this House have large families. I personally have seven children.
Therefore, I believe that the future of our children must be the
top priority for Canada as well as for Quebec.
I want to emphasize the problems which I experienced during
the election campaign in my riding of Abitibi, where regional
development is so important. I am not referring to problems
linked to facing an opponent but, rather, to the difficulty of
meeting people and listening to their concerns, which have to do
with finding work, for example in the case of workers who have
to rely on social assistance and who, at fifty years of age, are
losing hope of finding a new job.
I am honoured to rise for the first time in the House and I want
to take this opportunity to discuss the problems which exist in
my riding and to ask you, the government members, the Liberal
government, to listen to people in all those ridings who expect
you to succeed in your endeavours. It is a fact that we, on this
side of the House, will take a close look at your legislation. If
you table good bills we will certainly support them, and the
Reform Party members have also said they will: if it is good
legislation, we will not purposely criticize it. On the contrary,
we will support it.
But you can be sure that people in my riding, who elected me
to represent them in this House, want Canada to do better,
regardless of the decision they will have to make in the next few
years.
I want to tell the hon. member for Erie that goods and services
in this country are traded between provinces. In our family
business we would routinely, as wholesalers, buy products from
your region, whether it was fruits or vegetables. We have to
learn to accept each other's choices.
85
Yesterday, I listened to the speech made by the hon. member
for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, who is the dean in this
House and who spoke about communication. I hope that
throughout this session both sides of the House will
communicate more and more and learn to better understand each
other's interests.
I conclude by stating my keen interest in the role of this
House, and in the future I intend to give even more substance to
my questions.
(1135)
[English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Madam
Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Erie on his
maiden speech. I too am proud to say that I have been elected to
represent one of the nicest areas in southwestern Ontario, the
riding of Lambton-Middlesex. It has a huge agriculture base.
I agree with the contents of his maiden speech. I stress that we
all work together to maintain a strong support for agriculture
and small business in Canada to ensure growth for Canada and
Canadians. I congratulate the hon. member.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, I am honoured to have this opportunity to reply to the
speech from the throne. The constituents of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, the men and women living in
the regional municipalities of Kamouraska, Rivière-du-Loup
and Basques ridings as well as the municipality of
Pohénégamook, gave me the mandate to express to the federal
government the will of the population of Quebec which wants
fundamental changes in the relationship between Quebecers and
the rest of Canada.
Since 1980, I have chosen to live in Eastern Quebec, more
specifically in La Pocatière. Everywhere I went, I noticed that
the needs of rural Quebecers are not quite understood.
Government members do not seem to recognize the urgency
here, since no regional development strategy is mentioned in the
throne speech.
On behalf of the neglected rural and urban populations, I
would like to say how disappointed I am about this omission.
Given the insensitivity of the government to our specific
development concerns, whether it is in Rivière-du-Loup,
Amos, or Lotbinière, we have lost all hope of seeing the
government respond quickly to the situation. Hence the need for
Quebecers to get back all necessary political and financial
powers to make sure measures are being taken right away.
Even if it is not included in the Constitution, regional
economic development is a jurisdiction on which the federal
government has impinged without taking into account the will
of the Quebec government to take full responsibility in this area.
For over 30 years, Quebec regions have been used as
laboratories for tests which only proved that the present federal
system does not work.
At first, the federal government opted for economic
centralization, as shown in the Higgins-Raynauld-Martin
Report. This devastating approach was reinforced by the
creation of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion,
whose decision-making process focused on sectoral concerns,
instead of regional characteristics.
In 1987, even the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial
Expansion of this House of Commons recognized the fact that
the federal programs did not meet the needs of the people,
because the criteria being used were not suited to the needs of
the regions. Because of a lack of participation from the regions,
the money was given to useless projects, instead of some local
and worthwhile initiatives. Take for example the magnificent $7
million drill hall which was built in my riding. Fascinating, but
if the people in the area had had a word in the matter, I can assure
you they would have found other much more interesting projects
to subsidize with that $7 million.
The federal government made some adjustments by
developing a new strategy based on framework agreements.
That does not work either, as shown by the unemployment rates.
Regions can and must do more to supply domestic and foreign
markets with raw materials. To create jobs, we must develop
processing industries and make use of local resources. The
government's role in putting GATT in place will also be judged
by what happens here. Its defence of GATT was not very
convincing, I must say. The government accentuates regional
dependence.
(1140)
The federal government might as well admit that its actions in
the area of regional development are inappropriate. The
economic base is crumbling, the social fabric is falling apart, the
exodus from rural areas continues, with young people among the
first to leave.
The number of municipalities whose population is shrinking
has increased at an alarming rate in the past 25 years, so that
today, their numbers exceed the number of communities where
the population is growing. Nevertheless, the people in the
regions are doing something about it. A first step was taken by
the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec and 25 groups
that signed the déclaration des États généraux du monde rural at
their meeting in 1991.
Perhaps I may recall some of the main highlights of this
declaration: rights of the individual; the community's control
over its future; promoting and respecting regional and local
values; co-operation between local and regional partners;
diversification of the regional economic base; protecting and
regen-
86
erating resources; fine tuning lines of political authority; and
promoting alternative measures for sustainable development.
The Bloc agrees with these principles and supports this
consensus.
Regional development means more than just building roads.
Quebecers know that that is not enough. Progress depends on the
active participation and creativity of local resources. The
government should provide financial support as needed. In this
respect, research and development are the way of the future for
the regions. Remote locations are no longer an obstacle to
attracting high-tech companies.
Haphazard action by the federal government has created
bizarre situations, as in the case of its policy of closing rural
post offices, which meant that communities were deprived of
essential services, while at the same time community futures
committees were being set up to provide local communities with
the appropriate development tools. When we consider that 83
per cent of the employees in these post offices are women, an
excuse for speeches on employment equity, this is a clear case of
the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
The Federal Office of Regional Development fails to take the
comprehensive view of local development. What it does is often
more like window dressing. Boosting regional economies means
knowing how to use local human resources. Forestry workers
who lost their jobs to a machine should be able to go back with
dignity and help develop that same forest for the benefit of
future generations. When companies increase productivity, the
proceeds should be used to create jobs.
Actually, the inefficiency of manpower training programs is
most apparent in the regions, where it is harder to get a training
program for a group of workers than to relocate them. I had this
experience myself on an adjustment committee, when 20
employees from Bombardier had been laid off and it took at least
two major political manoeuvres to get these people a training
program for welding, although the Bombardier plant,
well-known internationally, was only a few kilometres from the
training location.
What is there in the Throne Speech that will make life easier
for a young entrepreneur from Saint-Hubert or
Rivière-du-Loup who wants to launch a new product? Who can
help him? The Business Development Centre, the Community
Futures Committee, the Youth Enterprise Centre, the
Corporation de développement économique, the tourism
corporation, the Federal Office of Regional Development, the
Industrial Development Corporation, plus two members'
offices. The development agencies mean well, but it is a real
nightmare for our young entrepreneur to find his way through
this administrative labyrinth. Often, after knocking in vain on
all these doors, our young entrepreneur has to go back to
dreaming about his future. Meanwhile, and this is even worse,
agencies in the region compete with each other in a way that is
unproductive.
(1145)
Regional development must also be based on comprehensive
projects like the high-speed train in the Quebec-Windsor
corridor-that cannot be overemphasized. This project would
create jobs in greater Montreal, at the Bombardier plant in La
Pocatière and for our Canadian neighbours. This project would
have a major impact. It would use the potential of our young
people who are skilled in high-tech fields and would develop an
expertise which could be exported throughout the world. It
would also be a major contribution to the conversion of military
industry.
Geographical isolation is trivial compared to isolation from
the main decision-making centres. The future of regional
development in Quebec depends on respecting Quebec's
jurisdiction in that field and recognizing the regions' right to
control their own development, as the Bélanger-Campeau
Commission said.
Federal intervention in regional development is very costly.
Overlapping jurisdictions require such an expenditure of energy
that not enough is left to deal with the real problems. By creating
intermediate structures, too much time is spent administering
the programs in order to co-ordinate decision making among
various agencies. Meanwhile, money does not go to the
community; it stays in the bureaucratic system.
The share of income collected directly by government
through taxes should diminish as local authorities obtain access
to revenue sources from these same citizens. The infrastructure
program is an eloquent example. What a fine effort the
governments seem to be making without putting too much
money into development!
But do you not think that ideally, the municipalities
themselves should have the ability to collect taxes and raise the
funds needed for their development, without asking themselves
whether the federal Parliament in Ottawa must be involved in
the decision about a garage or a roadway in the
Rivière-du-Loup region?
I think it would be much better to decentralize the budgets and
available funds significantly so that our local elected officials
can decide on these matters.
In the present federal system, a way to do this would be to give
Quebec the tax points for the federal investment in this area,
over $200 million, and to recognize Quebec's exclusive
jurisdiction in this field.
We are in a paradoxical situation, where the federal
government which has the right to raise taxes never developed
the proper tools to meet the regions' needs in support of their
development.
We gather from the 1993 election campaign that people yearn
for a way to the future, where only one government will decide
87
and will have all the power to tax and to eliminate duplication,
overlap and inconsistencies among departments. People want to
call on the values that already exist in their communities.
This way of the future is Quebec sovereignty, a unique
opportunity for a massive transfer to the regions of the $28
billion in taxes which Quebecers pay to Ottawa. We will vote
against the subamendment moved by the member for Calgary
Southwest because it is out of the question to give the
government a blank cheque for deciding on cuts without first
setting up a committee to thoroughly study the proposed cuts.
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Madam
Speaker, may I first of all congratulate you on your appointment
to this distinguished office and through you the Speaker who we
elected several days ago.
(1150 )
It is a significant fact that in a changing Parliament and in a
changing Canada we are in the process of changing the House
constitution, the rules. It indicates the basic fact of common law
from which the law of Parliament is passed, that it is not a frozen
cake of doctrine that gelled once and for all in some bygone age,
but a continuing process of creative adjustment of old rules to
new social circumstances.
We have seen changes that were not expected. The House has
elected a Speaker for the second time, but in this particular
election there were extensive meetings between candidates and
the political parties: the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party and
as a special suggestion of the Prime Minister, with the Liberal
Party. Perhaps no votes were changed, but I think there was a
profound educational process.
We are all better informed of the options of choice for the
future development of parliamentary rules and procedures
available to us. In the process of give and take there is a
cumulative advance in our thinking because parliamentary
constitutional law, as I said before, is not fixed in time. It is not
graven on stone tablets. It evolves and it must evolve.
The precedents we received in the 19th century must be
balanced against precedents from other ages, the 17th and 18th
centuries, for example. In some ways these are much more
dynamic and creative in terms of the evolution of English
parliamentary constitutionalism. They also affected the
American constitution.
What comes out of this is that this House will continue to
build on parliamentary procedures, will continue to create new
rules incrementally on the old. One looks forward to the
co-operation of opposition parties in building a new and
strengthened role for backbenchers and for committees. It is
good to have the full co-operation promised by the Prime
Minister and the House leader not merely in the election
campaign but since so that we represent law in the making.
That is a signal event for us because of course the speech from
the throne has two main thesis in it. One is the concept of change
that we live in a period of transition, in a sense a world
revolution of our times, of which the collapse of the Soviet
empire and the fall of the Berlin wall were merely symbolic
indications. Large changes are occurring and they affect Canada
as much as anybody else. Our institutions must respond to those
changes.
The speech from the throne picked up the thesis advanced in
the Livre rouge of the Liberal Party that change must come, that
it is inherent in our society. It should not be resisted. One should
guide and direct it constructively.
The second main theme in the speech from the throne is also
the notion that one cannot isolate social problems. The social
scientists speak of the polycentricity of problems and problem
solving. It simply means that individual problems are not
islands to themselves. One cannot separate social problems
from economic problems nor can one today separate internal
problems from larger problems of foreign policy.
We live in a global village and what happens in far-flung
areas of the world impacts upon Canada and upon our
development. It is in that perspective that I approach my
intervention in this debate.
I represent the constituency of Vancouver Quadra which has
had the honour of having as its members a Prime Minister, my
predecessor John Turner, but also a very distinguished
Conservative foreign minister, Howard Green who lived to a
very ripe old age after his retirement from Parliament. He is
remembered for reinforcing a principle developed first by Prime
Minister Pearson and Paul Martin Senior, the notion that
Canada's commitment in foreign policy includes a concern for
people outside Canada and a concern for human rights. Howard
Green, if you will remember, took the initiative as foreign
minister within the Commonwealth to raise the issue of race
relations with a member of the Commonwealth, South Africa,
and to say that a policy of openness and open society is and
should be a precondition to membership in the Commonwealth.
(1155)
And so I continue in that tradition. I must say one of the
striking things in my constituency is that it mirrors the changes
in process occurring in Canada as a whole. We have suddenly
become a global community by the very happy fact of
immigration and the integration of our new communities into
Canadian society.
My constituency encompasses Greek Canadians. It also has
Polish Canadians. Some came as war veterans after World War
II. Some came to escape the dying days of an inefficient,
incompetent communist regime. The boat people came 10 or 15
years ago and now have their children at college. There is a
success story for you because they came with nothing. Our
Indo-Canadian community and the Sikh community have con-
88
tributed so much to our cultural richness. Our Chinese Canadian
communities have come from mainland China, Taiwan and
Hong Kong and are united in maintaining a new plural Canadian
tradition.
This in some way signals the growth and change occurring in
British Columbia which was once traditionally preoccupied
with forestry and industries with natural resources. They are
still there. They are at the basis of our richness and the new
dynamic and I would say, forward looking policies of
management, a part of their present development.
However, it may have escaped the notice of people in other
parts of Canada that we lead in scientific development,
particularly in the area of the relationship of science, scientific
research, advanced technology and industrial application which
the Japanese perfected but which we are doing now.
The TRIUMF/KAON project is a monument to the new
dynamism in British Columbia education and science and
research. It groups together the great physicists of Canada and
the world. It has attached to it as ancillary projects, geneticists
like the Nobel laureate, Michael Smith. It has built a massive
export industry which converts a company like Ebco of
Richmond that once was a minor tool manufacturer into a
multimillion dollar export industry for Canada with new jobs
and new wealth contributing to the national well being.
Therefore British Columbia represents at once this meeting of
the new communities in a larger community of communities. By
the way that term, sometimes attributed to Canadian political
figures, is that of Martin Buber. He was speaking from his
viewpoint as a central European scholar who later went to Israel
and saw the need for communities to work together. The new
pluralism means every community is enriched in the process.
There is no longer, if there ever was, a problem of languages
in British Columbia. It is the objective of parents whose children
have mastered the cours d'immersion in the French language to
move over to a third language. I think that may be the Canadian
dream reflecting the new Canada and reflecting the new
orientation to which British Columbia has contributed so much.
The centre of gravity in the world community is moving from
Europe to the Pacific and the Pacific rim and we are there.
Therefore we will be speaking out in caucus and in Parliament
on the necessary recognition of the new role of British
Columbia. We sometimes feel that bureaucrats and maybe even
political leaders in central or eastern Canada are insensitive to
these dramatic changes in the balance of power in Canada.
(1200 )
The important thing to remember here is that we have a view
of federalism which corresponds to the view I expressed of the
common law. Federalism did not gel once and for all in 1867 in a
series of static relationships between institutions or a glorifying
of old processes simply because they were there.
We accept Mr. Justice Holmes' view that it is revolting to
have no better justification for a rule than that it was laid down
in the time of Henry II. Henry II has been dead for so many
centuries. Therefore we believe in the continual updating of
federal institutions.
Federalism, as Prime Minister Trudeau said, is pragmatism. It
is a process of constant readjustment of old institutions and
rules to meet new problems. And so we have faith in federalism
and the fact that our distinctness as part of the larger Canadian
society can be reflected and translated into institutional and
other changes within the Canadian Constitution and by a process
of evolutionary growth that does not necessarily require formal
changes to the constitution. The dynamic of constitutional
growth in an existing society is that it comes through
incremental change and adjustment in response to contemporary
problems.
In this period of change in which we all live I have spoken of
the movement of the world community, the shift in the centre of
gravity from Europe to the Pacific rim. It is a fact of life. It
means there will have to be new emphasis on trade and
co-operation with Pacific rim countries.
However it also reflects one of the great dilemmas of the
world community in a period of transition. We sometimes have
the coexistence of the old with the new. It is sometimes a painful
coexistence, even a collision.
We expect that the 21st century will see the ideal of a viable
world government. It is not with us now. Therefore, one of the
realities is the commitment that Canadians have made in foreign
policy from the golden period of St. Laurent, Pearson and Paul
Martin, Sr. to the United Nations has to be balanced against the
recognition of the regionalism that exists within the world
community as a whole.
It is good that the GATT discussions led to the suggestion for a
world trade organization, but this is not for the first time. It was
one of the hopes of the founding fathers of the United Nations in
1946 that there would be a world trade organization. It was the
failure, in some ways the unexpected failure, of this project that
led to the not very satisfactory compromise of GATT. But like
many not satisfactory compromises it performed a necessary
function and deserves credit for those measures that have
existed since 1946 to prevent an autarchic system of
international trade.
I come back to the basic point that to put all one's faith in a
world trade organization and in GATT is not a sufficient remedy
for the economic problems of our time. I have no doubt, in
89
historical terms, that the government has been right to put its
faith in NAFTA.
The regional organizations, the trends of history, the
movement of the European Community through the ideal of the
single act into, in many respects, a closed regional community
compels us to look for external markets wherever we can find
them. I compliment both the red book, the livre rouge, and the
government for the commitment to NAFTA. To be sure, there
were international problems to consider, a thicket of problems
that perhaps could have been considered more fully in the last
several years. However, they are not insuperable. Treaties once
made are not graven in stone. There are processes under
international law for changing them to new circumstances.
I had occasion as a private citizen in another capacity to
examine the issue of freshwater export in bulk, whether it was to
be covered by NAFTA or not. My conclusion was clearly it was
not covered by NAFTA but I appreciate the concerns of those
Canadian citizens who thought it was.
(1205)
On this particular point it seems to me that the solution
adopted by the Canadian government, the exchange of
statements, is adequate in international law to achieve that point
of making assurance doubly sure on the water issue. Further
possibilities for change exist on a similar basis. If we worry
about what the United States would say, I would simply say that
the United States government more than anyone perfected these
methods of change in treaties, creative change after the treaty
has been signed, sealed and delivered.
We move to this situation of a coexistence of mondialist, one
world tendencies through the new world trade organization,
through the development of GATT and through our creative
membership in new regional organizations like NAFTA.
We should all commend the initiative taken by the trade
minister to put out feelers to Chile, to new countries for
membership in NAFTA to expand our trade opportunities.
However we should also look carefully at associate membership
for our Pacific rim trading partners, or trading partners to be.
One of the great advantages of the new Canada, the new
pluralistic Canada, is that we have an enormous natural resource
in our citizens who have come here from other countries. They
have the language and know the customs in terms of trade and
commercial relationships and these things should be used to the
fullest. I expect in the expansion of the trade initiatives this will
be acted upon by the government to the fullest.
In the general area of foreign policy the problems of living in
an era of transition are obvious enough as they are in other areas.
We would have to recognize that western foreign policy as a
whole, after the period of creative growth, post war with the
Marshall plan and those brilliant imaginative conceptions of a
new world order have been somewhat lacking in imagination
and forward looking thinking in recent years.
It is noticeable that there were no strategic plans in place to
take account of the collapse of the Soviet empire and even
Europe. There was a real failure to anticipate that collapse, yet it
had been amply warned by all of the specialists.
There was also a failure to anticipate in the absence of a plan
for state succession the would-be renaissance of national
conflicts, of ethnic conflict of the sort which existed in
southeast Europe before 1914 and was reflected in the two
Balkan wars and in World War I.
One of our problems for Canadian foreign policy is that the
golden era when we did lead the free world in new ideas, the
golden era of the 1950s and 1960s, the St.
Laurent-Pearson-Martin era, cannot be replicated any more.
We were there because the colonization had not yet occurred.
However, we anticipated it and we led the way to its peaceful
application and peaceful development.
Our economic position was stronger in relative terms in the
world community than it is now. Of course we could say this
even more for the United States which is also in a more
imaginative period of thinking in foreign policy than in recent
years.
Some of the problems with which a new government and new
Parliament is beset reflect from a failure to recognize the
contradictions and to act on them in timely fashion. That is one
of the challenges for a new government and a new Parliament.
In relation to peacekeeping which Canada invented-it was
Mr. Pearson's achievement and he was a Nobel laureate on
account of that-we have to recognize today too many disparate
tasks in too many disparate areas. In some senses in the defence
forces there is too much preoccupation with military hardware
and not enough attention to the new and highly political role that
peacekeeping involves today. I think there was a second failure
to recognize the distinction between peacekeeping which we,
Mr. Pearson and Canada, devised and peacemaking which
involves the overt use of armed force.
(1210)
These are some of the issues that we face now: the tragedy of
Somalia, the tragedy of Bosnia-Hercegovina. These are
problems that could have been anticipated and not really met-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, your time
has expired.
90
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Madam Speaker, on
behalf of all my colleagues, I would like to commend the hon.
member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for his excellent
speech on regional economic development.
Having worked for the Quebec government in the area of
regional economic development for 25 years myself, I fully
agree with him on three points. The first point he made
concerning regional development, or non-development rather,
was the laisser-faire policy we have in this country at this time.
The second point that I endorse at once is that Quebec should
get this jurisdiction back along with all the related tax
considerations as soon as possible, so that there can a be a
semblance of economic planning in that new country to be.
The third point I obviously endorse and the last one he made is
that the people of Quebec should make as soon as possible the
only rational choice open to them in terms of comprehensive and
global development, and that is the road of sovereignty, national
sovereignty for Quebec as soon as possible.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): For the hon. member's
information, usually, as a rule, questions and comments must
deal with what the previous speaker has said, not another
speaker who had the floor before the hon. member. Any other
question or comment?
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Madam Speaker, as
this is the first time I rise in this House, I would like to take this
opportunity to thank the people of
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans for electing me on October
25, last year, to represent them in this place.
My question or comment for my hon. colleague from
Vancouver Quadra is this: I want to tell him that I really
appreciated his speech and that I would have liked him to stress
the importance of rail transportation for regional development.
My hon. colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, who
is very devoted to regionalism, strongly emphasized the fact that
the regions were getting poorer and poorer and I believe that his
province and region are among those which owe their
development to a railway stretching A mari usque ad mare, d'un
océan à l'autre, from coast to coast.
In their speeches, the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister for
External Affairs have indicated how committed they are to this
country. It reminded me of a slogan I heard as a fourteen year old
during the Centennial campaign in 1967, which said: ``Canada
Stand Together, Understand Together''. At any rate, I hope that
the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra will ensure that rail
transportation is maintained in the years to come.
I also support the comment the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup made about the need for a
high-speed train for the Quebec-Windsor corridor.
(1215)
[English]
Mr. Speller: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am
somewhat surprised. We have now had two members of the Bloc
up asking questions of my colleague and he has not yet been able
to respond to them. I am wondering what rule you have been
using to cut off the response to my colleague?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I thank the hon.
member. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was not on his
feet. I assumed he did not wish to make a comment and therefore
I went on to debate.
Would the hon. member like to make a comment? We have
five minutes left. You must rise so I can recognize you.
[Translation]
Mr. McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for his remarks. I am very much aware of the
flexibility of the Canadian federal system as I myself am a
regionalist. I know we can make some important changes to our
Canadian system.
I would not want to speculate on the initiatives being
developed by our hon. colleague, but I know that there will be
good opportunities for the growth of regionalism in Canada in
the near future.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Madam Speaker, I wish to
join the previous members in congratulating you and the hon.
member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold for his election
to Speaker of the House.
In the words of the Hon. J. J. Greene, a former Liberal
minister from my home town of Arnprior, Ontario: ``I am sure
that you will fill with distinction the office that has in the past
been occupied by so many distinguished men and women''.
I also congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address
in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I wish both of them
success in their careers in public service and here in the House.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the
constituents of Calgary Centre for electing me as their member
and representative of this 35th Parliament. It is truly an honour
and a privilege to represent such a diverse group of people from
a city that is so rich in western character and traditions.
My constituents come from all walks of life and the majority
are highly motivated and educated people who no longer believe
in the concept of executive federalism. They are tired of secret
policy formulations and abusive use of government patronage,
91
perks and pensions at a time when they are asked to pay more
and more in taxes.
My constituents want fiscal and social reforms and more
direct control over politicians and they want them sooner than
later. As their member of Parliament I plan to listen to them and
more importantly be held accountable to them during the time I
am here, not just at election time.
We have changed the faces of over 200 members in this House
but if we only change the faces and not the system we will have
accomplished nothing.
Superficial or cosmetic attempts to correct the injustices in
fiscal and political accountability will no longer be tolerated by
voters of this great country.
Time is of the essence in this Parliament. The time has come
to satisfy the majority interests in this country and not just that
of the special interest groups and elite Canadians. Today I will
be analysing the government's legislative program from the
perspective of fiscal responsibility and tax reform.
As the national debt continues to increase, we know it
threatens the future economic health of our nation.
(1220 )
Continued deficit spending will force future generations of
Canadians, our children and grandchildren, to accept
responsibility for this debt. It is a handicap that will be reflected
in our ability to compete globally and to grow and prosper
domestically. The average Canadian taxpayer cannot be asked to
pay more in taxes in any form.
In the speech from the throne there is no mention of deficit or
debt or how the GST will be replaced. This is a concern. The
Prime Minister has stated that the current system of taxation
does not work.
The need for tax reform is obvious. First, it is too
complicated. Most cannot fill out their own forms. They need to
hire professional assistance. Second, it is inequitable. The
progressive system with its many tax loopholes favours the rich.
Third, there is no real effective mechanism to prevent open
ended spending on ineffective and unnecessary programs.
Fourth, our high rates of taxation and the GST have contributed
greatly to the underground economy of $60 billion to $80 billion
which is not taxed. We must introduce measures to eliminate the
need for taxpayers to avoid paying taxes. As witnessed
yesterday by the Auditor General's report there is over $900
million in GST unremitted. Fifth, it is unfair to finance current
programs at the expense of future generations who have no vote
in the political process.
Our children and grandchildren may never forgive us if we do
not acknowledge that it is their money that we are spending and
committing.
As members know, our chartered banks are reluctant to lend
money these days because of the economic uncertainty. Why not
give some direction and leadership and commit this 35th
Parliament to solutions which send the right signals to the
investment community, the lenders and the taxpayers?
Increased taxation and a reliance on infrastructure spending
alone will not significantly reduce the deficit or encourage an
economic recovery.
The federal government could demonstrate fiscal
responsibility and restraint however by considering the
following alternative to the taxation system which would help us
solve some of our problems. It is essential to broaden the tax
base in order to lower the average rate of taxation with a new
system that treats all individuals and corporations equally. This
will surely appeal to the common sense of all Canadians.
I would propose a simple, flat tax on income or, as my leader
likes to call it, a ``proportional tax'' with a generous, fully
indexed exemption for lower income wage earners.
Mr. Speaker, you may have already heard of this idea under
the name of the single tax as it was called by the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood. His book, entitled simply The Single
Tax, gives a lucid and compelling exposition of how this
approach could be applied to Canada. Regrettably the proposal
has found no favour in his own party whose leaders
unfortunately are in love with the complex and manipulative
character of the old system. I challenge and encourage them to
reconsider.
In conclusion, we should commit ourselves to balancing the
budget, target funding to the truly needy and limit expenditures
to $153 billion in the 1994-95 fiscal year. These changes would
have tremendous advantages. First, they would stimulate higher
tax revenue for the government. Second, they would remove the
incentives for the underground economy. Third, they would
stimulate more economic growth and create jobs which after all
is the number one priority of the Prime Minister's red book.
I would like to close by changing somewhat the slogan of the
late Senator Stan Waters from ``Keep on marching'' to ``Let us
start marching''.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member just talked about having constituents
from all walks of life and how changing just the faces will not
work if we just change the faces and not the intent of the
government.
The hon. member is well aware, because he looks this way, of
the very different faces that are on the government side, whether
it is my colleague or others. I think that members should be
aware that changing the faces or the colours of the faces has
92
very much changed the dynamics of how the government will be
operating in the years to come.
(1225)
The member said: ``all walks of life''. I just want to ask the
member whether he has any groups of aboriginal people in his
riding and where his party stands on the issue of the inherent
right of self-government because in the throne speech mention
was made of the recognition of the inherent right of
self-government for aboriginal people.
I just want to ask the hon. member this. I realize he may not be
the person dealing with aboriginal issues but he may well know
the policy of his own party.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member and
going back to only changing the faces and not the system, I
perhaps may not have explained myself very well. If all we do is
change the faces and not the way we do business in this House,
not the way we look at how we spend money, not the way we look
at how we evaluate programs and not the way we decide what is
in the best interests of Canadians then we will have
accomplished nothing. Whether we have aboriginals,
Hungarians or different colours, it does not matter. We must
have systemic change in this House. That is what is important.
Canadian voters wanted change and expressed it by sending
so many new people to this House. They have changed the
people so it just follows logically that we have to change the
system.
In response to the second part of his question with respect to
aboriginal rights, my party and I are very much in favour of
working with aboriginals towards self-government and for the
fulfilment of their dreams.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the hon. member noting that the government must
balance the budget. However, the approach taken will be the
critical factor. We are confident that the hon. member and his
party, the Reform Party, will agree that spending must not be
reduced at the expense of the least fortunate. A parliamentary
committee should be convened to review each separate
budgetary expenditure.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I would concur with the hon. member
that balancing the budget is a priority. I would also concur that a
review of the spending estimates, program by program and then
line by line, is very important and one that would provide great
benefit to this House.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
before I was elected to this House I was a professor of
economics. How I wished I could use the threat of failing grades
to get the attention of this audience. Unfortunately I have to use
other means.
My position here has cost me dearly. Upon learning about my
election my former colleague and friend, Milton Friedman,
noted that now I had become an unreliable economist. You can
imagine my dismay when the hon. member for LaSalle-Émard
the other day said to me in front a large audience that I could
expect to be at the bottom of the totem pole as a member of the
House who is also an economist.
Before I present my comments on the throne speech, Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to tell you and the
hon. members of this House where I come from in a number of
senses.
I arrived in North America in 1956 at the age of 22 with only a
light suitcase full of clothing and the heavy baggage of a really
thick German accent.
(1230 )
Through hard work, lots of luck and a long odyssey of
academic positions in the United States, in 1971 I saw the light
and accepted a position as professor of economics at Simon
Fraser University, which, as you may know, was identified by
Maclean's magazine as the best Canadian university in its class
last year.
I love my adopted country of Canada. Its system of
democracy, liberty and opportunity has made it possible for me
to be in this distinguished Chamber today. Its economic system
has produced the highest standard of living for the largest
proportion of the population of a country in the history of
mankind. I have dedicated myself to the defence of this system
against the onslaught of excessive government in the lives of
Canadians and against the massive deficits that threaten its very
existence.
There is no perfect economic and social system in this world.
But I think that the efforts to perfect ours have gone too far.
Some of our country's most serious economic and social
problems have been caused by well-intentioned but flawed
government programs. That is why I believe that the solution to
these problems is less, not more, government.
Geographically I come from the riding of Capilano-Howe
Sound which is scenically one of the most spectacularly
beautiful ridings in all of Canada. It consists of the Vancouver
bedroom communities of West Vancouver and North Vancouver
which enjoy one of the highest per capita incomes in all of
Canada. The riding also includes the industrial town and port of
Squamish, the farming community of Pemberton and last but not
least the resort community of Whistler which has been for some
years identified as the best ski area in North America. In a recent
survey it was called the best in the entire world. I am proud and
deeply honoured to be able to represent the residents of
Capilano-Howe Sound in this House.
93
The throne speech and many other pronouncements by the
government have promised the restructuring of Canada's social
programs as one of its major legislated programs for this
Parliament. In the few minutes remaining to me here I would
like to share with members of the House some insights I have
gained from a study of these programs.
Before I do, I want to get out of the way one other fundamental
and very important matter. From long experience I know that the
discussion of social programs often leaves antagonists
questioning each other's motives. Please, in our deliberations in
this House let us not do so. Neither the hon. member for
Winnipeg South Centre nor the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway have a monopoly on compassion. It is
because of my strong concerns about the ability of the
government to deliver support to those in need in the future that
I make the following remarks.
The issue for me and Reform is not whether the unfortunate in
our society should be cared for but how best to care for them
today and tomorrow. Canada's social programs are beset by
three major problems.
First, too much of the spending benefits families with high
incomes. For example, families with incomes of over $100,000
a year in 1992 received $2.5 billion and $1.5 billion in UIC and
OAS benefits respectively. Such transfers clearly are not
consistent with the objective of providing a security net for
Canadians beset by financial calamity. They are a subsidy to
higher income earners that the country can no longer afford.
They are the unwanted consequence of the noble desire to
provide benefits universally without a means test.
Second, the current system has created incentives to which
rational Canadians are responding in ways that greatly dismay
socialists in Canada and the rest of the world.
(1235 )
Most of the hon. members here remember the choice faced by
the single mother in Toronto who took her case to the media last
summer. The media missed the main point by concentrating on
whether or not she lost income by giving up her $42,000 a year
job and going on welfare. Even if she had suffered a loss of
$6,000, what the system does is that under these conditions she
is asked to work for $500 a month. She and many Canadians
have been deciding that it is not worth their while to work for
that amount of income. I do not blame her or anyone else on
welfare or UIC for making such choices and neither does
society. That is the reason why, in spite of record outlays for
social programs, the problems today are alleged to be worse than
they were even 20 years ago.
Third, the framers of our large and universal social insurance
programs knew that, except in the case of seriously handicapped
people, government support should be temporary. It knew that
lengthy assistance would create dependency and ultimately hurt
recipients more than it helped them on their life voyage.
Experience with Canada's programs has now shown that
dependency has become a serious problem for a dismaying large
number.
The preceding diagnosis of the ills of Canada's social
programs cries out for a prescription for a cure. I must confess to
you, Mr. Speaker, and the other members of this House that I do
not have such a prescription because basically I believe there are
none.
What I do have are some ideas on how to alleviate the ills that
I have identified. However, the discussion of these ideas must
wait. In the meantime, I wish the hon. member for Winnipeg
South Centre and the government the best of luck in their own
search for possible cures, band-aids and palliatives.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the speech by the
hon. member of the Reform Party.
In my opinion, he touched on two critical points. The first is
the high cost of social assistance for the less fortunate and the
poor in our society. The second is the concern over the cost of
administering the government. As of yesterday, the deficit
topped the $500 billion mark. This is absurd, frightening and, I
would even say, dangerous.
Obviously there is reason for concern about Canada's
ballooning debt. The daily interest alone on the debt is
astronomical. Why is it that the first reflex we have when it
comes to putting our finances in order is to target those who are
the least fortunate?
There are many other things that we should consider before
turning our attention to the disadvantaged, the poor, the sick,
welfare recipients and so forth. This morning's edition of Forum
tells the story. There are at least five to six pages of examples of
government mismanagement.
Mention is made of the $25 million spent on travel by
ministers. Twenty-five million and perhaps ever more,
according to the Auditor General. There is a reference to
administrative oversights regarding tax breaks for resource
companies. I cannot remember the exact amount quoted, but the
figure was enormous. I think it was $900 million. Then there is
the enormous cost of running our embassies.
The Bloc Quebecois wants to review each administrative item
separately and clean house. I am certain there is a considerable
amount of money to be recovered. Then, if further cuts were
needed, perhaps then we could look at the most disadvantaged.
However, we should not start with them. We must start by
trimming the fat.
94
(1240)
Mention was made of a kitchenette and bathroom installed for
the head of Investment Canada at a cost of $125,000, according
to what was said this morning. That is enormous. You may say
that these are mere drops in the bucket as far as the overall
budget goes. However, these are the kinds of expenses we have
to tally and eliminate before-
[English]
The Speaker: Order. I see the member for Capilano-Howe
Sound on his feet. I was waiting for the member for
Beauharnois-Salaberry to conclude his remarks. I know the
member will be left with a rather brief period of time to answer.
[Translation]
If the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry could finish
up quickly, the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound could
then respond. Are you nearly finished?
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): I want to give the
hon. member time to respond, if he wishes, so that will be all,
Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, I deplore the idea that we discuss
this important issue on how to save Canada from bankruptcy by
hammering away at non-existent facts.
On the matter of our deficit the fact is that 60 per cent of all
our spending is going to transfers to persons. We have to do
something about it. This is where the money is. We cannot save
this country with line by line spending examinations and cutting
out the sorts of things the hon. member is talking about. Even if
we abandoned all the government we could not get our house in
order.
Sooner or later, and I believe as quickly as possible, we will
have to get at the core of the cause of our financial problems:
overspending through the mechanism of transfers to
individuals, so-called social programs. Contrary to what the
member has said I have identified that we must not attack
benefits for the poor. It is because the Reform and I are
concerned about maintaining benefits for the poor that I believe
we must look at the shortcomings in our current system that I
have identified.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, in entering
the debate today I would like to seek the permission of the House
to be allowed to conclude in 20 minutes even if it oversteps the
one o'clock limit.
The Speaker: The House has heard the member's request. Is
there unanimous consent not to see the clock at one o'clock?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, this debate is about Canada, its
economy and its future. As has been noted from the speeches
given yesterday the Liberal view of the economic condition is
quite clear. We need to create jobs and to put Canadians in the
position to spend and to pay taxes to get the economy going. We
need to stop the downward spiral of cuts.
I submit that lack of revenue is the problem. It is not a
problem of spending as has been outlined in several
interventions so far by representatives of the Reform Party. By
contrast, I heard yesterday the leader of the Reform Party
recommend to reduce here, to stop spending there: reduce and
stop, reduce and stop, cut here, cut there, cut everywhere and
inevitably create further unemployment, stagnate the economy
and, as an added technique proposed yesterday by the member
for Calgary South, put a cap here and there and as long as those
who are employed are doing all right everybody else will be
fine.
(1245)
Yesterday the leader of the Reform Party, the member for
Calgary South, trotted out an old idea advanced some years ago
by two American senators, Gramm and Rudman. He urged
spending caps as his remedy for economic ills. Then, to give his
imported policy a Canadian touch, he produced another old
chestnut. He urged the elimination of old age pensions for
Canadians who make more than a certain sum, thus advocating
something we reject on this side of the House, two classes of
citizens; thus introducing means tests; and thus weakening the
cohesion of our social fabric.
I submit that the idea of eliminating old age pensions is
actually not new in the ranks of the Reform Party. We will recall
that during the election in early October, as reported in one of
our national newspapers, a Reform Party candidate in British
Columbia was quoted as saying that old age pensions were a
form of welfare. That is what he said and that is what must be
remembered. It is the agenda of the Reform Party. It is on record.
Let us not be deluded today or enchanted by statements made on
the part of its representatives as to what was in its program and
in its campaign statements.
We cannot accuse the Reform Party of not being consistent.
The member for Calgary South is well known for his admiration
of the American health system which also divides society into
the haves and the have nots: those who have access to social
programs and those who do not. There is consistency there no
doubt.
Let us go back to the economy. One is forced to conclude that
the Reform vision of the economic ills of Canada and their
remedies is a rather constipated vision. It badly needs to be put
in touch with reality. I invite the leader of the Reform Party to
enter, if not the 21st, at least the 20th century. I invite him to
95
make that effort. In so doing he may discover that government is
not an evil force, that unemployment is the disease that needs to
be cured in order to get the economy going.
In other words, the leader of the Reform Party is off the mark
in his diagnosis of Canada's ills. I submit the problem is not one
of expenditures. Canada's problem is one of revenue. Instead of
cuts the first recommendation on the road to recovery would be
to stimulate and create jobs directly or indirectly. That cannot be
achieved, as the member from Calgary who spoke the morning
indicated, by balancing the budget. It cannot be done. He should
read his economics 101 text to refresh his memory.
Second would be to reduce the underground economy by
restoring the confidence of Canadians in our tax system.
(1250)
A third would be to eliminate as much as possible the tax
privileges better known under the name of tax expenditures
amounting to billions of dollars in lost revenue to the Canadian
public purse.
A fourth would be to repeal the ill conceived legislation
passed in 1991, a bill entitled Bill C-19, an act respecting banks
and banking, which gave chartered banks a great incentive to
invest in bonds at the expense of investing in business.
If there is one point that I would like to leave as being the
main thrust of this intervention on my part today, it is that the
last thing that Canada needs are cuts in social programs, unlike
the theology put forward by Reform Party spokesmen and
spokeswomen. A good social security network leads to a healthy
and strong economy as the thriving economies outside North
America have already proven.
Our illness is not expenditures. The finance department
produced last week a most interesting report for November on
the condition of Canada's deficit. It was even reproduced
nonetheless in the business section of one of our national
newspapers, the Globe and Mail, of all places. From that we
learned that the deficit in November is down from a year earlier,
revenue is down, expenditures are down, program spending is
down and debt charges are down. Yes, that is what the Dow Jones
article in the Globe and Mail on page B3 of last Saturday reports
as a result of a report produced by the finance department.
We can see that the symptoms are that expenditures and
revenues are down. One must conclude that the cure is not to
reduce further expenditures even more but to increase revenues.
That is what we need to do.
One way to increase revenues is to remove the privilege in our
tax system which is costing large sums every year to Canadians
as a whole. Let me give some examples.
We have the non-taxation of lottery and gambling winnings.
Do members know that cost in revenue to the Canadian people
every year? For 1991, the latest year for which we have figures,
it was a loss of revenue of $860 million.
Then we have the $100,000 exemption of capital gains which
meant in the same year a loss in revenue of $665 million. This is
not a member of Parliament speaking, it is the finance
department speaking in its report issued last week and
reproduced partially in the business section of the Globe and
Mail as I mentioned a moment ago.
Then we have the dividend, the gross up and credit which
account for a loss in revenue of $700 million. Then we have the
partial inclusion of capital gains which is a loss in revenue of
$665 million. Then we have the investment tax credit of $49
million.
Moving from personal to corporate income tax we find, again
according to finance department figures just published last
week, items like subsidies for business meals and
entertainment. For instance, there is the box at the Skydome in
Toronto if one takes it for $100,000 or whatever the fee is, or
escort services or no matter what. That total loss of revenue is
$357 million.
(1255)
Then there are subsidies for multinationals investing
overseas, such as exemptions in foreign currency deposits. The
amount is $505 million a year. Then there is the partial inclusion
of capital gains, some $417 million in 1991.
There are more items: subsidies for business lobbying,
business advertising, real estate developers and professionals.
For all these items, strangely enough, the finance department is
incapable of providing a figure despite the urging-note
this-of the Auditor General over the last five or six years to do
so, if my memory does not fail me. We still do not know the
extent of these tax expenditures. I submit that these are tax
privileges which in times of economic hardship are
unacceptable.
Let me bring up another facet in the jungle of revenue losses.
In Canada there is no minimum corporate tax at the present time.
Some would think that we must be competitive with the giants
south of the border and we cannot have a tax that they do not
have. It turns out that in the United States there is a minimum
corporate tax of 20 per cent.
We do not know the revenue loss in relation to this tax nor the
losses incurred through a Canadian tax exemption called the
21-year trust rule. Has one ever heard about the 21-year trust
rule which the Tories renewed in the dying days of the last
Parliament? Yes, there is, Maryanna, a tax called the 21-year
trust rule. The estimated loss is in the hundreds of millions of
dollars. However the finance department is not capable of
telling us the precise amount. It cannot. Is that not strange?
96
All in all, to sum it up because my time is coming to an end, it
would be fair to estimate that if the major tax concessions
presently existing in the Canadian tax system were to be
eliminated the federal public revenue would go up by several
billions every year. It is a matter of political will.
If we are to reduce the deficit, I submit in conclusion, then
eliminating tax expenditures is a good way of doing it. It could
be done without penalizing ordinary Canadians who presently
bear the brunt of a taxation system which has, over the last 10
years, been allowed to become regressive, unfair and a burden in
order to help the privileged.
Our taxation system cries to heaven. It is in desperate, urgent
need to be modernized, made fair and progressive and to be one
in which Canadians can have faith. If we do that then the
underground economy will gradually reduce and eventually
disappear. In doing that also we will not see the need for cutting
the social programs which are the product and the result of the
architecture of successive Liberal governments over the past 50
years beginning with Mackenzie King in 1939 when
unemployment insurance was introduced and moving on to St.
Laurent, Pearson and Trudeau.
The Canadian social security system is the result of a Liberal
ideology. It is a good one. It needs to be strengthened, not
weakened. It is one which will make our economy better and
stronger. I submit that we should be proud of it and reinforce it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being one o'clock p.m.,
I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(2).
(The House recessed at 1.01 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
96
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, we on this side of the House find it disturbing to note
the lack of specifics in the throne speech on a number of vital
national issues. However, we did not expect the government to
neglect so completely a subject of utmost importance to rural
Canada, and that is agriculture. In fact, its absence is
conspicuous. We can only hope that this is not an indication of
the government's intention to put agriculture on the back burner.
Farmers like myself are anxiously waiting on that back
burner. We are the ones who stand to get burned. This while
government chefs cook up higher deficits and more bureaucracy
using a recipe they dug out of an old Keynesian cookbook.
The government of today cannot afford to ignore vast regions
of our great country. Rural and urban Canadians all deserve
equal treatment. All opposition members will require it of this
government.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, over time
forests have been reduced from 34 per cent to 12 per cent of the
world's land mass. In much of the world deforestation continues
causing soil loss, land slides, shortages of water, damage to fish
and wildlife. Forests provide habitat for biodiversity and absorb
carbon dioxide. Life on the planet is threatened when forests are
threatened.
However, the world community increasingly recognizes the
value of forests. Forests must be given high priority on the
international agenda, both politically and scientifically. The
proposed royal commission on forests and sustainable
development patterned on the Brundtland commission would be
a good first step. Unfortunately, in Rio in 1992 the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development issued a
weak statement.
Therefore I urge this government to lead like-minded nations
toward the establishment of an international forest commission.
Such a commission would report on how to sustain forest
biodiversity, ensure environmentally sustainable forest
management and protect social-ecological systems.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, the
municipal pier of Grondines, in the riding of Portneuf, is
deteriorating. The municipality proposed to the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans to award a contract for the laying of rocks
to protect the jetty, which would solve the problem for several
decades to come. As well, Hydro-Québec has agreed to provide
the rocks free of charge. Those rocks will be available following
the dismantling of a structure used to cross over the waters. The
municipality hopes to acquire the pier and use it for recreational
purposes.
This project would allow the department to give a new life to
the facility and save about one half of the amount it would
otherwise have to spend, while at the same time freeing itself of
recurrent costs.
Since Hydro-Québec intends to deliver the rocks no later than
next summer, I want to co-operate with the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans so that his department and the municipalityof Grondines can immediately benefit from this uniqueopportunity.
97
(1405 )
[English]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, the film
``Schindler's List'' depicts what can occur when racism is
permitted to go unchallenged or, even worse, ignored.
[Translation]
The increased incidence of racism and hate propaganda in
Canada, as well as the tragic events in Eastern Europe,
demonstrate that the atrocities of the Second World War related
in the movie cannot be viewed as an isolated event or a historical
aberration.
The horrors of the past could be repeated-in fact they have
already been repeated-if we do not fight racism. MCA
Universal gave me the authorization to show, for the benefit of
all parlementarians, the movie ``Schindler's List'' this evening.
We, the legislators representing the various regions of our
country, have the obligation, towards our voters and towards all
Canadians, to support the efforts of those who fight against
racism, both here and throughout the world.
[English]
I would like to thank MCA Universal for their support and I
also wish to thank my colleagues in this House and in the other
place.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker,
on January 17, 1994 at approximately 7.30 a.m. eastern standard
time a severe earthquake measuring 6.6 on the Richter scale
struck the city of Los Angeles.
Due to the severity of the earthquake over 25,000 people were
left homeless, 45 are dead and over 2,000 are injured.
I wish to express my great sense of sorrow to these individuals
and at the same time urge the Prime Minister on behalf of this
House to convey our condolences to President Clinton and the
victims of the disaster.
No doubt in the near future when we know the full extent of
this earthquake we will know more about this tragedy.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, it is with great
concern and regret that I announce a plant closing in my riding
of Brant.
Today Inter-City Products Canada Limited is closing its Elgin
Street plant in the city of Brantford. Three hundred men and
women will be looking for employment come tomorrow.
Inter-City has been part of our community for 45 years. It has
had to rationalize and downsize as a result of today's economic
climate.
Our local Canada Employment Centre and the Industrial
Adjustment Service are working with the company and with the
union to support the employees. But I would encourage our
ministers to continue to push hard with the infrastructure
program in Ontario, with the initiatives that we have in support
of small and medium-sized business and to develop new
opportunities for our young people.
Brant needs this and so does Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, like
my colleagues, I wish to take this first opportunity to
congratulate you on your election as Speaker of this House.
I would like to draw your attention to a situation which, I am
sure, is a matter of concern to all members of this House. I am
referring to our Canadian Blue Berets who are doing an
exceptional job of peacekeeping and promoting peace on the
international scene.
I would like to express, on behalf of Quebecers and
Canadians, some very serious concerns about their safety. I
would therefore ask the government to provide guarantees that
any NATO intervention would not have the effect of
jeopardizing the safety or endangering the lives of 150 Blue
Berets trapped at Srebrenica, most of whom are from CFB
Valcartier, located in Charlesbourg, my riding.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your election as
Speaker of this House, and I would also like to take this
opportunity to thank all the people in Verdun-Saint-Paul,
including Pointe-Saint-Charles, for placing their trust in me for
the next four years.
[English]
I want to thank all the people of the riding of
Verdun-Saint-Paul including Pointe-Saint-Charles for the
mandate they have given me for the next four years.
[Translation]
Today the Canadian Olympic Association announced
simultaneously, in Montreal and Calgary, the membership of the
Canadian team. I would like to salute these 105 athletes, the best
in the country, 31 women and 74 men, with a large
representation from Quebec, who will represent Canada at the
Lillehammer Winter Games in Norway next February.
98
(1410)
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate our athletes and
their coaches, parents and families, and all those who helped
train our Olympic team.
Let us celebrate and wish them the best of luck.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise
an issue of concern to millions of Canadians regarding the
activities in this House yesterday.
Much to my disappointment the focus of the affairs of this
place yesterday was on the constitutional future of Quebec. The
three parties in this House each said during the recent election
that the economy and getting Canada back to work would be the
number one item on the agenda of this Parliament.
As a member from the province of Ontario, I would remind
hon. members that the time will come when the Quebec-Canada
issue will rise on the agenda. Until that time on behalf of
Canadians in all provinces, the unemployed and those faced
with uncertain futures, this House must concentrate on
economic and social issues.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
the single largest industry in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex
is agriculture, producing nearly three-quarters of a billion
dollars worth of product in 1991.
Since the conclusion of the Uruguay round of GATT
negotiations last December I have received numerous inquiries
from concerned constituents who have expressed reservations
about the continued state of health of Canada's supply
management system. This system has benefited farmers and has
provided consumers with a constant supply of high quality food.
Canada's tariff offers for agricultural products were tabled
recently in Geneva. I am deeply concerned about reports that
Canada's original tariff proposals for ice cream and yogurt may
be lowered.
I would like to urge the Minister of Agriculture to ensure that
the tariff levels and the mechanisms to enforce them provide
effective controls for agricultural products.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker,
we are told in the throne speech that steps are going to be taken
to deal with violence against women and children. It is about
time. The figures are absolutely terrifying.
One out of every two Canadian women have known violence
firsthand. In four out of five cases it first happened when they
were children. Six out of ten women in Canada fear for their
safety and their lives if they walk alone in their own
neighbourhood after dark.
Freedom of movement is a marvellous democratic ideal.
However for millions of Canadian women it is not yet a reality.
We can do better than that. We must. In this Year of the Family
let us see to it by starting to put an end to violence against
women and children.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, potato
producers in the magnificent riding of
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans have suffered enormous
losses in 1991 due to a virus. These losses amounted to about
$546,000 for potatoes stored on the farm and close to $468,000
for potatoes stored at the wholesale level, which means more
than a million dollars altogether.
Producers from Île d'Orléans have forwarded to the former
Minister of Agriculture a complete file on the causes of these
losses, on the amounts of money involved and on the
compensation requested. The present Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food has received a copy of this file.
In the past, compensation was paid to Maritime producers
who suffered similar losses. The uneven way Maritime
producers and Quebec producers are treated is unacceptable. We
demand that this issue be given the attention it requires and that
potato producers in the Île d'Orléans be properly and promptly
compensated.
* * *
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr.
Speaker, the Auditor General can table only one report a year.
This report on the strategic and operational management of the
federal government is of extreme importance.
(1415)
As do many Canadians, I believe that the time has come-to
better understand what deficits and debt mean, to better manage
department and agency budgets; to better inform Canadians on
federal programs and their efficiency; to better amend our laws
to make them more easily understandable-to seriously
contemplate amending the Auditor General Act, to enable him
to prepare not only one yearly report, but ad hoc reports which
99
would provide this House with the information required to
manage the country in the best possible way.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to address an issue of great concern to millions
and millions of Canadians who are sincerely worried about their
financial well-being in their retirement years.
It is no secret that previous governments have underestimated
the financial reserves that will be available to retiring Canadians
after the year 2000. That is why so many Canadians, many of
whom voted for members on the government side, have been
diligent about paying into their private registered retirement
savings plans.
Yesterday in response to a question from the member for
Calgary Centre the Minister of Finance would not guarantee
Canadians that there would be no tinkering with the amounts
Canadians are permitted to pay into RRSPs.
Canadians and this House need an unequivocal guarantee
from this government that there will be no tinkering and no tax
grabs or-
The Speaker: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, tobacco smuggling is not a victimless crime. When
tobacco is smuggled taxes are lost, revenue is lost. Our country
needs this revenue in order to fund social programs, lower the
deficit and also of course to fund job creation initiatives.
There are even more important reasons yet why we want to
curb tobacco smuggling. It is because the crime of selling and
buying illegal cigarettes is associated with violence and
disrespect for law. More sinister is the fact that the money from
this activity ends up straight in the pockets of motorcycle gangs,
the underworld and other undesirables. Those moneys are used
to fund more crime, more violence, gun running and so on.
Let us all work together to put an end to tobacco smuggling in
Canada.
99
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, in answer to one of my questions, the Prime
Minister quite frankly admitted he was prepared to reduce
health care expenditures, and I quote: ``If we are able, working
in co-operation with the provinces, to reduce the health care
expenditures of all levels of government, then both the
provinces and the federal government will save money.''
We also know that the Minister of Finance is in Montreal, on
the first day of a two-day federal-provincial conference with
his provincial counterparts.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if, considering his
position on reducing health care expenditures, he has instructed
his Minister of Finance to convince or indeed oblige his
provincial colleagues to reduce health care levels in the
provinces by agreeing to a reduction in provincial transfer
payments.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
as I have said before, it is in the interests of all levels of
government to try to reduce spending in all sectors, including
health care. If governments were able to reduce spending in this
area, both the provincial governments and the federal
government would improve their financial situation. If they do
not succeed, expenditures will remain at the same level.
However, I want to try. In fact, this House wants the entire
public sector in Canada to reduce spending levels, and all
sectors should be examined, including health care.
[English]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, how is it possible for anyone to take seriously the
commitment made by the government in the speech from the
throne to the sacred principles of the universality of the health
care plan when we heard the Prime Minister say, as he said
yesterday, that he had made a decision to reduce the level of
resources devoted to health care?
(1420 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
there are some universal health care services existing, for
example, in Europe where they spend less than Canada in
relation to their GNP. In the United States they do not have
universal medicare and they spend 14 per cent of their GNP. In
Canada we spend 9 per cent.
100
I know of some countries in Europe that have universal
medicare which applies to all their citizens and they spend 7 per
cent to 8 per cent of GNP. If we could be as good as them
everybody would be saving money.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I notice the Prime Minister is more interested in
monetary matters than in the level of health care to be offered to
Canadians.
Does the Prime Minister realize that the situation is already
very disturbing for health care recipients-in Quebec, for
instance, and I am sure it must be about the same anywhere else
in Canada, there is a five-month wait for heart surgery and three
months for radiation therapy -and that by using his proposed
transfer payments to the provinces to improve spending cuts, he
will further extend delays that are already unacceptable?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Canada's
health care services are administered by the provincial
governments, and we contribute to the financing of these
programs. The provincial government's own administration
may decide what its priorities in this area will be, and that is
each government's responsibility. Federal transfer payments are
for us a way to ensure that health care services are available and
universal across Canada. However, each provincial
administration is responsible for its own budget priorities. The
Constitution, in fact, gives the provinces jurisdiction over this
area.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, since this is the first
time I speak in this House, I would like to congratulate you on
your appointment.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Mr.
Speaker, regardless of the successive federal governments,
fisheries management has been short-term, short-sighted and
chaotic-so much so that the Auditor General told us yesterday
that Ottawa gave grants to fishermen who had died or did not
qualify. Not only is the department unable to manage marine
resources but it also seems to be unable to manage financial
resources.
My question therefore is this: What specific short-term
measures does the minister intend to take to put the management
of his department's programs back in order, as the Auditor
General asks, since, let me add, his 6,000 officials no longer
have any cod to manage?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his question and I congratulate
him on his new responsibilities.
Let me first of all make clear that the member asks what
action this government will take to put order in POWA
programs. The Auditor General's report is an assessment of the
previous administration's program, and the Auditor General
himself has noted that most of the concerns that have been raised
have been dealt with.
Furthermore, the notion that funds were paid to people who
were deceased in my reading of the Auditor General's report is
nowhere to be found, although I understand an official said at
some point perhaps that was possible.
Let me advise the member that notices have been sent to 1,300
individuals asking for complete and full repayment. That
process is under way. This government, when it delivers its
program post May 15, will do so in a professional, competent
and first class manner that I know the member himself will be
happy to applaud.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, my second question
is when? When can fishermen in Quebec and Canada, who are
now living in total uncertainty, have an idea of what the minister
will do after May 15, when the Fisheries Adjustment and
Recovery Program ends? Will we have the traditional
improvisation from the Department of Fisheries, that is, a
presentation on May 14? Let me repeat: When will the minister
lift the veil of uncertainty? When?
(1425)
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I want to assure the member opposite that we will not
have an improvised approach. We will have an approach that is
very much the result of wide and complete consultation with all
provincial governments affected, including the province of
Quebec.
I had a meeting with fisheries ministers from all the Atlantic
region in Quebec City a few weeks ago. My colleague, the
minister responsible for employment programming in Canada,
human resources, met last week with representatives of all
harvesters in Canada, including the province of Quebec.
The purpose of these meetings is consultation: to listen, to
reflect upon the advice that is being given, and to ensure that
when a program is delivered in this country it is the result of
broad based public consultation at the community level.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he does not want
to reopen constitutional issues at this time and that the priority
of his government is jobs and economic growth. Yet yesterday
he and other Liberal members were repeatedly drawn into
101
heated exchanges with Bloc members on the constitutional
future of Quebec.
There are millions of Canadians including Quebecers who
want Parliament to focus on deficit reduction, jobs and
preserving social services.
Is the Prime Minister abandoning his commitment to stay out
of the constitutional swamp or is it still his resolve to stick to
economic, fiscal and social priorities?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
my answer is yes to the second part of the member's statement.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister have any strategies, mechanisms or
suggestions for this House to enable the constitutional concerns
of the Bloc members to be addressed without allowing them to
consume a disproportionate amount of the time and attention of
this House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the answer to that is very simple. I cannot stop them from talking
about separation. They have the freedom to do that.
I know very well that if members of the official opposition
keep talking about separation and constitutional problems they
are not living up to why they are here. The people in every riding
of Quebec want all members of this House to work together to
make sure that we have economic growth and job creation.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have one further supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister envision some special role for the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in this area? Is its focus
going to be primarily on Canada-Quebec relations or on
relations with all provincial governments?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the minister is charged to deal with all the provinces and to work
to try to eliminate a lot of the duplication that exists between the
two levels of government. He will deal with all the provinces
because it is a concern right across Canada. That type of
problem is not only in relation to the province of Quebec. It is
with all the provinces. We would like to eliminate a lot of
duplication.
When I met with the first ministers in December we went
through a list of possible elimination of duplication. The
minister is working very actively to make some progress in that
field.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, if the prime
minister wants to speak on the economy, I remind him that
yesterday the premier of Quebec, a true federalist as you well
know, made an urgent call to his federal counterpart-
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will ask his
questions through the Speaker.
Mr. Gauthier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. You can blame it on my lack
of experience.
So I ask my question through you to the prime minister. I
remind him that yesterday the premier of Quebec, who is a true
federalist and whom the prime minister knows well, made an
urgent call to his federal counterpart to solve the issue of
overlapping responsibilities in the manpower area. It was an
urgent call.
Meanwhile, last Tuesday, his minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs associated this agreement with the reform of all
Canadian social programs.
(1430)
Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows: How does the Prime
Minister reconcile the urgency to act and the Quebec Premier's
request and the gradual strategy of his Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we already discussed this problem with the Premier of Quebec.
We would like to find a solution to this problem but it is a very
complicated issue. Equalization is also involved, in that it
depends on the needs of each part of Canada. Unfortunately,
since the Atlantic provinces and Quebec have proportionately
more unemployment than the rest of the country, they receive
more money.
A way must be found to use federal funds to help unemployed
people whom they want to train and to allocate these funds on
the basis of regional needs. For this regional distribution,
federal authority must be maintained; otherwise, if we simply
transfer jurisdiction, the transfers will be made per capita and
the province of Quebec will lose a lot.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Is he willing to
pledge right now that he will do his utmost to ensure that this
issue is settled without delay, as the Quebec Premier has been
requesting, in order to dispel the doubts cast by his Minister for
Intergovernmental Affairs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
what matters is not to respond quickly but to take proper action,
102
and we are going to take all the time necessary to find the
solution that will ensure that Quebec is not penalized. If we go
for per capita transfers, Quebec will pay a hefty price to opt out
of this federal program.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Is today the day that the Prime Minister is to rise in his place
and free the members of this Parliament to represent their
constituents by declaring 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 motion?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
this House has had long standing rules of procedure which we
follow. I think that it would be very easy, with the majority we
have, to embark upon a process that would render the
government not accountable for its decisions, but we also have
to consider the consequences if, in a distant future, a minority
government were to be elected to Parliament.
[English]
We have to keep in mind what would be the long term effect of
such a proposition on this Parliament.
Some time ago we came a long way from that. I remember
when we lost a vote in the House on the budget when Mitchell
Sharp was the minister. Mr. Caouette who was a social creditist,
the grandparents of the Reformers of today, made a proposition.
He had managed to defeat a budgetary proposition and he said
that it was not a defeat of the government. Through that good
decision of Mr. Caouette's we remained in power and won the
election a few months later.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his answer.
I do bow to his expertise.
However I would wonder if the Prime Minister might explain
to the Canadian people why he refuses to allow their MPs to
represent them faithfully in Parliament.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
this House is not a group of independents who have been elected
on their own. We too are members of a party and we had a
program.
(1435 )
The government is getting the program before the House and
the red book will be implemented. All the promises we have
made will be implemented. We stick together because we have
the right policies.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of National Revenue has announced that he has
withdrawn the action he had brought against the government.
Upon verification however, the Federal Court-Appeal Division
docket seems to indicate that part of the case is still pending and
will have to be heard on appeal.
Does the Minister agree that he is still in a conflict of interest
position because of this action pending with regard to his travel
expenses since his Cabinet colleague, the Minister of Justice,
has to plead against him?
[English]
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker-
The Speaker: It would seem that the question might be out of
order. I would rule it out of order. It should be directed to the
minister in charge of conflict of interest since it is a matter of
law. Perhaps the member could rephrase it.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is a question for the Prime Minister to answer. I have been
informed by the Minister of National Revenue that the minister
has withdrawn his action.
[Translation]
Those are the instructions he has given his lawyer. Now, did
the lawyer follow these instructions? I do not know. We will
look into this. The minister clearly stated that he had instructed
his lawyer to withdraw the action. Was the lawyer remiss or did
he do his job? What I was told is that the minister had
specifically requested that the case be discontinued.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, I have
the discontinuance order right here and it applies only to the
cross-appeal. This means that there is still an appeal pending
before the Federal Court.
I would like the Prime Minister to tell me: under his new code
of ethics, is it appropriate that his Minister of National Revenue
be in a position of conflict of interest, based on the facts I have
just stated, which were verified no later than this morning by the
Federal Court, or should he not choose between resigning his
Cabinet seat and withdrawing his appeal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
do not believe that the hon. minister was in a conflict of interest
situation at any time. As a citizen, the minister had rights
103
against the crown like anybody else. It so happens he had
brought an action against the government, exercising a right we
all have.
Any of us who risked sustaining damage or injury on federal
property due to the negligence of a government employee would
be entitled to sue the crown. Anybody, including me, any
minister and the leader of the Opposition. But, to avoid
controversy, the minister has decided to withdraw his appeal. If
his counsel did not carry out these instructions-and if he is
watching today, he can see that the minister of revenue
agrees-he should have carried out his instructions to the letter.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
A woman by the name of Shelley Anne Clark, who is an
employee of the federal government, has publicly made serious
accusations concerning the free trade agreement, including a
statement that the actual text of the agreement has never been
disclosed. She says that the real agreement contains terms which
limit Canada's sovereignty over our resources.
On behalf of Canadians who have called me and other MPs to
find out whether this is true, would the minister lay the matter to
rest today by stating conclusively that the text of the free trade
agreement which has been made public is in fact the true and
complete agreement?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, the allegations made by the Shelley Anne Clark
were investigated by the previous government and found to be
unwarranted. Our practices regarding privacy of information
would preclude me from commenting any further on her
allegations.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, could
the minister state conclusively that the text of the agreement
which has been made public is in fact the true and complete text?
That is what people want to know.
(1440)
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, the text made available by the previous
government is, in my understanding, the actual text.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue. While the
Liberal ministers have fun passing the buck on the cigarette
smuggling issue, the Premier of Quebec has said once again that
he intends to lower the tax to curb the problem.
Is the Minister prepared to acknowledge that one of the best
ways of eliminating smuggling is by reducing the excessive tax?
And how does the minister feel about the Quebec Premier's
proposed course of action?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
discussed this matter with the Premier of Quebec in December
and discussions are under way with other governments at this
time. We intend to take the necessary steps to curb smuggling as
soon as possible.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): My supplemental is for
the Prime Minister as he appears to have taken over question
period this afternoon.
Will the Prime Minister concede that as a result of high taxes,
the federal treasury has lost nearly $600 million, according to
the Finance Department's 1992 estimates alone, and that as a
result of this, smokers contribute considerably less to the health
care system?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
there is no question that governments have lost a considerable
amount of money. That is why we have decided to consult with
the provinces and work together with them to address the
smuggling problem. If both levels of government cannot
co-operate, if one acts and the other does not, then we will not
get the hoped-for results. We are working right now to achieve a
consensus on an effective way of curbing smuggling.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
The minister is quoted in yesterday's Toronto Sun as saying
that the government will have plans for native self-government
in place within six months.
Could the minister tell the members of the House and the
people of Canada, indeed the aboriginal people themselves,
precisely what is meant by self-government?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I announced a process of
six months of discussions with the provinces, the territories and
the regional and provincial governments to assist in the
implementation of the inherent right of self-government which
this government is committed to.
In answer to my hon. friend's question, it is a three-in-one
formula: self-determination, self-sufficiency and
self-government within one Canada. We intend to proceed with
fairness and in the healing process in the end we will have a
better country.
104
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, we
want a better country.
Last night on the CBC newscast, the minister seemed unclear
as to whether this declaration of his meant that the government
was creating a third level of government, a third level that many
people at the municipal and provincial levels and indeed
aboriginal people themselves are very uneasy with.
After a night of reflection will the minister tell the Canadian
people whether his declaration yesterday will indeed create a
third level of government in Canada?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I was asked that question last night
on CBC to which I responded that it was a tough question. It still
is.
We do not look at this as creating a third level of government.
We look at this as developing what exists from the Two Row
Wampum treaties of hundreds of years ago through the
Constitution, the Guerin case and the Sparrow case to what we
have today: the policy of this government that the inherent right
of self-government exists. It is something we are committed to
and something we intend to implement fairly and justly within
four years.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, this is
my first intervention in the House. I would like to congratulate
you for being elected Speaker of the House of Commons.
(1445 )
The balance of salmon interceptions under the Pacific Salmon
Treaty has tipped significantly in U.S. favour since the treaty
was signed in 1985. The imbalance is worsening. U.S. fishermen
enjoy the benefits of increasing stocks of Canadian sockeye
while Canada's interception of U.S. coho and chinook continues
to decline.
In 1993 Canada and the United States failed to reach an
agreement concerning long term salmon fishery management
plans. The one year management plan that was accepted expired
this year. So far negotiations have been long and protracted.
What is the status of these negotiations?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for her
excellent question and her interest in this matter.
Despite all the efforts of the Government of Canada to
negotiate on these matters relating both to conservation and to
the question of equity raised by my hon. friend, we have now
arrived at an impasse in our negotiations with the American
negotiators.
Consequently I have had discussions with my colleagues, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Trade
and with colleagues from the province of British Columbia.
Having received advice from our negotiator as well as from
Canada's Pacific salmon commissioners, I have instructed our
negotiator, Yves Fortier, to advise his American counterpart that
we will not be participating in the next round of negotiations and
that progress cannot be made until the Americans are ready to
implement an equity agreement.
This government is committed to conservation and a sensible
management plan, but it is committed as well to protecting the
interests of Canadian fishermen in British Columbia.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada.
I was stunned to hear yesterday on the news that corner store
owners in Saint-Eustache had their backs to the wall and were
openly going to violate the law by selling contraband cigarettes.
This clearly shows that Canadians are getting more and more
frustrated by the government's lack of action regarding this
contraband problem.
My question is: Does the minister intend to call on the RCMP
to enforce the law in Saint-Eustache?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
will inquire with the RCMP concerning the issue raised by the
hon. member. I too believe that the law must be enforced and I
will provide the hon. member with a more detailed answer as
soon as possible.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, in that case, could the minister also tell me what he
intends to do to enforce the law everywhere, including eight
kilometres away from Saint-Eustache, where offenders sell
cigarettes illegally and very openly?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
we intend to make sure that all Canadians respect the law.
105
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry. I acknowledge the
fact that this matter took place under the previous government.
It was reported in the Auditor General's report that the
president of Investment Canada spent $132,000 of taxpayers'
money on renovations to a bathroom and kitchenette in his
office. Last weekend the Ottawa Citizen had an ad for a whole
house for $105,900.
Would the minister assure the House and explain specifically
what steps his department is taking to prevent the recurrence of
this kind of lavish and extravagant waste of taxpayers' money.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the question. It gives me the opportunity to underline
for the hon. member that in my view every single dollar we
receive from the taxpayers of Canada is vitally important and
our judgment in how we spend it is always open to review.
I consider this expenditure to be lavish and unworthy of
taxpayers.
(1450 )
I would like to remind the hon. member that there are new
cooks in the kitchen now and we are going to do a lot better.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question.
I appreciate the comments of the minister. I wonder if the
minister would advise the House whether or not the president of
Investment Canada has been called to account for this spending.
How can a person in a position of authority and responsibility
waste money in this regard and still have a parsimonious impact
or effect in his daily job?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
am advised that the official who authorized this expenditure is
no longer in my department. However, it has certainly been
made clear within the department that these expenditures are not
acceptable.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Yesterday, in his speech in reply to the Speech from the
Throne, the Prime Minister stressed repeatedly the role that
Quebecers and French-speaking Canadians play in Canadian
institutions. Again this morning, the Minister for Foreign
Affairs was mentioning how well treated Quebecers were in
Canada. Yet, Quebecers are conspicuous by their absence from
Hockey Team Canada, the team which is setting out to represent
Canada in the Olympics, in Lillehammer.
My question is the following: Can the Minister tell us why
Hockey Team Canada has no room for a player from Quebec and
what concrete steps he intends to take to put an end once and for
all to this shameful discrimination?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I thank our colleague for this opportunity to pay tribute
to the Canadian athletes who will show us want they can do in
the XVII Winter Olympic Games, in Lillehammer. Incidentally,
I would say that they are going over there to win medals, not to
play politics.
As the hon. member for Verdun-Saint-Paul pointed out
earlier, the Canadian Olympic Association released earlier
today the list of athletes who are going to Lillehammer. This list
released just hours ago clearly indicates who the Canadians
participants will be, and I am very proud to report that more that
30 per cent are from Quebec.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): I have
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Minister, you may have
had a different outlook from outside of the country as an
ambassador, but hockey is our national sport-
The Speaker: The hon. members should always address the
Chair. Thank you.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the
Minister washes his hands of the matter and refuses to take
concrete steps to correct a glaring injustice towards Quebecers,
especially the likes of Mario Lemieux and Alexandre Daigle,
who were apparently not good enough-
Mr. Ouellet: The teams are different.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): -to
be selected to Team Canada.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I put blame only where it is deserved. The rules of the
game are that the Canadian olympic hockey team members are
announced only hours before their first game. When recruiting
is over, which it is not, then and only then will we be in a
position to pass judgment.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
106
(1455 )
Yesterday the Auditor General's report pointed out that the
five year $1 billion Canadian aboriginal economic development
program aimed at addressing the economic disparities between
aboriginal people and other Canadians had at least three major
flaws. It lacked leadership and accountability, it was void of
overall implementation plans and it showed examples of poor
co-ordination. The throne speech also indicated that more new
programs would be introduced by the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development.
Will the minister assure this House that he will investigate
previous program failures and take steps to correct them before
spending yet more of Canadian taxpayers' money with the same
results?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, the
aboriginal economic development program falls under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Industry. I would like to advise
the hon. member that we do tend to very carefully observe the
application of funds from that program.
The member should know that an independent study by the
consulting firm of Goss Gilroy indicated that the aboriginal
economic development program was a very successful program.
With the views of the Auditor General now known to us it of
course gives us the opportunity to review his comments and see
to it that these programs are effective.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to go back to the question again. Will the minister
assure the House that he will investigate previous program
failures before implementing new programs that were
announced in the throne speech?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, yes
we will.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he will
reassure the Canadian people that the rationalization programs
and policies of the former government which resulted in the loss
of thousands of public service jobs will be re-examined.
Wherever possible, will they be modified or eliminated entirely
in order to diminish the deterioration of quality public service as
well as the anguish and suffering by those directly affected?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to be able to say that we have already moved
on the question of reorganization.
We have changed some of the decisions that were reached by
the previous government in order to improve relationships with
the public service and in order to improve the quality of life of
public servants. We are continuing to do that.
In particular, the abolition of chiefs of staff, the decrease in
our ministerial offices and the argument of the Prime Minister
that no ministers can succeed without having a proper
relationship with their civil servants have all improved the
relationship and are helping us at present to give better
government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The most recent statistics on average income in Canada were
published by Statistics Canada this week. The difference
between the average yearly income of men and that of women in
1992 is striking. Men earn $39,468 on average, as compared to
$28,350 for women. The difference is $11,000.
My question is this: Does the Minister have concrete
proposals to put forward to correct this serious injustice
affecting women in every sector of the economy that falls under
his jurisdiction?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for the question. One of the programs
this government is most committed to is the matter of pay equity
as indeed is employment equity to give the opportunity for all
peoples of our country to be able to advance in the public service
of the federal government.
The same statistics that the hon. member cites also show that
progress in fact is being made. I must say that while we have
gone some distance, we have some distance to go. We remain
committed to carrying out those programs.
(1500)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, am I
mistaken or did the Minister say he was committed to
implementing pay equity programs for his own Public Service
employees to set a good example?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
yes.
107
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime
Minister has spoken about the importance of keeping the
promises made by the Liberals in opposition.
My question concerns a promise that was made particularly
by the member for Winnipeg South Centre that the Liberal Party
would recognize that the cold war is over and would oppose the
testing of cruise missiles in Canada.
I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will keep that promise
that was made to Canadians and cancel the testing of cruise
missiles or at the very least, will he honour the request that was
made by the member for Winnipeg South Centre on February 15
of last year when he called for full parliamentary hearings on
this issue to allows northerners, natives and peace groups an
opportunity to be heard fully, not just politicians in a
parliamentary debate, on this issue of fundamental importance
to all Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we want to have a debate here in this House on this subject very
soon. There will be an announcement made later today or
tomorrow about it. We want to review that policy as we said, but
we want to have the input of everyone.
We will have a debate in the House of Commons. We intend to
put the question of policies on national defence for debate and
we will have a short debate on the decision to be made. There
was a commitment made last August or September, but we want
to review that situation. There will be a full debate in this House
of Commons. I am sure the members of the committees will
want to receive the views of other groups which would like to
make representations before the final decision is made.
* * *
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston): Mr. Speaker,
can you hear me okay?
The Speaker: We can hear you no matter where you are.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it took me 10 years to get to the
front brench. The only drawback is I am a step away from the
door.
The Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member would like to put a
question today.
Mr. Nunziata: Thank you. Actually I would like to put a lot of
questions, and there is this bar in my way.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Transport. It relates to the compensation issue in the Pearson
airport contract cancellation.
The minister will know that there was a finding that the
contract was unconscionable in that the contract was signed in
the middle of an election campaign after the leader of the
opposition, now the Prime Minister, warned the proponents that
the contract may in fact be cancelled.
Will the minister agree that in light of those findings that
there ought to be no compensation paid to the other side and at
the very least, will the minister ensure that they will not be
compensated for lost profits and that there will be no
compensation for lobbyist fees? Also, will he undertake to
introduce a bill in this House to cancel the contract if it cannot
be cancelled on terms in accordance with the public interest?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the cancellation of the Pearson airport deal was taken on the
basis of advice from Mr. Nixon. I am sure the hon. member has
read that report with great interest as many of us have.
The parameters set out in the report indicated clearly that
compensation would be very limited and with the competent
negotiator that has been appointed, I have every confidence that
the interest of the taxpayers of Canada will be respected. In the
event that a satisfactory arrangement cannot be arrived at
legislation of course will be introduced.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of the Hon. Chuck Furey, Minister for
Industry, Trade, and Technology for the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505)
[Translation]
The Speaker: I also wish to point out the presence in the
gallery of the Hon. Gérald Tremblay, Minister of Industry,
Commerce, Science and Technology in the province of Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, before we proceed with other
business of the House, we have been asked to pay tribute to one
of our former members of Parliament and one of the officers of
the chair, Mr. Steve Paproski.
108
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I know that many hon. members will want to take a few
moments to remember a long serving and much loved
representative of the city of Edmonton who passed away
suddenly late last autumn.
The Hon. Steve Paproski came from Poland to Edmonton as a
child. As a young man he was a popular hometown player for our
champion football team, the Eskimos, while building a
successful career in business.
He was elected to the House of Commons in 1968 and retired
at the last election undefeated in seven elections. In a quarter
century in this House he served as his party's chief whip, as
Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport and as one of the
assistant Speakers of the House.
He had friends not just in his own party but in every corner of
this House. Although he was as capable as anyone and better
than many, in the cut and thrust of political debate he refrained
from insult and personal attack. He truly believed that all
members were entitled to express their points of view and that
all were here to serve their country.
As proud as he was of his Polish birthright it is an illustration
of his approach to life that he became famous here for his St.
Patrick's Day receptions.
Steve Paproski was a big man in every sense of the word. In
Edmonton and here in the House of Commons his generosity of
spirit and of deed was unsurpassed. He was a proud family man,
a pillar of the church and a committed servant of the people.
It is sad that he could not live to enjoy the retirement to which
he had looked forward. We all join his wife Betty, his children
and his grandchildren in missing his warm and happy
personality and his very wise counsel.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I too, on
behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, would like to pay tribute to our
friend Steve. I had the honour of knowing him and of being with
him and especially of appreciating him from 1984 to 1993.
In 1984, for the new Conservative members, he was a valuable
advisor, an exceptional motivator, and he helped us a great deal
in learning the rules of the House and the British parliamentary
system.
As Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, he
immediately gained the respect of all parliamentarians. Patient,
impartial, a gentleman, knowledgeable of the rules of the House,
he always found the words, the friendly approach and the right
argument to have his decisions accepted.
In my first steps as House leader of the Bloc Quebecois-the
party was not even recognized then-every time I asked him for
a meeting to claim our rights, he always received me in a
friendly, affable way. It was then that I learned to appreciate
him. A sincere, democratic, humane, honest man, he always put
the interests of the House and its members first.
I would like to conclude by saying a word to his family. We
understand your sorrow and the great pain you feel. How many
questions must have gone through your mind in trying to
understand and accept the death of someone so close to you!
(1510)
Is there an acceptable answer when such a tragedy befalls us?
I do not believe so. There is only the courage and determination
to go on with one's life, with the assurance that the deceased
person is still proud of us.
The great French author Alexandre Dumas said one day that
those whom we have loved and lost are no longer where they
were, but they are still everywhere we are.
I extend our sincerest condolences and a word of
encouragement to Steve's whole family. Thank you, Steve, for
your invaluable contribution to Canadian democracy.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise to pay tribute and also with sadness that I rise
on behalf of my party to make mention of the Hon. Steve
Paproski and the contribution that he made to this House.
Steve was born in September 1928. We lost him as a friend in
this Chamber as well as to people right across Canada on
December 3, 1993.
Mention has been made previously of his wife, Betty, and
their five children, Patrick, Peter, Anna Marie, Alexandra and
Elizabeth. Although many weeks have intervened since Steve's
death we need to realize that that pain, although it does dull
somewhat, is still very sharp in their memory after the
incredible loss of their husband and father.
Looking at the professional career of Steve Paproski, those of
us who are proud of our Edmonton Eskimos certainly know that
he became a household word when he was a lineman for the
Eskimos from 1949 until 1954. What a thrill it must have been
for Steve.
I can hear him on the couch on Grey Cup day screaming as
loudly as any one of us who were cheering for the Eskimos: ``Go
Esks, go''. They did not let him down. What a wonderful way for
him to witness his last Grey Cup.
He was the general sales manager for Alberta Concrete
Products and elected to this House, as has been mentioned
earlier, in 1968. He celebrated 25 years in this House of
Commons.
109
As everyone knows, he chose not to run in the last election. I
am sure that it did his heart proud that he chose to go into
retirement rather than going into retirement from this place
without choosing it.
I have many memories of the Hon. Steve Paproski, all of them
good. I say that unequivocally. His smile was what he was
probably most known for. I appreciated that smile as I sat in my
place during the last term. How good it was to see someone still
with a twinkle in his eye being able to just smile so readily at all
the things that go on in this place.
One memory that I have so strongly of Steve Paproski was
when he sat in the chair and hollered for the yeas and nays. Then
he said: ``In my opinion the nays have it''. That tone of voice and
relaxation that he brought was so good that I will never forget
those words ringing in my ear: ``In my opinion the nays have it''.
Last year Steve Paproski called me from my place to the chair.
I thought: ``He is going to recognize me''. Of course it was a
thrill in those days to be recognized by the Chair. He said:
``Deborah, is such-and-such a place in your constituency''. He
named a little place. I said: ``Yes, it is, Steve. It is so many miles
from my house and has a small area of residences''.
He said: ``Guess what. I just bought a lot there and you are
going to be my new MP. How am I ever going to explain this?''
We had a good laugh together about that.
Most recently this fall I received a personal phone call out
west from Steve just after the election and he congratulated me
on my marriage and my re-election. It was wonderful just to
have a few minutes with him. I had no idea it would be my last
visit with Steve. Those memories are precious and I appreciate
them.
My final memory of Steve was picking up the newspaper after
church in Edmonton on Sunday, December 5. I picked it up and
before I even grabbed it out of the machine I saw the headline
stating that Steve Paproski had died of a heart attack.
It was almost as if my heart just gripped as well. Something
had gone dreadfully wrong. Something was happening over
which of course not I, his family nor anyone else had any
control. He was dead. He is dead but his memory will continue to
live on in this place.
(1515)
On behalf of my caucus and all members here, I would like to
pay my respects to his wife Betty and their family and say once
again, as any tribute I have given in this House, thank you so
much to the Paproski family for sharing Steve with us.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, I speak
today on behalf of colleagues who have had an opportunity to sit
with Steve Paproski in the same House. I also speak on behalf of
a political party that quite frankly was privileged to have had the
opportunity to have Steve Paproski as a candidate and as a
member of Parliament representing us and also at one point in
time a cabinet minister.
In the end, Mr. Speaker, as you will know, he reached the
highest office of all. It is the one that in this place is recognized
as a tribute to any of us. It is the privilege to sit in the chair you
are sitting in today as one of the Deputy Speakers.
Steve Paproski, as a Canadian, had a great opportunity not
only to sit here and make a contribution in the political field, but
also, as was mentioned, as an athlete. There are few things that
are not as well known about his career. One is that he studied at
the University of Arizona on a scholarship.
I should also say something which I found out while listening
to a eulogy delivered by His Excellency the Governor General.
What he shared with us at the time is that during those days of
his scholarship, given the fact that he had very little means, he
supplemented his revenue by acting from time to time as an
amateur wrestler. He was known because of his amateur status.
He became known as the Masked Marvel. He would from time to
time wrestle against a gentleman named Gene Kiniski. Of
course Gene would win on one day and Steve, if you can believe
the coincidence, would always win the next day and so on it
would go. In some matches they in fact became a tag team. I
should say that it sounds like quite an appropriate preparation
for life in this place as I recognize my tag team member here
today.
What was also remarkable about Steve Paproski was the love
and understanding that he had for this place. I remember
arriving here in 1984 and having the privilege of being one of the
Deputy Speakers. Because we had other work to do and
accomplish and because I was the youngest of the group I was
often asked to sit on Fridays and often went to Steve to ask him
whether he would or would not replace me. In his way he would
sit in the chair and say: ``What is it again, kid? What is it that
you want?'' to each and every one of us who had the privilege of
knowing him. He would grumble but would always say yes. In
that way I was more often than not one of the great beneficiaries
of his great generosity.
I think we would all want to remember Steve for his joie de
vivre and the fact that he always recognized that this country
was a country of privilege. A small anecdote about Steve's life is
that he would, as often as he could, bring people by the store that
his father had opened in Edmonton. He had been born in Poland.
I read the first speech he gave in the House of Commons and the
references he made to his experience as a young Canadian born
in another country where freedom was not what we experience
here and what we take for granted. He had come to Canada, grew
up here and took his place not only in this House but as a
minister of the Crown. That says volumes about our country and
about Steve Paproski.
110
In concluding I also want to offer our condolences to Betty
and to his children and also a word and a smile because Steve
Paproski had a million dollar smile. He will leave with us great,
great memories.
(1520 )
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I want to join
with the others to say how shocked and saddened we all were
when we heard on the news in December of Steve's passing.
Steve was a very different member of Parliament. One thing I
remember about Steve was that whenever he was in the chair
there always seemed to be a group of people around him
chatting, coming and going and passing little stories back and
forth. As my hon. friend here has indicated he was always filled
with innocent little tidbits about his life.
I remember him telling me after seven elections how he was
so successful with his campaign strategy. He said: ``You have to
spend a lot of time at home, Nelson. You have to get to know
people. As an example, when I campaign I simply put a sign up
on the highway that says `Steve's ahead'. I just stand on the road
and everybody knows who Steve is''. He just waved to his
constituents as they went to work in the morning or returned at
the end of the day.
That is the kind of person he was. Everybody knew who Steve
Paproski was when he went into his constituency. In here we all
felt very close to Steve Paproski. That was not a function of the
fact that he was here for so many years. It was from the kind of
person he was. It was his personality.
He loved his family. He loved his wife and his children and
they loved him. He had a zest for life. Someone referred to his
smile. He always seemed to be a very happy person. He always
had a cheery comment to make and he was always willing to
greet anyone in a very positive way. I think he was a great
motivator for us even during those tense times in the House.
When he was in the Chair he always had that comment that
would calm everybody down with a little laugh.
We will miss Steve Paproski. Not only will those of us who
knew him miss him, but Canada will miss him. He made a great
contribution in so many ways. He was a new Canadian, elected
seven times, served his country as we have heard in so many
different capacities and he served this House and Canada so
well.
Our hearts and our prayers go out today to his wife Betty and
to his children.
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount): Mr.
Speaker, I too remember Steve Paproski very well. I remember
his smile. I remember the twinkle in his eye that people have
referred to here today. I remember his service in the chair and
the way he was very cordial and respectful of every single
member in this House of Commons. He was always there to offer
a word of encouragement.
I, as well as Steve, had some background in football. He was a
player. I had some involvement in management. I often talked to
Steve about football. In these days of turbulence in Canadian
football I think perhaps it is worth mentioning that Steve
dreamed of the day when Canadian football would return to
Montreal.
He often said to me: ``Why do we not put a team back in
Montreal and we will go and manage it?'' I think if there is
anything he would rather have done than be in this place it would
have been to manage a football team.
Reference has been made to his belief in this country. If I
remember correctly, when he was a cabinet minister he was
responsible for turning over Lotto Canada to the provinces and I
believe he always regretted it. I think he understood that we
needed national institutions to bind Canadians together and to
provide a bit of cement to keep this country together.
I would like to join all other members in this House in
expressing my condolences and in paying my respects to the
members of his family
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
join with the other members of this House to convey to the
family of the late Hon. Steve Paproski not only my personal
condolences but also those of the constituents of Edmonton
North which is the riding he served faithfully during his long
term of office.
I can think of no more fitting tribute to Steve Paproski than
the number of friends who have paid their respects at his
passing. They are not only those who were at the church service
but also the people of Edmonton North who have mourned his
loss.
(1525 )
I would also add that Steve Paproski was respected and loved
by the staff of the House of Commons. To his family and friends
I would say that we are honoured to have known him.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, much
has already been said about Steve and I am not here to repeat the
things that have been said.
I believe it would be useful at a time when we are opening a
new Parliament, we are just into the second or third day, to use
this occasion of Steve's passing to remind new members and the
Canadian public of the underlying collegiality that has existed
in this place for a long time and does not just begin today with a
new Parliament. There was an underlying collegiality of which
Steve Paproski was one of the best symbols and incarnations
thereof. This is a place where friendships across party lines are
111
formed, where much co-operation has gone on and where the
kinds of relationships that have been spoken of here today
between other members and Steve Paproski have existed. It was
not just in that case but in many cases.
One of the unfortunate things about public life and
parliamentary life in this country is that those kinds of things do
not get reported and focused on. The best thing we can do to
honour the memory of Steve Paproski would be to remind
ourselves of this fact and try and build on that kind of spirit
which he brought to Parliament.
Everyone talked about the twinkle in his eye. It was visible,
but it was a mischievous twinkle. Many times we were the
victims of that mischievous twinkle from the Chair. He had a
way of doing things that left even those who felt they got the
short end of the stick smiling.
I will certainly miss him. I will not have the opportunity to do
to you, Mr. Speaker, what I used to do to Steve unless you also
understand Ukrainian. Coming from Winnipeg I speak a little bit
of Ukrainian and Steve knew a lot of Ukrainian and sometimes I
could tell him things that Hansard never picked up. I am going
to miss that ability to speak to the Speaker in this personal code
we had. For this he often called me Rasputin, which was his
favourite name for me. So from Rasputin and as the member for
Winnipeg Transcona I say to his family that we will miss him.
Parliament was a much better place for his having been here all
those years.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to agree with everything that has
been said about Steve today. I knew him since the day he came
into the House. He was a great friend, a jovial type, a very
amiable character and, yes, a character. He was very proud of the
fact that he came from Poland. He was very proud of his
background.
If my memory serves me correctly he once came into my
riding to the little hamlet of Wilno, which is the oldest Polish
community in Canada and they thought the world of him.
He did far more behind the scenes around Parliament Hill than
any of us realized to bring people together and he made good
friendships all over the place.
To his wife Betty, five children and grandchildren I extend our
sincere thanks for sharing him with us. On behalf of the Polish
community throughout my riding that he talked to me so much
about, I extend their sympathy to his wife and family.
We who knew Steve well can say today that we are thinking of
him and of his wife and family. He might have been a linesman
for the Edmonton Eskimos and a good one, but I will say that he
was a great linesman around Parliament Hill too. He must have
been a great linesman in his constituency. We all thought the
world of him. I think anyone who can leave this place leaving
that thought in the minds of the people with whom he or she
worked, makes us indeed very fortunate.
(1530 )
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to
catch up on some correspondence. In the fall I was opening a
series of letters and I came across a handwritten note from our
friend Steve who said to me, as we had known each other going
back to 1968: ``Glad to see you back there. Give you all the help
when I'm in town next. I'll come around to give you some
pointers now that you're on the other side of the House''.
I put it in my briefcase to take home that night to show my
wife whom he knew well. Then I started to read through the
newspapers and found at exactly the same time there was notice
of Steve's passing. I never got a chance to write him a thank you.
I want to take this opportunity, because I know Steve is
probably tuned into this debate somewhere, to say thank you
very much for all the good years you gave this House and all the
good advice you gave all members. The spirit of people like
Steve Paproski will always live on in this House of Commons.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to add a couple of very brief comments. We as
members of Parliament have the privilege of being able to
express on the floor of the House our affection, our respect and
our sense of loss of our friend Steve Paproski.
I know a number of members have spoken of the respect that
Steve treated everyone with. I wanted to take a moment to
remind the House of the fact that Steve Paproski as a deputy
speaker and as a member of this House for many years had
tremendous respect and love from the people who worked on the
Hill: the messengers, the people in the cafeteria and all those
people who cannot speak here today.
I was on the Hill shortly after Steve died. I was struck by the
number of people working here who in a very emotional and
very strong way talked about the sense of loss they felt for their
friend Steve. I know that they would want us on the floor of this
House to acknowledge and recognize the kind of respect that
Steve showed everyone on the Hill as a person and as a deputy
speaker.
He was a big man. He was a strong man. He was also a very
gentle man. Reference has been made to his smile. I learned long
ago that when Steve was smiling the widest you had to look out.
He had a big smile but behind that smile was a very shrewd and
calculating mind. You knew that if he was going to stick it to
you, he was smiling just a little bit wider. He treated everyone
with respect. He loved his family.
I might say personally that I deeply appreciated the support he
gave to me. In the spring of 1988 I made a fairly difficult
decision to come out publicly as a gay man. It was not easy.
112
Some of my colleagues were a little uncomfortable with that. I
will never forget in this House shortly thereafter Steve putting
his arm around me and saying: ``You know, Svend, I don't really
understand this stuff but you're my friend and you're the same
person to me today that you were yesterday''.
I will miss Steve tremendously. I know he loved his family
very much. To Betty and to the children I extend my sincere
condolences. We loved him too and we will miss him very, very
much.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to add a few words of deep sympathy and condolence
to the family of Steve Paproski.
I first met him before I entered politics, in fact away back in
the early eighties when there was a travelling parliamentary
committee on the participation of visible minorities in Canada.
Somehow he struck me as a person of collegiality and a fatherly
person.
When I first came here in 1988 I approached him and he said:
``Son, how are you?'' I thought, being a rookie, that was the
proper word to use, but until the last moment before the 34th
Parliament ended he called me son. That depicted for me the
type of caring person he was to everybody in the House.
I also recall he would tell us that members on the opposite side
were not enemies but only adversaries and that this Chamber
was all about active debate on issues of national dimension.
I would like to convey to his family my deepest sympathy and
my condolences in the realization that in the great beyond Steve
Paproski has earned his rightful place.
(1535)
The Speaker: I would like to say a few words, if I might, on
behalf of a dear friend and colleague of many years, Steve
Paproski.
You will forgive an admission from your Speaker that from
time to time I indulge in small wagers. Steve Paproski and I had
a running bet. It was always a bet on the Grey Cup. It was not a
big bet. It was something we could all well afford. He always
took Edmonton and if Edmonton was not in the Grey Cup he
always took the west. Of course I took the east. This small wager
started in the fall of 1974 and it continued through all the years
up until this past year.
Even when I was defeated in 1984 and I was not here from that
time until 1988, the bet was still on. He would send me a cheque
for $5 if the east won and I would send him a cheque for $5 if the
west won. The funny part of it is that I cannot recall him ever
cashing any of my cheques.
He was the kind of man who befriended all of us in this House.
Yes, he was warm. Yes, he was an honest man. Yes, he did sit in
this chair and preside over our debates. We are honourable
members. This is an honourable House and Steve Paproski, it
should be noted, among honourable members and in this
honourable House was one of the most honourable and one of the
most loved.
We in this House have much to learn from a man with his
character. We have much to learn about serving our country
from Steve Paproski. I do not use the words lightly when I say
that he is one of our great Canadians because he loved this
country. He loved it with all his heart.
To his wife and to his family, surely in your name and in the
name of all hon. members we will remember Steve in our
prayers, and we say God bless you and thank you for sharing him
with us for so many years.
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I have not consulted with anyone
but given the eulogies and the kind words for our friend, Steve
Paproski, could I suggest to the Speaker that with unanimous
consent of the House we include in our proceedings today the
remarks made by His Excellency the Governor General at the
funeral service for our friend Steve Paproski.
They were very close friends and I think it would be
appropriate that Canadians have the opportunity of reading his
words as he spoke of a person who was not only a friend but at
one point in time a colleague.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement to append the
eulogy of the Governor General of Canada?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues have been rather lenient with
me for a little while. Today I made a mistake and I apologize for
it. I am going to try to correct it.
We had in our gallery the hon. Minister of Tourism and
Economic Development from Nova Scotia. I did not get the note
in time; when I got it we were into other business.
I hope the hon. members from Nova Scotia who are here and
the hon. minister will accept my apology for not recognizing
him as was his due. I hope you will let me recover a little bit later
on that point.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
113
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, as is the
custom and tradition of this House, at this point in the
proceedings, I would ask my colleague, the Leader of the
Government in the House, to shed some light on what lies in
store for us this week and next week.
(1540)
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
we will continue with the address debate today, tomorrow and
Monday, with a vote on the amendment to the amendment of the
hon. member for Calgary Southwest this evening and a vote on
the amendment of the hon. leader of the Official Opposition on
Monday evening.
On Tuesday there will be a debate on peacekeeping and on
Wednesday the House will debate the matter of cruise missile
testing.
If there are changes in that order of business I will inform
House leaders of the other parties as soon as possible.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, considering that
next week we are going to be having these important debates on
peacekeeping and cruise missile testing, I would like to ask the
government House leader whether he would consult with his
colleagues to see if there would be an opportunity to have a
debate that would enable all members of Parliament to
participate, which would mean not seeing the clock or extending
the debate into the evening.
The Prime Minister said today that there would be a full
debate where all members would have an opportunity to express
their views if they so wish. I wonder if my hon. friend would
discuss it with his colleagues.
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have already informally mentioned
to the House leaders of the Reform and Bloc that the government
would be happy to give consent to continuing beyond the normal
hour of adjournment on Tuesday and Wednesday.
I had originally suggested that we might agree on a later time
of adjournment, say ten o'clock. I would be very happy to
consider letting the debate continue until all members who wish
to express their views on the subjects of both the special debates
I have mentioned have had a chance to express them and place
them on the record of the House.
113
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; and of the amendment; and
the amendment to the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): At the suspension of the
House the hon. member for Davenport had concluded his
intervention and a 10-minute question and comment period is
now available.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
start by congratulating the hon. member for Davenport on his
re-election. I would also like to tell this House how much I
appreciated his comments this morning.
The hon. member for Davenport stressed how important it
was to preserve Canada's social safety net. What I appreciated
the most was the answer he gave to a Reform Party member who
claimed that seniors pensions were nothing more than social
welfare. I appreciated the hon. member telling us that this was
not the case.
Receiving a cheque does not mean that a person is wealthy.
Given the serious crisis we are now experiencing, I
believe-and it cannot be said often enough-that we must not
cut social services and programs. Instead, the government must
target tax shelters which benefit the wealthier members of
society. The government must trim the fat in government and
review its budget item by item. It must target unemployment,
not the unemployed.
In conclusion, I have a question for my hon. colleague who
worked in the field of education for more than 22 years. My
question is this: What does the government intend to do to
restore hope for our young people who are finishing school and
have no job prospects?
(1545)
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
his remarks and his question. I am confident that the answer to
his question will be known when the minister of Finance tables
his budget, and also that Canada's economic policy will give
hope to young Canadians looking for work. As many of you are
aware, we have launched a municipal infrastructure program
which, I hope, will give young people as well as all unemployed
workers, regardless of their age, an opportunity to find jobs.
As was mentioned in the Throne Speech, the Secretary of
State responsible for Training and Youth is in the process of
creating a Youth Service Corps, patterned on the former pro-
114
gram set up and supported by senator Hébert, which was well
received by Canadians across the country. I am referring to the
Katimavik program. I hope that this global initiative will give
young Canadians an opportunity to find work.
Obviously, we hope that the policy of our government and our
party will adequately meet the social and economic aspirations
of all the members in this House.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, in his
speech, the hon. member for Davenport alluded to the
unemployment crisis and the government's will to find a
solution to that problem. May I say that I have my doubts
regarding the will and the determination of the government to
create long-term employment for the vast majority of
Canadians.
The Throne Speech read on Tuesday is a good illustration of
the government's lack of initiative regarding job creation.
Indeed, except for the infrastructure program, no concrete
measures were announced.
The hon. member for Davenport also mentioned the lack of
revenue of Canadians. I fully agree with him on that but I want to
go back to the issue of pay equity. This is a major obstacle to the
financial independence of women. The President of the Treasury
Board stated that he would enforce the Canadian Human Rights
Act, especially the provisions dealing with pay equity.
Therefore, my question is: How does the President of the
Treasury Board intend to implement the Canadian Human
Rights Act and, more importantly, how quickly will he act? Does
the present government intend to correct the abuses of the
Conservative government regarding pay equity in the federal
public service?
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the question is very interesting but
also very complex. It should be asked to the responsible minister
during Oral Question Period. I urge the hon. member to do just
that in order to get an answer which I cannot provide in the time
allotted to me. Generally speaking, my answer is the same as the
one I already gave to the member for Québec-Est. The Minister
of Finance's budget will provide a more detailed answer to that
question.
(1550)
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I would
also like to congratulate the hon. member for Davenport on his
re-election. He was an accomplished opposition member in the
old Parliament. Now he obviously plays a different role on the
government side. In that position I would like him to clarify his
remarks on a couple of items.
He spoke about the need to preserve programs for seniors and
also his opposition to tax breaks. Would he support his
government's musings about possibly cutting seniors programs
by cutting the RRSP? This is one seniors program that is well
funded and secure in this country. Does he support that
examination?
Also on the old age security, now that he is a government
member does he support the previous Parliament's actions
introducing a clawback to old age security? Does he expect his
government to bring a repeal of that in the upcoming budget? If
the government does not, would he be prepared to vote against
that budget?
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, on the measure introduced by the
Conservative Party in the latter part of the 34th Parliament, the
RRSP program has been distorted to such an extent that it
provides a considerable tax advantage to high income Canadians
and provides no advantage at all to Canadians in the lower
income brackets. I therefore urge that this distortion be removed
and that the loss in tax revenue be restored to the advantage of
the overall revenue of the federal exchequer.
As to old age security, I believe that society is best served by a
system in which we all contribute and where on reaching
retirement age we all share in receiving the pension we have
contributed to. In the case of the old age security to which we do
not contribute directly, it is my belief that it should be
redistributed to all Canadians equally regardless of income.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I
would like to talk to the people of the riding of Mercier who gave
me and the Bloc Quebecois such a huge majority and such a clear
mandate to defend their interests and those of the whole
province of Quebec in this House. I want to thank them for the
confidence they have shown in me and I will try at all times to be
worthy of their trust.
The riding of Mercier is located in the easternmost part of
Montreal and it has suffered a great deal as a result of all the
changes in the world economy. This riding is currently
undergoing major changes and is in desperate need of a good
employment policy, and that is what I want to talk about this
afternoon.
I cannot help expressing the emotion I feel as I begin my first
speech in this House, thinking about the forced union of 1840
when the patriots, companions of Louis-Joseph Papineau,
ceased to be Canadians to become French Canadians just as the
English became English Canadians.
The patriots who became French Canadians-and we know
that Lafontaine was one of them and so was Laurier-had no
other choice but to accept colonial government and to try to
make alliances with members representing Upper Canada. And
that is exactly what they did.
115
(1555)
As a person with an active and abiding interest in history, I
can testify that French Canadians have done everything to try to
take their place in Canada. Individually they were successful, in
some cases, although assimilation was sometimes the price they
had to pay. As Quebecers they were not.
Mr. Speaker, let me explain, as others before me have done,
why so many Quebecers see sovereignty as the only future for
Quebec. I think the members of this House would find it
worthwhile to listen to what I have to say and I think they should
understand what is going on in a part of Canada's territory that
has 25 per cent of its population.
The success of the Bloc Quebecois has made it abundantly
clear that although placed in a minority positions, the
Canadiens, later French Canadians and then Quebecers-in
Quebec-were able to maintain their collective identity in the
face of series of constitutional set-backs.
Today, members of the Bloc Quebecois form the Official
Opposition because they represent a founding people that was
never recognized as such. Members of the Bloc Quebecois can
neither come to power nor govern Canada but they can testify to
a truth that has long been denied and is nevertheless one that all
Canadians must face: there are two countries in Canada.
Quebec, like it or not, is that other country.
Mr. Speaker, it was not revenge for what happened in the past
that led Quebecers, for the first time in their history, to elect as
their representatives in the House of Commons a strong
contingent of sovereignist members who campaigned as such. It
was to prepare for the future in a Quebec with sufficient powers
to use its resources to meet its own tremendous needs.
Today, standing before my peers and constituents, the people
of Mercier and all of Canada, I want to start by discussing
poverty and unemployment in Quebec. As I describe the extent
of these conditions, I think you will understand why so many
Quebecers became sovereignists in order to deal effectively and
quickly with this catastrophe. This is an emergency, Mr.
Speaker.
Quebec's pervasive unemployment, structurally higher than
in Ontario, does not even give the whole picture of the
devastating impact of federal policies. To really understand the
difference between Ontario and Quebec, we should talk about
the employment rate, the number of people in the labour force
and the number of people who have jobs, and then we see the
difference in wealth and development that separates the two
so-called central provinces which have been indiscriminately
attacked by the other Canadian provinces.
Mr. Speaker, high unemployment, a low job rate and an
unusually high percentage of Canada's poor: that is the picture,
and it shows us how economic conditions have affected social
development. Without the economic picture, Quebec's
participation in the federation might be seen only in terms of
social expenditures. We must conclude that preventing
economic development in Quebec has created a condition of
apparent under-development which has had a profound impact
on society itself.
And now for some history. You will recall that poverty levels
in Quebec were measured and compared, probably for the first
time, and in any case it was the first time they were compared
with the rest of Canada, by the Boucher Commission. Some of
you may remember this. In 1963, the commission concluded that
Quebec, with, at the time, 28 per cent of the population of
Canada, received a little over 36 per cent of the benefits paid in
Canada under the new Unemployment Insurance Act.
This week, Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Island School Board
published a report containing figures that are absolutely
devastating for Quebec. I read the whole report last night.
(1600)
For the first time since Statistics Canada has been gathering
data, Quebec has the dubious privilege of being the poorest in
Canada. Quebec has the largest number and the largest
proportion of families living below the poverty line. In fact, the
situation is worse than Newfoundland and New Brunswick
which used to compete for this dreadful ranking. There is, in
Quebec, a little over 25 per cent of the Canadian population, but
almost a third of low income families.
The data from the 1991 census show that the Montreal area,
among 25 areas considered, has the largest proportion of low
income families. I might add that when we talk about the
Montreal area, we include not only the island, but also the
surrounding suburbs which have been remarkably richer for a
long time. This gives you an idea of the standard of living in the
city of Montreal and especially in some or its neighbourhoods.
The situation is untenable. We can conclude that the years of the
quiet revolution, which we are so proud of, although they did
produce development, did not alter the distribution of wealth
between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Poverty and relative
under-development have a great deal of impact on social
development.
The Minister of Human Resources will understand the social
significance of the Canadian Assistance Plan, which pays 50 per
cent of all welfare payments, and other cost-sharing programs
of which Canada is so proud. We should add that this program
has also contributed to maintain poverty rather than reduce it.
Generally speaking it has increased Quebec's dependency on the
rest of Canada and the dependency of individuals on society.
The Boucher report highlighted three main reasons why
Quebec is poorer: its economic development, its share of the
GDP, a poor state of health and mentalities in general. In its
conclusion, it called mainly for what we would describe today as
a full employment policy. To recognize as fundamental the right
116
to last recourse assistance could, in no way, contribute to the
fight against unacceptable poverty levels.
It remains true; last recourse assistance can only be that.
Having stated this truism, I feel compelled to state that the
Canada Assistance Plan is partly to be blamed for this
dependency. For example, because of the CAP, in the 1980's,
Quebec was unable to claim 50 per cent of the assistance it
wanted to give low income workers to help them stay in the work
force. Under this plan, assistance could not be given to people
who did not pass the needs test. In other words, Canada only
supports helping the poor as long as they do not try to escape the
poverty cycle, lose hope and give up their minimum wage job,
and make the smart decision, moneywise, to go on welfare.
The way the federal government has managed unemployment
insurance has led to the misuse of social programs, with the
blessing of the federal government, since the 1970's; it has set
up and financed short-term employment programs with no other
way out than unemployment insurance. Lise Poulin-Simon and
Diane Bellemare, two writers well known in Quebec for their
work on full employment, stated in their first book entitled Le
plein emploi, pourquoi? that neither government has any
interest financially in investing in job creation since the other
level stands to reap more benefits from the spin-off. Quite an
important finding!
Beyond the totally negative impact of federal policies on the
Quebec economy, redistribution policies have had perverse
effects which, far from rectifying disparities, have had a
tendency to maintain them and to keep people in a state of
dependency and poverty.
(1605)
I hope the House now has a better understanding of why
Quebec has always wanted to repatriate all powers in the area of
income security, including management of the unemployment
insurance program. Using accountability as an excuse, the
federal government has always insisted on keeping complete
control over the funds it received and redistributed for social
programs; in doing so, it maintained and even increased the gaps
instead of decreasing them.
As critic for human resources, as a human being interested in
the fate of ordinary people and the poor, wherever they are, I will
not fight only against poverty and unemployment in Quebec. To
be effective, though, we must first determine how to proceed.
The fight against unemployment and poverty is a matter of
collective will. Whether we like it or not, we must rely on the
authorities in place and count on community participation. The
solutions recommended for Quebec will not necessarily be valid
for the rest of Canada, but already some broad lines are
emerging.
In a recent proposal the Economic Recovery Commission of
Newfoundland said, and the premier of that province concurred,
that the unemployment insurance program and the various
social programs should be managed jointly. In spite of the
interest on the part of the Minister for Human Resources
Development, I am not sure this reform will be possible without
modifying the Constitution and renegotiating the plan in depth.
Even now we can imagine that the Newfoundland proposal
would require a joint management headed by regional
authorities who would take into account the specifics of each
area. Premier Clyde Wells, the gravedigger of the Meech Lake
Accord, could find himself asking for more than what he thought
then could not be given to Quebec.
A secondary issue, which is nevertheless at the heart of the
debate on social policies, concerns the accountability of the
federal government for the amounts redistributed under their
spending power. I take this occasion to mention that Premier
Jean Lesage's negotiation for tax point repatriation in 1964
ultimately led to the establishment of the famous national
standards, which caused the aberrations mentioned earlier.
In fact, if the federal government cannot redistribute the
wealth without monitoring the application of national standards,
it appears that Canada will be forced to choose between two
equally serious evils, namely inefficiency which would be
costly in economic, fiscal and social terms, or a basic inequality
between regions and people in Canada. All the rest is simply
talk.
Let us take, for instance, what we call the full employment
policy in Quebec, and which could be called a labour-market
active policy, a policy supported and promoted by many groups
in Quebec and by the Parti Quebecois. Such a policy could not be
applied in Quebec within the Canadian framework because the
inherent overlapping, duplication and the consequent incapacity
to take the right decision at the right moment are an obstacle to
the maximization of social and economic efforts focused on
employment. Could the other provinces that accept
centralization hope for a Canadian policy of full employment
that would be efficient? Of course, that is our hope.
It must be said that the prosperity enjoyed by Ontario and, at
times, by Alberta, on which the Canadian redistribution system
is based, is due only to the fact that all government policies
converged to create this industrial complex and the many jobs
associated with it that make Ontario by far the richest province,
in spite of the tough recession it went through.
For cultural and linguistic reasons, this Canadian strategy
does not work in Quebec. These last few years, Quebec has
based its development on the creation of many consultation
mechanisms. Unions, businesses, regional organizations and
117
governments have learned to consult with each other. These
mechanisms, however, have not yet yielded their full results, far
from it, because they are deprived of the decision-making
powers which are in Ottawa, whose policies even sometimes
work at cross-purposes.
(1610)
Remember the sad story of occupational training? Many
people in Quebec are becoming sick and tired of waiting for
projects to materialize, of the waste of time and effort caused by
duplication, the incredibly slow decision-making process and
this federal-provincial morass that stifles every initiative.
Quebec has one project that must be implemented soon.
As the Premier of Quebec said only yesterday, it is absolutely
essential for the federal government to transfer quickly to
Quebec responsibility for manpower development, including
responsibility for unemployment insurance.
The Bloc intends to put up a strong defence of social
programs, but bearing in mind that if there are no jobs at the end
of the tunnel, all these people who want to stand on their own
two feet at last will never be able to do so. We believe our social
programs can be improved, but when the Department of Finance
discusses social programs in terms of what can be cut and how to
reduce the deficit, improvement is hardly the word.
Let us get this straight: if we want to get rid of the disincentive
aspect of certain programs without exposing people in need to
greater insecurity, we are not saving money, but increasing
costs, at least temporarily. When we want to help people get
training and create their own jobs and become employable, we
have to invest the required money. If we want them to be
productive during the time they are unemployed, we have to
invest in counselling and training and financial support. And
above all, if we want to boost employment, our regulatory
framework and our monetary, economic and trade and
regulatory policies should be such that they do not undermine
the process.
The Minister of Human Resources Development will also
have to take a clear stand. Either the reforms he has in mind are
aimed at reducing costs, as the Department of Finance says quite
firmly in its document, or he really wants to help the
unemployed find jobs, and in that case, he will not be able to
save money on social programs.
There is a dramatic gap, emphasized by a harsh recession,
between those who want to cut social programs and, being rich,
have never experienced insecurity or lacked money, and those
who want to improve the effectiveness of these programs and
who may, at any time, be obliged to use them for a certain period
of time. The first group only thinks about the deficit. The second
group considers the need to survive in a country going through
tremendous economic changes, where there are no guarantees
that the loss of many lucrative jobs would be compensated by
promises of fantastic jobs in various technology sectors.
Canada must decide whether it wants to be like countries in
Western Europe or like the United States, where wealthy
neighbourhoods are surrounded by high walls and protected by
armed guards, or like European countries where capitalism has
realized it is in its interests to have an effective security net.
Mr. Speaker, you can tell the Minister of Human Resources
and Development that he can count on my unqualified support
whenever he wants to help people in need, but I will make every
effort to be as fierce a parliamentarian as he was in the
Opposition, whenever he deviates from this path. The people of
the riding of Mercier, Quebecers and Canadians can count on my
support in this respect.
Our party will vote against the sub-amendment moved by the
hon. member for Calgary South West, because we cannot accept
conditional limits on government spending, and in any case
these spending proposals would first have to be submitted for
scrutiny by a parliamentary committee.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to
congratulate the hon. member of the Bloc Quebec for her rather
interesting speech. I was intrigued by a number of points she
raised, in particular the question of the administration of
different provincial programs as compared to federal programs.
In point of fact, several of these programs come under joint
federal-provincial jurisdiction. Manpower training programs
are just one example. The hon. member said that everywhere in
the world, people are talking about the need for free trade and
worker mobility.
(1615)
Would it not be important to have a national manpower
training standard which would allow federal and provincial
governments to work together, instead of at cross-purposes?
As far as economic development is concerned, I would simply
like to mention to my hon. colleague that study after study has
shown that in every country of the world, economic
development is truly a function of the education system. For
instance, Japan's economic development is a function of its
education system. The same holds true for Germany. As far as
Canada is concerned, I say that in order to have strong, confident
and sufficient economic development, we have to make
education our number one priority.
I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that under the
Canadian Constitution, education is the responsibility of the
provinces. There is nothing to stop any province or territory in
Canada from making education its top priority and from initiat-
118
ing a dialogue on this subject to ensure that its education system
meet the needs of the private sector and of the public.
I can assure my hon. colleague that if this kind of action is
taken, one of the troublesome economic issues in the province of
Quebec will be addressed. The same thing is true for all of the
other provinces. Therefore, we must start by focusing our
attention and our energies on the education system.
While we are on the subject of manpower training, I would
like to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister
responsible. I believe this government will initiate an
extraordinary, and even historic, dialogue on, among other
things, training and unemployment insurance administration.
I believe that all members of this House have an extraordinary
opportunity to work together to draft an action plan for the next
ten, twenty and even fifty years. Canada will continue to be not
only the best country in the world, but also the strongest from an
economic standpoint.
Could my hon. colleague tell me how she sees the issue of
worker mobility in relation to her proposal for administering
unemployment insurance and manpower training?
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all I have to say that we
have given a lot of thought to the questions you have raised. If
Mr. Bouchard was able to speak so forcibly yesterday, it was
because it seems to us that the economic situation is evolving in
such a way-with culture being more and more closely
associated with the major issues-that the solution we are
proposing is increasingly called for.
You said yourself about education that the OECD keeps
saying that what is important now above all is education and that
performance-oriented countries invest in education. That is
right, education is under the jurisdiction of Quebec. The federal
government however is the only level of government to have the
spending power, even if it has been using it to put us all deeper
and deeper into debt, to force provinces into arrangements.
It is therefore obvious that the federal government will want
to have its say in the area of education, while we, in Quebec, we
will want them to interfere as little as possible because our very
survival depends on it. In fact, we want to get away from
survival and start to live. That is what we want. We have had it
with survival. We have had it with overlapping responsibilities
and the fights surrounding the issue. We cannot wait to get
projects under way.
(1620)
We are in a real mess right now. I am only expressing a wide-
spread opinion. There are people literally fidgeting with
impatience. We are frustrated because things are not moving.
The SQDM is getting nowhere these days for lack of funds and
agreements. The Deputy Minister assured me last week that all
was well-read nothing is happening. Education is indeed a
major issue. What do they do about it? They cut.
Of course, the issue of mobility is important too. But you have
to understand that what we want in Quebec is development.
Francophones account for 2 per cent of the population in North
America, most of them concentrated in one area. So, to be able
to live as francophones, we need to develop the labour pool to its
fullest. We have developed plenty of means, projects I would
call them. What we need now to implement them are funds. It is
not that funds are not available, but they are often earmarked for
other things, and we want to be able to spend them as we see fit.
I just want to say that this debate is useful to promote
understanding between Canadian political parties.
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount): Mr.
Speaker, I will perhaps have an opportunity to participate in this
debate in the coming weeks.
I listened with interest to the member's speech, but I think
that in it she ignored globalization. Her economic analysis is
quite simplistic; of course, she blames poverty on our federal
system without considering the economic changes throughout
the world which Quebec and Canada as a whole cannot help but
feel.
I must say that I also find it rather funny to see how she as a
federal member of Parliament wants to pass off responsibilities
given to her by her constituents. Why not make
recommendations to improve the unemployment insurance
program instead? The minister is here and he would probably
listen with interest to her suggestions or those of her colleagues.
But no, her solution as a newly elected federal member is to
transfer all responsibilities to the Government of Quebec.
Does she not recognize that the federal government has an
important role to play in economic interdependence and
mobility, as my colleague said a few minutes ago, and the
distribution of wealth? Does she not recognize, as the Prime
Minister said today, that giving Quebec full power to manage
unemployment insurance would deprive Quebecers of important
resources that could come from the total wealth of Canada?
Those are some questions that come to mind, Mr. Speaker. I
will have a chance to ask some more in the coming days.
Mrs. Lalonde: I would say that on the contrary, globalization
shows that we need to go ahead with this plan in Quebec.
Wherever we look, the way to react to these new requirements is
to decide locally, on the basis of the local advantages which we
119
must put to good use. As History has shown, this globalization
of the economy will be matched by regional specialization.
We are not at all going against the current. I would say that on
the contrary, look at what is happening now where they are
organizing to compete. European countries are still sovereign.
They have kept their sovereignty but are working together. As a
sovereign power, we would be delighted to agree with you on
standards that we would consider necessary.
(1625)
I would like to say a word if I may about the management of
the unemployment insurance program. Mr. Speaker, you know
that there is a consensus in Quebec to get this jurisdiction,
although not all of it in the present context. We know Quebec
needs to go on developing its economy and make the necessary
investments to that end. It is certainly going to do it.
There is one point I would like to respond to. I will not
abdicate my prerogatives and I will not back down one single
inch in the defence of the rights of my fellow citizens in Quebec
and of the Canadian citizens for whom I have accepted to be the
official critic, but, in my maiden speech, it is important to
explain to members of this House why things change the way
they do in Quebec. Just pretending they do not change does not
mean they do not.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, let the Minister of Human
Resources Development know that we will keep a watchful eye
on him and demand the reforms that are needed.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, first my congratulations to you
on your new and most honourable and difficult task. We
welcome your presence in the chair today.
[Translation]
Also, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Mercier. In her first speech in the House, I appreciated the
strength of her convictions, but I am also prepared to co-operate
with her in a spirit of collaboration in the process of reforming
social security programs. I look forward to that, in fact.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, you will recognize that this is not my first speech
in the House nor my first throne speech. I still treat each
opportunity with a certain frisson. There is an element of
excitement.
I want to begin by expressing my thanks to my family who are
the great source of my ability to participate in public life. They
are a source of great encouragement when I most need it.
This is the International Year of the Family. I hope somewhere
along the way the United Nations will reserve a special little
spot in its declaration for the political family that provides a
service that only those who are involved can fully understand
and acknowledge.
Once again I want to thank my electors from the city of
Winnipeg who have supported me going into my third decade of
public service. It is a great honour to represent them and to speak
for them.
As we have talked about in this House, many members are
discovering for the first time that they have a telephone with
which they can respond to constituents' wishes. For those of us
who have been doing it for well over 20 years we recognize that
that still is a fundamental task.
I would also like to express a great deal of appreciation for the
chance once again of being a member of a government under the
present Prime Minister. I have gratitude for the opportunity that
he has given me to serve in this post.
I came into politics 22 years ago because I was disturbed by
what I saw around me in my neighbourhood, the condition of the
children and of the city itself, the poverty that existed.
It is a great tribute to the way our democracy works that
eventually one is given the responsibility and mandate for
however short a time to fulfil those great hopes that one had
many years ago to do something for the people one represents.
[Translation]
In accepting the position of Minister of Human Resources
Development, I accepted the mandate of helping all Canadians,
Mr. Speaker, be they Atlantic fishermen, poor children in
eastern Ontario, unemployed Ontarians, native people on the
Prairies or school dropouts in British Columbia.
(1630)
At that time, all Canadians, not only Quebecers and
Westerners, stressed the need for a new social security system
that would provide employment and hope.
[English]
I speak today not just for those who elected me, not just for the
region of Canada which I welcome to represent, but I have the
rare opportunity to speak for all Canadians. I ask every member
of this House to remember that obligation which brought them
here.
I was interested in the comments of the hon. member for
Mercier who spoke with great feeling about the problems she
sees in her home city and her home province. I say to the hon.
member that those problems are shared by Canadians from coast
to coast. They are not unique to Quebec. They are not unique to
any one region of the country.
120
Unfortunately, in this time and in this place the problems of
unemployment, the lack of security, the feeling of
disillusionment, the lack of economic opportunity, are too
common. If there is one thing that unifies this country it is that in
the last 10 years Canadians have not been given much
opportunity to feel they had a place in society. That is why we
have an obligation in representing all Canadians to restore that
sense of hope and opportunity that still exists.
We talk about the issue of social security. It is interesting that
one of the great changes which has taken place in this generation
is how people do have a feeling that what used to be a firm base
of their existence no longer is there-their jobs. For better or for
worse that has been the touchstone of much of what has given
people the sense of belonging, of having a sense of dignity.
A survey I read recently showed that close to 50 per cent of
Canadians no longer have that sense of security. They do not
have it because, in a sense, the future no longer appears to them
as one where choices can be made. It appears to them also that
the rules of the game in Canada are no longer fair.
My philosophy as a Liberal is that fairness is the principle and
justice is at the centre of our society. Each one of us must be
given the chance to shape our own life and those of our families
in our own way as long as we allow other individuals in society
the right to do the same. To make that happen we have to have
rules that make sure there is equal opportunity, a sense of fair
play and a sense of fairness for everybody.
In the last 10 years that sense of fairness has been lost. Too
often there are high paying, stable, good jobs for a minority of
Canadians, and insecure, part-time, no jobs for a large portion
of Canadians.
We have had growing gaps in income. We have had a
shrinking middle class. We have had over a million children
facing the situation of poverty. I recall with sadness reading a
column in the Globe and Mail which I thought was a very good
piece of journalism. It spoke of 40 per cent of Canadian children
who go to school today without proper nourishment or
nurturing. There is a lot of love being lost in this world because
there is nobody there to give it.
When I hear people say to me that we must defend what exists,
I ask them to talk to those children who do not have enough to
eat, who do not get enough parental care. Talk to the young men
and women of this country, a lost generation, who have done
everything we have asked them to do. They have gone to school,
got a good certificate, a good degree, and have come out into the
working world and there is no work for them.
I ask them to talk to the displaced workers in our fishery
industries who have seen an entire industry disappear before
them. They say: ``We do not want to simply collect a cheque
every week. We want to put our shoes on every morning and go
somewhere where we can make a contribution to society, to our
families and to our community, but we are not given the
chance''. Simply collecting a UI cheque is not good enough.
They must be given the hope that UI cheque will lead to decent,
hard, serious work in this society. That is why we must make a
change.
(1635)
We hear a great deal of talk about fiscal deficits in Canada.
There is a human deficit as well.
[Translation]
There is a lack of resources to invest in Canadians. There is a
lack of effective programs that are essential for training, for the
unemployed and for welfare.
[English]
It would be a serious mistake to wipe the whole slate clean. I
do not have a lot of patience for those in the three piece suits who
say: ``Cut the social programs'' when they themselves are not
prepared to make any sacrifices. It is not a matter of cutting
social programs; it is a matter of going to the root causes of what
is wrong in our society and redesigning the programs to meet
those causes. That is what the effort of our government will be.
I invite all members to participate. As our friends from the
Reform Party say, forget for a moment the ideology or the
platform that brought us here. What we are saying is that all of
us, every single one of us, have a job to do in this Parliament to
help reform the system for Canadians, to once again restore their
sense of security, their sense of fairness and their sense of hope.
We understand as a government that we have a special
responsibility because that was the mandate we were given.
The red book struck a chord when we said that we want a
country whose people live in hope, not fear. We want a country
where all see themselves as contributors and participants, not
liabilities and dependants. We want a country whose adults can
find good jobs and whose children can realize their potential.
When our Prime Minister speaks about the red book that is the
core, that is the spirit. Everyone has a fair chance.
I ask members to refrain from raising alarms of fear. We must
go on a basis of trust and confidence. I ask members, in
particular because there are many eyes upon this House these
days, to treat this subject with the seriousness it deserves. I
believe strongly that this is a time when there is a willingness to
make serious changes.
I spoke about the red book. We want to clearly signal our
intentions to Canadians right at the start. We have proposed a
youth service corps. The Secretary of State for Youth and
Training has now completed a round of consultations with a
variety of users. We will be making announcements within the
121
next month about a series of projects based upon existing
organizations that are prepared to collaborate and help-
[Translation]
-throughout the country-
[English]
-in every single part and region.
Our red book also put forward a very clear proposal for a
program of apprenticeship. We believe one of the real failures of
our present system is that it does not address people during the
most vulnerable periods: children before they go to school,
young people when they leave school and go into the workplace.
That is why the internship program, as I prefer to call it, is
designed to make that possible.
Again we have been meeting constantly with a wide variety of
private sector groups throughout this country to see if we can
bring them in as part of a broad-based program for young people
to acquire on the job skills with the co-operation of the
employers, government and the educational systems.
[Translation]
I said that to my colleagues on the other side of this House.
That is why we must have a national program, because we are
sharing the responsibility among all groups, regions and sectors
in Canada.
(1640)
That is not a problem only for them, but for all Canadians, and
we need the co-operation of all sectors, all regions, and
everyone.
[English]
I simply want to signal that in these efforts to target our young
people particularly it is the beginning of a much broader
approach. That is because we see that we must provide our
young people with a virtual guarantee of work, training or
education. The world of work has changed so dramatically and
so radically that we can no longer expect that a formal education
for the first 16 years is enough. We must become a learning
society that enables young people and adults alike to constantly
recycle their skills and recycle their aptitudes so they can meet
the new world of work with competence and vigour.
When we talk about reform of the social security net that is
why it also must include serious discussions of training and
education as supplied at the federal level. It must be linked with
unemployment insurance and it must be linked up with social
assistance plans. These are not separate programs. These are not
stove pipes that spew smoke into the air. They are all linked
together so that we can provide a total fabric of opportunity, of
basic standards at which people exist.
That is why one of the first principles of our reform is that it
must be comprehensive. We cannot cherry pick any more. We
cannot tinker away at one little program after another. That was
the problem during the last 10 years. The government was
constantly bringing in amendments and changes to
unemployment insurance or the Canada Assistance Plan.
Who knows this better than the leader of the opposition who
was a member of the government that was always changing
social programs when he was a member of that government. He
would recognize now that it was a mistake to do it that way. We
must do it in a broad comprehensive way.
We must also do it in a way that is transparent and public. The
time has come that we can no longer have private agendas. That
is why it is the commitment of this government to ensure that in
the reform of our social security system, our programs on
training and employment, social assistance and the
unemployment insurance and student aid, the place for decision
and discussion will be here in Parliament.
This will be the place where the decisions and dialogue take
place. This will be the place where Canadians have the
opportunity to express their views and be heard. I hear members
opposite say that we must make Parliament important and that
they have all kinds of mechanical solutions. The real way to
make Parliament important is to discuss important things in
Parliament and make sure that Canadians see that this is the
place where the vital interests of their lives will be discussed,
debated and decided. That is why the fundamental right of social
security will be a primary issue of this House over the next year.
You have our commitment on that.
We also must make sure that the proposals, solutions and
ideas that we have are Canadian-made. We have taken great
pride in this country over the years. We have made real progress.
[Translation]
Contrary to the comments made by the hon. member for
Mercier, we have made much progress for the elderly. We have
increased old age security and the progress made in our country
results from the efforts made by the federal government and the
provinces.
[English]
That is a real accomplishment.
We have also been able to say to our young people in large part
that we provided good opportunities for education. We have
provided a real fundamental security foundation during times of
recession.
Now the times have changed and we must change with them.
We must change our programs. We must begin to look at
Canadian-made solutions. One constant irritation I had sitting
on the opposite side over the last nine or ten years was when
ministers of the crown at that time would bring in solutions to
economic problems that they had borrowed from somebody
else. They were always using somebody else's model, somebody
else's idea and somebody else's ideology. It is time once again
that Canadians were responsible for designing a social security
122
system that gives them a sense of their own identity and their
own importance.
(1645)
I see your signal, Mr. Speaker, and I respect that, but I want to
make this final case. I believe that if we do our work well, bring
the different voices of Canada together to sing in a single chorus
and if we give and restore a sense of hope to a lot of Canadians
then nothing will be a stronger unifier. Nothing will bring us
together more and nothing will give Canadians a greater sense of
hope and opportunity than if their members of Parliament from
all regions and everywhere in Canada are working together to
build a system that will be distinctly Canadian. That will give
Canadians a sense of who we are and what we can do and bring
that special touch that we have brought to the world so often:
compassion, understanding and humanity.
That will say to all Canadians that this is why we are different.
We are not different because we take different stands from other
countries but because we are able to design for Canadians the
way we want to live and give people once again, in this great
tumult that we face around the world, a feeling that this is a
place that belongs to them and that everybody has a fair chance.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister. I heard the speech of the
Minister of Human Resources Development and, listening to
him, you would think that everything is just fine in our country.
Workers' productivity seems adequate as well as the
competitive edge of our businesses; in fact, the need to
fundamentally improve our competitiveness in light of the
globalization of markets and, consequently, the productivity of
Canadian workers, seems to have been overlooked by the
minister.
Does the minister not agree that it is time to fundamentally
change the Canadian approach regarding the training and
development of human resources? Indeed, with two levels of
government, the Canadian system is one of duplication and
overlapping in the field of human resources, occupational
training, business training and revenue security, which includes
unemployment insurance where there are two employment
offices and some 40 standards for 12 or 14 programs.
I ask the minister if he would be prepared, given that action is
required urgently regarding job creation and the development of
the productivity of workers in Quebec as well as everywhere in
Canada, to consider offering to each province that the federal
level withdraw from every field dealing directly or indirectly
with the implementation of a genuine labour-market policy by
the provinces? In so doing, the federal government would
satisfy Quebec's claim for a single window which would be
managed by the Quebec government, offering at the same time a
new opportunity to all Canadian provinces. Quebec would thus
be satisfied but would also be in a position to respond to the
emergency in unemployment and could hope to develop its
labour market, at least in the short term, until its sovereignty
becomes a fait accompli through the democratic process.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, when I spoke earlier, I did not say that everything was
fine. Quite the contrary. I expressed my concern about poverty
in Canada and about the lack of job training for young people.
Perhaps the hon. member was otherwise occupied, but I did
indeed stress in my speech that this was a serious problem for
Canada.
(1650)
The solution to this problem, however, is not to divide, but to
unite Canada and to work together to find a solution. Of course
there should be good discussions with the provinces as they are
after all our partners in this great process of reform. At the same
time, the problem of duplication is a good point to consider
within the broad framework of social reform. Training
initiatives cannot be considered separately from unemployment
insurance or social assistance measures.
As the Prime Minister stated during question period, if funds
for training were transferred right away, Quebec would lose
considerably in terms of per capita allocations. I do not think
Quebecers want to receive less support from the Canadian
government.
I would like to have a productive meeting with the new
Quebec ministers of Labour and Manpower, just as I would like
to have the same discussion with the other ministers. In fact, I
am thinking about meeting with all of the ministers some time in
February and this would be the time for discussions between the
two levels of government. Then we would have a good idea of
the duplication problems that exist.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the minister for his speech and congratulate him on
his perennial re-election in his constituency of Winnipeg South
Centre along with his appointment to cabinet in an important
post which reflects a great deal of confidence in him on the part
of his party and leader.
We welcome the attempts that the government will be making
to create a comprehensive social security system and to
encourage open discussion of this in Parliament.
Recently the Ministry of Finance released a document that
showed our unemployment insurance program to be one of the
123
most generous in the world. This can create serious
disincentives to upgrade skills, to work and to move to find
work.
I would like the minister to comment on whether he agrees
with that assessment of the unemployment insurance system.
Assuming he does, would he share with Parliament his view on
what features a new comprehensive social security program
would have to combat those problems in the unemployment
insurance system?
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate very much the hon. member's good wishes. We will
certainly be in need of those as time progresses.
I look forward to the full co-operation of his caucus in this
period of very substantial reform we wish to undertake.
There is the question of unemployment insurance. Over the
years the evolution of that program has gone from one that
provided temporary assistance to workers who were in between
jobs to one that has provided a great deal of income security.
This is especially so in industries where there are a lot of
seasonal variations and where we have had to deal with very
serious disruptions.
We are facing this now in the fishing industry. There have
been times in his own province in the resource industry, in
forestry and in the oil and gas industry where the unemployment
insurance system has been an extraordinarily important base of
support. It has also been a very important element in making the
labour market work.
If I may be allowed one small digression. One of the false
divisions we have in our country is that there is a thing called
social policy and a thing called economic policy. That is not so.
Good social policy leads to good economic policy and vice
versa. If there are workers who feel that they have some security
and some ability to move and change jobs then that helps the
labour market work.
(1655)
Therefore, I would say to the hon. member that there are some
problems with unemployment insurance. There is no question
that over time the program no longer meets many of the
requirements. One of the things our Prime Minister has talked
about and we feel strongly about is how to begin to make some
transformations to have a system of employment insurance
where the form of income security is designed to allow people to
move back into the labour market, to create new work and to get
new employment opportunities.
However, that must be linked up with the social assistance
programs and the training programs. One cannot divorce them.
That is really why I ask members opposite once again to agree
with us. If we are going to make these reforms we must do them
together. There are linkages in all the programs. Stop thinking
for a moment about unemployment insurance or the Canada
assistance plan or student aid. Think for a moment about the
problems I outlined of displaced workers, changes in industry,
new demographics and the problems of young people. If we start
identifying the real root causes of those problems then we can
begin to design the programs to meet them. That will be the
intent of this Parliament.
I can say to the hon. member that he should get his shoes on
because he is going to be running fast very soon.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, it is a great
honour for me to participate in this debate on the speech from
the throne.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
Speaker on his being elected as Speaker of the 35th Parliament.
Indeed, I would like to pass on my congratulations to the Deputy
Speaker. I want to assure the Speaker that we will endeavour to
make your job easier and you can always count on us.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission since this is my maiden
speech in this Chamber, I would like to dedicate my remarks
today to the memory of my late father, Glen Johnston, who
served from 1952 until 1967 in the Alberta legislature, in fact in
the party that the Prime Minister this morning referred to as the
grandfather of the Reform Party. In those years he served as the
member of the legislature for Ponoka-Rimby.
It is my pleasure to carry on the legacy of hard work and
caring support of his constituents, many of whom I represent
today. To those people of the federal constituency of Wetaskiwin
I thank them for their overwhelming support and their vote of
confidence in me. I would like to assure them that I am dedicated
to serving them and their interests in this House.
Let me say a little bit about the constituency of Wetaskiwin. It
is located in central Alberta just north of the constituency of Red
Deer and south of the Edmonton ridings. We are bounded on the
north and northwest by the North Saskatchewan River and the
terrain varies from heavily treed areas to the west to the
prairie-like grain fields on the east. I am proud to say that we are
a resource rich area. Agriculture, gas and oil are the engines that
drive our economy. Our rich farmland is ideal for raising prime
Alberta beef.
The Ponoka Stampede is an annual event. It is the second
largest stampede in the west. I would like to invite the Speaker
of the House and all members to join us on the Canada Day
weekend for an exceptional stampede and rodeo.
Over the last year I have travelled extensively throughout the
constituency speaking with many people and the message was
loud and clear. People are concerned about the economic future
of Canada and what kind of Canada their children and
grandchildren are going to inherit.
124
Two days ago His Excellency the Governor General delivered
the government's plan for the next four years to anxiously
waiting Canadians. The election results from across Canada
indicated a desire to depart from the status quo and it would
appear the government MPs received the same message. I would
like to congratulate this government for embarking on a path of
dialogue and consensus.
We commend the initiative to cut $5 million from the House
of Commons budget. I am pleased that the government acted on
a few of the suggestions contained in the Reform Party's paper
on pensions and perks. We encourage the Minister of Finance to
incorporate our other recommendations in his budget.
(1700)
The Canadian public have lost faith in their politicians. It is
time for the elected people to win back that trust. Being elected
does not mean that we are automatically respected. We have to
earn back that trust.
Canadians have the right to expect their representatives to act
with dignity and decorum of office. An end to double dipping
and a limit of age 55 before MPs can collect their pensions
would be steps in the right direction.
The whole issue of MPs' pensions, however, must be
addressed. The voters told us that they would no longer settle for
a plan that gives members of Parliament substantially more than
average Canadians. The Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act must be overhauled, not just tinkered with. It
must be brought into line with the private sector.
The MPs' pension plan is not self-supporting. How can we in
good conscience ask the overburdened Canadian taxpayer to pay
for this generous retirement plan? I cannot, Mr. Speaker, and I
am sure you feel the same way.
Canadians are looking to this government to restore their hope
and to restore their jobs. The widely acclaimed $6 billion
infrastructure program must be recognized for what it really is, a
joint project equally funded by the federal government, the
provinces and the municipalities. This short term project will
cost the taxpayer threefold. There may be three levels of
government participating in this scheme but there is still only
one taxpayer.
The talk of creating jobs and restoring confidence are only
small steps in encouraging economic growth. We can no longer
tell small business people that they can be the impetus to get the
economy moving while they remain overburdened with heavy
taxes.
The government plans to replace the goods and services tax,
but what with? The GST, the most despised tax in Canadian
history, does provide almost $15 billion in net revenue. This is
an issue that the Reform members on the finance committee are
looking forward to tackling. Earlier today my colleague from
Calgary Centre suggested that this caucus supports and
proposes to replace the goods and services tax with a flat tax
system.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): A single tax.
Mr. Johnston: Sounds good to me.
My concept of Canada is a Canada economically strong and
self-reliant. If we are ever to achieve self-reliance we must
eliminate the federal deficit. This year alone the deficit could
reach $46 billion. The national debt has topped the $500 billion
mark and it increases by $85,600 a minute. The time has come to
take serious steps to control spending. Federal departments are
still spending on frivolous, unnecessary schemes.
Here is an example. Just the other day there was a news report
stating that federal government departments had commissioned
videos that had cost the taxpayers of Canada $18 million.
Couple this and other examples of irresponsible spending
highlighted in the Auditor General's report and one comes up
with a soap opera that stumps the average Canadian. This has to
stop.
The government must put a halt to this type of luxury
spending. The Canadian taxpayer cannot afford it, Mr. Speaker,
and your constituents and mine deserve better.
I want to ask this government how it plans to control
departmental spending. The new initiatives announced in the
throne speech are commendable and worthwhile, but can we
afford them? Who is going to pay for them? Will we have to
borrow more money and increase the debt load in order to pay
for these programs?
All parties in this House acknowledge that we must reduce the
deficit but we differ in the method. In my view, we will never
accomplish this task unless we face up to the reality that we
simply cannot continue to live beyond our means. Canadians do
not want to rely on the government for their retirement so it
worries me when I hear that this government is considering the
elimination of the capital gains tax exemptions. Does this also
mean that the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption for farmers
and small businesses will be axed?
People who work for large corporations and governments
often have access to a pension plan, but the farmer and the small
business person does not. Most often, he or she counts on the
sale of assets accumulated over a lifetime to finance retirement
and maintain their financial independence.
We must undertake a joint effort to deliver the best possible
representation to the people of Canada. It is important to ensure
that we are productive and co-operative in order not only to
make this Parliament function better but also appear to function
better, in a less offensive manner.
125
(1705)
The constituents of Wetaskiwin can expect availability,
accountability and austerity from me. What I plan to deliver is
the same kind of representation they may have received from my
dad.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the member for Wetaskiwin on his introductory
speech to the House.
Because we are only an hour away from having to make a
decision on his party's amendment to the speech from the throne
I wonder if he would be so kind as to respond to some questions I
have concerning the proposal to put a cap on expenditures.
In spite of the fact that this House in the last Parliament
passed such a law introduced by the then Minister of Finance,
Don Mazankowski, member for Vegreville, we had the largest
deficit overrun that has ever occurred in this country. I am
wondering why he or his party think that a repeat of that
absolutely useless kind of legal requirement from this House,
that absolutely ineffective law and direction, is going to work
this time.
Mr. Johnston: Certainly there is no chance of it ever working
unless we place a spending cap on the budget, live by it and plan
to honour it.
To ignore the problem certainly is not going to be the answer
either so let us all recognize that this is a problem, but not a
revenue problem. My party believes very strongly that we do not
have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. That is
the way you would run your business. That is the way I would
run my business. If I find that the income does not balance the
expenditures the first thing I have to do is look at my
expenditure side of the ledger.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Laurentides has
two and a half minutes. Does the hon. member wish to ask a
question or make a comment?
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a comment. This being the first time I have the
floor, I would like to congratulate you on your election.
As for expenditures-
The Deputy Speaker: It seems that you are not interested in
asking the member for Wetaskiwin a question, but rather that
you would like to resume debate. Is that right?
Mrs. Guay: I have no question but rather a comment.
The Deputy Speaker: Then I think that according to the
understanding between the parties, the member for Fraser
Valley West has the floor now.
Mrs. Guay: Fine.
The Deputy Speaker: If there is no question, then, I will give
the floor to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, may I
take this opportunity to offer my sincere congratulations to you
and to all members of the House of Commons on their election to
this 35th Parliament.
I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to all the
people in Langley, Aldergrove and Matsqui, British Columbia
for expressing their confidence in me by sending me here to
represent them.
This is the time when the eyes of Canada are on the new
government so I think it only fitting that I speak today about
vision.
Historians I am sure will look back on October 25, 1993 as a
landmark in Canadian elections. Canadians as never before
spoke out in a loud clear voice for the need to change. The old
way of doing things is just not good enough any more.
Some would diminish the importance of the result by
labelling it merely a protest vote. What, I ask, is insignificant
about a protest vote. The people of this country were protesting
the way government conducts business and it is up to us to show
there is a better way.
We have for two decades witnessed federal governments
living beyond their means and it is time to stop and hold all
politicians accountable. But rather than look back in anger we
prefer to look forward with hope.
(1710)
The throne speech yesterday provided a glimpse of optimism,
something rare in these uncertain economic times. We have
heard talk of a new spirit of openness and co-operation between
political parties, an idea I would like to applaud. However we
heard the same message in the speech from the throne in 1984. It
lasted about two weeks. Let us hope it lasts longer this time.
What I wish to emphasize in the strongest possible terms is
that if there is no true commitment to open the books of
government to the intense scrutiny they need, then all of this talk
of co-operation and a new way of running government will be
just another echo bouncing down these historic halls.
All MPs should be involved in the detailed, critical analysis of
government spending. If the government makes good on the
pledge to give more power to MPs in its committees this could
be a positive change.
I am also encouraged to see the government has adopted
some, though not enough, of our recommendations with respect
to perks for members of Parliament. However, since the
government has already made its decision I am at a loss as to
why a
126
$200,000 study is currently underway to assess parliamentary
compensation and perks.
I am pleased to see the government's commitment to reform
the MPs' pension plan. Ending double-dipping however does
not go nearly far enough.
Our party has made significant recommendations to reform
the pension plan. We would be glad to share the results with the
House, certainly at no charge.
Other ideas, like the appointment of an ethics counsellor,
sound good on the surface, though I cannot help but wonder at
the necessity of adding yet another patronage position. If all
MPs simply act as Canadians expect them to, with the integrity
the throne speech referred to, there would be no need for a watch
dog.
True reform comes from the individual. We cannot legislate
integrity. We also cannot hope to create real lasting jobs by
throwing billions of dollars at a program called infrastructure.
Infrastructure means roads, bridges and sewers. Yet one of the
first examples of this spending has gone toward the construction
of a civic centre. The government has admitted the
announcement was politically motivated. Will this
infrastructure program create good, long term jobs? We will see.
Be assured we will be watching.
We cannot solve joblessness in this country with more
government spending. Anyone who thinks we can is living in a
dream world, a dream world we can no longer afford.
As I look around, as one of the more than 200 first-time
parliamentarians, I cannot help but be awe-struck not only by
the sense of history in these halls but by the responsibility that
comes with this chair. I see all around me representatives with
many different perspectives on the future of Canada. Though
there may be distinct ways of looking at things, no matter how
you alter your angle of sight one thing never changes, the bottom
line still looks like the bottom line.
If we continue on the path we are on we will no longer be
discussing whether the glass is half empty or half full. It will
simply be empty. All of the money this government spends will
be accounted for and the members of Parliament must be
accountable to their constituents.
The Reform Party's constitution states: ``The duty of elected
representatives to their constituents must supersede obligations
to their political parties''. To ensure I make good on this pledge
we have initiated advisory groups in Fraser Valley West made up
of constituents from a variety of backgrounds and political
persuasions. Although these groups are just in the formative
stage, early indications are that I will be taken to task if I stray
from the course they chose.
If we are willing to give members of Parliament more power
in the House of Commons let us take it a step further and get the
Canadian people involved in the process.
(1715)
The people I represent from British Columbia are no longer
satisfied with the status quo. The federal government has
consistently failed to live within its means and my constituents
want a direct say in how their tax dollars are spent. These people
want guarantees that budgets will be balanced, long term debt
will be substantially reduced and expenditures will be necessary
and legitimate. It is no longer good enough simply to spend
money. We must know where it is coming from, where it is
going, why it is going there and why we are not paying our bills
first.
Most social programs have merit but that is not enough. In our
critical financial state merit is no longer the overriding
criterion. Federal spending must be cut to the point where we
can once again live within our means. By capping expenditures
we will take that first step.
The emphasis on controlling spending is not just for the sake
of getting Canadian business going again. On the contrary, every
young Canadian should get involved in these decisions. For the
first time in our history young people are being told to accept a
lower standard of living than that of their parents. This system is
unacceptable.
A high standard includes more than financial considerations.
It includes our social programs that have come to set us apart as
a caring nation. The only way we can preserve the things that
make us proud to be Canadian is by ensuring that we can afford
them today and will be able to afford them in the future.
Canadian businesses have to live within their means.
Canadian families have to live within their means. We must
insist that the government live within its means as well. What is
prudent for every family in Canada is also prudent for the
Government of Canada. There simply is no choice.
In closing I would like to mention an attitude I have observed
lately with respect to how Canadians view themselves. Talking
to people who have just returned from a trip abroad seems to be
one of the few times we hear about what a fantastic country this
is. Why is it that Canada looks like such a land of opportunity
when viewed from afar but at home we seem to lose sight of the
fact?
The Liberals' red book is called Creating Opportunity. I hope
the creation of opportunity includes a planned program of
deficit and debt reduction as the number one priority.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by
congratulating you on your new appointment. I would also like
to congratulate the member for Fraser Valley West on his
maiden speech.
127
I want to suggest something to the member with which we in
the House will have to concern ourselves. The hon. member
mentioned in his speech on a couple of occasions that the bottom
line was the same bottom line. Having come from a business
background I realize the bottom line in business is earnings per
share. It is how much money we made and how much we have to
invest or reinvest. However in this boardroom the bottom line is
different. The bottom line for us as members of Parliament is
people. It is a totally different bottom line.
When we talk about the concerns of our constituents-and I
have to concern myself with my constituents-we think of the
number of people who are unemployed and the number of people
who are on welfare. They are looking to us to try to create some
confidence and try to stimulate the economy which has lacked
confidence for the last four or five years.
(1720 )
The member talked about the convention centre in Quebec
City being a forum for bringing business together, creating
markets and opportunities for business exchange and exports. It
will create not only short term construction jobs. It will create a
convention environment where things can happen, where sales,
marketing and everything else can take place that will put
people back to work so that we can ultimately reduce the $30
billion disbursement on unemployment insurance and welfare
last year.
Can he not see that as a possible way of reducing and meeting
the objective?
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Fraser Valley West
has about a minute and a half.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I thank you
for leaving me enough time to answer the question. I appreciate
that we only have ten minutes and that he has five.
There is no question that people are a great resource. One has
to wonder why people lack confidence today in our government
and in our system. The overriding feature of losing confidence
in my riding-and I am sure it is so in many other ridings-is the
fact that the government continually overspends and lives far
beyond its means.
My speech addressed a major concern of the people I
represent. Unless we get this under control there will be many
more people out of work. Just creating and spending more
money in government does not provide the impetus to get
confidence back in the country.
I thank the hon. member for his question. I would like to send
him back a message that unless we get this funding under
control, this debt, this deficit, the government will have a more
serious problem with more people out of work, not less people
out of work.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
on this my first opportunity to address the House let me
congratulate you on your appointment and your colleagues on
theirs as well.
It is an honour to be here today in the House representing the
great riding of Parry South-Muskoka and the thousands of
people who call the communities in my riding home. I would
also like to thank all those constituents for the trust they have
shown in me by electing me their member of Parliament.
My area includes the Muskoka Lakes, Georgian Bay, and is
the gateway to Algonquin Park. It is where north meets south in
Ontario and where people from all over come to enjoy nature at
and life at their very best.
It is also the riding which, until October 25 of this past year,
was represented by the grand old man of the House, Stan
Darling. Although we are from different parties I wish to thank
Stan publicly and on behalf of the constituents of Parry
Sound-Muskoka for his 21 years of service to the House and 50
years of public life. Stan was the true constituency member,
home every weekend attending every event and always willing
to help a constituent no matter how small or how large the
problem was.
Those who sat in the House prior to 1993 know of Stan's
tireless work on the acid rain treaty which will allow my
generation and my children's generation the opportunity to
continue to enjoy the beauty Parry Sound-Muskoka. Between
Stan and his predecessor, Gordon Aiken, the Conservatives
represented my riding since Bucko MacDonald, a former
Toronto Maple Leaf and a good Liberal, who won it 40 years ago
in 1953.
If Bucko, who unfortunately passed away three years ago, was
able to intervene from above to end the 40-year drought for the
Liberal team in Parry Sound-Muskoka, he will use his
influence to end the slightly shorter drought for his other team
and 1994 will be the year that the Toronto Maple Leafs win the
Stanley Cup.
(1725)
I cannot let this moment pass without taking the opportunity
to thank my wife, Danielle, and my children, Christopher, Peter
and Lisa, for the support they have shown me during the past
campaign and the personal sacrifices they are making to allow
me to serve my constituents as a member of Parliament. In this
vein it is appropriate to recognize the sacrifices being made by
the families of all members of the House. I salute each of them.
We are here today to debate the government's throne speech,
to review and analyse the path my government intends to pursue
during the first session of the 35th Parliament. Our program can
128
be best summed up by one very simple phrase: a belief in the
individual Canadian.
Our government intends to invest in young people through an
apprenticeship program and the Canadian Youth Services Corps.
Our government intends to invest in small business people by
providing them with the capital they need to grow and by lifting
the burden of unnecessary regulations and unfair taxation.
Our government intends to invest in the unemployed by
giving them an opportunity to work today through the
infrastructure program and by creating an environment that will
ensure job creation for the long term.
Our government intends to invest in the less fortunate in our
society by reforming our social safety net so that it gives people
a hand up instead of a hand out and provides for them the
training necessary to become productive members of our
society.
The government intends to invest in women and young
children by passing new legislation that will strengthen the ban
on pornography and stop violence against women and children
and by reforming the Young Offenders Act to establish a
connection between inappropriate behaviour and inevitable
consequences.
More than just an investment in people, the Liberal
government intends to pursue a balanced approach to
government. We are not the slaves of any particular ideology.
We are not wed to the doctrine of social control by the left or
unfettered capitalism by the right.
We do not seek to end this country by tearing from it the
province of Quebec. We will not push that province and its
people form this country through indifference or
misunderstanding of the legitimate aspirations of the French
Canadian culture. We intend as a government to pursue this
balanced approach as we deal with the economic challenges
facing Canada.
We understand as does every business person in this country
that any income statement has two sides: expenses and revenue.
If we were to concentrate on simply cutting expenses without
attempting to enhance revenue through job creation, we would
surely fail in our attempt to balance the budget.
We will cut costs and start to relieve the Canadian middle
class of its enormous tax burden with a clear understanding the
more taxpayers that exist and the more people who are working
the less burden each one of us will have to bear.
I am particularly pleased that our throne speech has promised
to bring integrity back to government. We have committed
ourselves to several measures that will see this happen. We will
proceed quickly with rule changes that allow individual
members of Parliament a greater role in the drafting of
legislation.
We will provide more power to House of Commons
committees and actively and continuously debate important
issues of the day in the House. We will appoint an ethics
counsellor to control the lobbyists and others who seek to wield
unjust and undue power.
The program that my government has detailed is not only of
national concern. It is of great importance in my riding of Parry
Sound-Muskoka. I represent an area in which unemployment
exceeds 15 per cent, and that does not account for the people
working part time who would prefer full-time work or simply
the people who have given up altogether.
In some communities in my riding we face upwards of one in
four people who want to work but who are unable to work. It was
the demand to have this situation reversed, to put the people of
Parry Sound-Muskoka back to work, that led my electors to
choose a Liberal to represent them in the 35th Parliament.
The backbone of the local economy of Parry
Sound-Muskoka is tourism. One in every two existing jobs
relates either directly or indirectly to that industry. Every 1 per
cent increase in tourism translates into $1.9 million of direct
economic benefit and 39 person years of employment. The
thousands of people who travel every year to enjoy our lakes and
waterways, to be dazzled by the fall colours, or to try the
snowmobile trails in winter are the mainstay and economic
lifeblood of my riding.
(1730)
Our government pledge to put Canadians back to work and to
reform our tax system will add new vigour to tourism. I am
committed to work with all people within my riding to formulate
appropriate initiatives which will concentrate on creating a four
season tourism economy.
We will work toward the development of an appropriate
marketing strategy which not only will reach out to attract
visitors from across Canada, but which will work within
initiatives of the federal government to bring back to our area
the American tourists and to reach out to new markets in Europe
and the Far East. I will work hard to provide financial assistance
to our tourist operators and to supplement our natural attractions
with new tourism infrastructure.
If tourism is the engine that drives our economy, it is the small
business person who is the backbone of it. Over 90 per cent of all
jobs in Parry Sound-Muskoka are provided by the small
business sector. Men and women every day risk their family
fortune, their financial security and in many cases all they have
are the foundations upon which our economic renewal will be
built.
I have spent my professional career working with and helping
the small business sector. I have seen the person who has played
by the rules, worked hard every day, pushed themselves to the
limit and has lost it all through no fault of their own. I have seen
the pain and the devastation that record business bankruptcies
have caused. Our government's policies and programs will
129
ensure that this is no longer the case and that that terrible trend
will be reversed.
The small business sector of Canada needs and deserves our
support. This government is committed to finding new ways to
provide capital to our beleaguered business people. As a former
banker I am doubly determined to work hard to find ways for
government and the banking industry to work together and
ensure that loans are available to small business people, to
ensure that deserving Canadians are not denied credit solely
because they operate in a rural area and are not denied credit
because they work in an industry not looked upon favourably by
the gnomes of Bay Street.
I will work with my constituents and with my government to
reduce the bureaucracy which surrounds and strangles the small
business person. I do not want to see good job creation projects
die on the altar of bureaucratic red tape.
As part of a Liberal government I will work for the reform of
our tax structure and work to stop the practice of using the small
business sector as little more than tax collectors. We need to
collect revenue in a manner which does not discourage
consumption and drive to the United States the tourism dollars
which are desperately needed in Parry Sound-Muskoka.
As important as tourism is to my area, as important as the
retail trade which supports it is, and as important as the private
service sector which maintains it is, we need more. We will
always depend on tourism as our major industry. However we
must work in Parry Sound-Muskoka for an economically
balanced economy.
I have worked for many years actively pursuing economic
development both as a business representative in my role with
the chamber of commerce and as a member and active
participant in the municipal economic development process.
I have pledged to work with the small business sector and
individuals to bring them together with government to build a
diversified economic base. We will create a climate within
which new small business will be created in this country and,
most important for me, in Parry Sound-Muskoka.
We will use our quality of life, our proximity to major
markets, our superior transportation infrastructure and the
innovativeness and hard-working nature of our people to attract
new industry and new manufacturers on which economic
renewal can be based.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has just
pledged in this House to introduce and pursue innovative labour
adjustment activities. We will work to create an environment
within which those who have been excluded from the work force
can learn new skills and be prepared to fill the jobs that
economic development and diversification will create.
(1735 )
The residents of my riding and indeed the people of Canada
find themselves at a crossroads. We have great challenges ahead
of us which will demand our collective energy, knowledge and
determination if we are to overcome them.
As Canadians we have a choice. On the one hand, we can take
the easy road. We can believe that the problems we face are
beyond our abilities to solve. We can look for simple solutions
and feel disappointed when they do not work. We can ask for
sacrifices from others and reject that we too must make
sacrifices. We can blame our difficulties on the actions of others
and accept no responsibility for what we may have done to
contribute to our condition. On the other hand, we can take the
other route, one which recognizes that we can do better, that we
can have an effect on problems, that we are responsible for our
actions and that sacrifices will come from each of us, not simply
from some other group.
Our government has clearly demonstrated by its speech from
the throne that it chooses the second option. We will not shirk
our responsibilities. We will provide leadership to Canadians.
We will be innovative, learning from the past but not fearing the
future. We will be generous and most of all, we will care about
the individual Canadian first and foremost.
Canada is a great country. Canadians are great people. We can
and will do better than we have in the past. With the help of all
Canadians and all of the members of this House, we will build a
future of hope and prosperity for ourselves and for our children.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to congratulate the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. It
is indeed one of the most beautiful and picturesque areas of the
country. I appreciate his comments, as do other members of the
House I am sure, concerning the sacrifice that all of our families
endure with our being here. It was very kind of him to mention
that and make that consideration.
As a small businessman it was interesting to hear the extent of
his concern with small business. From his background as a
banker he would certainly have an interesting perspective, one
that would be quite different to many people who were actual
doers. It is similar to the person who knows how to drive but
cannot get a driver's licence.
My question to the hon. member from Parry Sound is the
following. In the Liberal red book there is a statement to the
effect that the Liberal government would adjust personal
guarantees to 25 per cent. I believe it reads that it would
guarantee the first 25 per cent.
130
Has the member considered, particularly with his experience
as a banker, if the government were to assume the guarantee on
the first 25 per cent, what impact would that have on the
operation of that business? Would it not be advisable, if the
government were going to guarantee anything, which of course
is debatable, to guarantee the last 25 per cent and not the first 25
per cent? If it is my money and my constituents' money that is
being used as a guarantee I would like to have the small
businessman laying awake at nights trying to figure out how to
pay back that money.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Small Businesses Loans Act
which is presently in force does mandate that the banks are only
going to take a 20 per cent guarantee. However, it does not work
quite in the way the member has pointed out.
If there should be a default on the loan, the way the act works
is that the bank will attempt to collect all security in advance of
the government guarantee. In other words, all security must be
exhausted before the government will honour its portion of the
guarantee. Therefore, in reality the government comes to the
table last and the small businessman loses first.
(1740)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, this is the first
time that I address this House. I am new, but I too will learn
during my mandate, my four years. I wish to congratulate you on
your new position.
My question for the member is what exactly will you do to
restore permanent jobs and not part-time jobs such as those that
come from your program and to restore the confidence of
Quebecers and Canadians? Look at aid for small business. They
need money, and funds are being cut, so I would like to have an
answer, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, it is important when looking at
the government's job creation program that we remember there
are two components to it. I always hear from members opposite
in this House the complaint that it is an infrastructure program,
it is short term and that it will be gone in a year or in two years,
but that is not the reality of it.
When one invests in infrastructure one creates an
environment where long term jobs can be created. In my riding
if we put infrastructure into an industrial park and we put sewers
there and we bring water to that park and as a result of that we
are able to attract new industry to my riding then the
infrastructure program has not just created short term jobs
during the construction but it has created long term jobs as new
business is able to move in.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I would first
like to take this opportunity, both as a friend and as a colleague,
to congratulate you on your election as the Deputy Speaker. As
you know, we go back many years. My wife and I had the
privilege of working on your first campaign when we were both
members of another party, but that is another story.
I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Parry
Sound-Muskoka for his first speech in the House. I had the
privilege of doing that this morning.
As I said this morning, the Liberal red book was rather long on
rhetoric and rather short on specifics. While we have heard him
speak about the needs of his particular riding, the needs of this
country are even greater.
That is why I think that in the throne speech the question to the
honourable member is this: What is he, as a member of the
government, and his government going to do to ensure that not
only his riding but this whole country comes to terms with job
creation from coast to coast? We all know that the $6 billion
infrastructures will not do the job.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, concerning the last question, as I
mentioned, it is inappropriate to look at our job creation
program and just take one aspect of it, the infrastructure
program. That is the stimulus, that is the start, but it contains
many more things.
If we are able to, and we will as a government, get more
capital into the hands of small business people, we will in fact
create long term jobs. When we reform the tax system in this
country we will be creating long term jobs. When we are able to
cut through the red tape that small businessmen and women have
to face every day then we will be creating long term jobs. When
we work with leading edge technological companies we will
create long term jobs. The red book is filled from one end to the
other with specific details on how we will create long term jobs.
The Deputy Speaker: We are going to try to use up the clock
till a quarter to six. The two of you will have roughly three
minutes left. The member for Fraser Valley East.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I was
interested to hear the member's description of his riding. I think
everyone in the House so far has described their riding as the
most beautiful riding in all of Canada. Maybe I will do that next
week.
Congratulations to the member on his maiden speech. I was
also interested in his comments about 90 per cent of businesses
being created by small business, which of course is not a
government intervention but a small business initiative.
I am also interested in his comments about the sacrifices that
he is calling on all facets of the economy to make. I was just
wondering what sacrifices exactly he is expecting from small
businesses to finance this program.
131
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the small business person in my
riding does in fact create 90 per cent of the new jobs. They had to
make many sacrifices as they worked to create those jobs. Each
one of us in this House, each Canadian in this country, each
constituents' group, each special interest group is going to have
to come together. They are going to have to realize that if we are
going to be successful in reinvigorating the Canadian economy,
if we are going to create jobs in this country, if we are going to
fix the major problems that we face in this country, we are going
to have to do it together.
(1745)
Each one of us, as each issue comes up in this House, and each
person out there in the country, as each issue comes out, is going
to ask themselves not just what will it do to hurt them but ask
themselves: ``What can I do to help the country deal with these
problems''. When we can have that kind of attitude in this House
and in the country, we will be successful with the economic
renewal that we need. We will be successful in creating new jobs
and Canadians will go back to the prosperity that they rightfully
deserve.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 55 to interrupt the proceedings and
put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
amendment to the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
to the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1810 )
And the bells having rung.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know we are
going to vote now on a motion to put a cap on government
spending. I recall that on June 18, 1992 we gave royal assent to
Bill C-56 which placed a cap on government spending to the
tune of $107 billion for this upcoming year.
My question is, having a statute that already limits
government spending to $107 billion, why are we now-
The Speaker: Order. I think the hon. member is making a
very good point of debate but I am not sure it is a point of order.
Of course I would invite the hon. member to include statements
such as he was just making in his speech when he gets a chance.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment,
which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 1)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-52
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
132
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North/Nord)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York Sudbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-214
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assad
Asselin
Cauchon
Crête
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Guimond
Karygiannis
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Ouellet
St-Laurent
Wappel
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment
negatived.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On
behalf of the members present I would like to thank Mr. Bill
Corbett and his son for recognizing each member flawlessly
during this first recorded vote.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I taught him well.
It being 6.24 o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned to the
call of the Chair.
(The House adjourned at 6.24 p.m.)
133
134
We are here to bid farewell to the Honourable Steven Eugene
Paproski. A loving and loved husband to Betty. A proud and
cherished father to Patrick, Peter, Anna, Alexandra and
Elizabeth. Adored Grandfather to Steven, Colin, and Kathleen.
Let me begin by paying tribute to Steve as a distinguished
parliamentarian, whose devotion to that institution made him
admired and, yes, loved on all sides of the House.
For it was in the House of Commons that Steve and I became
close friends, literally, as seat mates. At that time, he was the
Chief Whip and I was involved in the House Leader's business.
Our responsibilities meant that we were sitting together in the
Commons from morning until night. We got to know each other
very well.
One of the stories he and I enjoyed was about the new Member
of Parliament, thrilled to be elected, who took his seat in the
House for the first time. He exclaimed, ``What an honour it is to
be able to sit just two swords-lengths across the aisle from my
political enemies and to deal with them face to face''. A veteran
parliamentarian was quick to set him straight. ``Son'', he said,
``those M.P.s sitting across from you aren't your enemies. They
are your political adversaries. Your enemies are sitting all
around you''.
But while Steve used to enjoy that story, it was a story that did
not apply to him. He was one of the few parliamentarians, one of
the few people I know, devoid of enemies. His infectious
enthusiasm, his innate kindness, the total lack of envy in his
character, were all irresistible.
Steve was what I like to think of as a true millionaire. He had a
million dollar smile, a million dollar voice. Who here cannot
picture in their mind's eye, and hear, Steve singing Hello Dolly?
He also had a million friends and certainly performed a million
good deeds.
There are very few people who knew Steve who weren't the
beneficiaries of his kindness and generosity. I know I have
witnessed countless examples, towards his family, friends, and
even total strangers.
I remember a trip Gerda and I shared with Steve and Betty, to
Bulgaria, during the dark days of communism. The giving on
that trip began with the sharing of food with the hotel staff and
kept on until Steve had given away his shirts and clothes,
everything except the clothes he needed to travel home in.
I do not have enough time to tell you of the countless personal
examples of his generosity and kindness to me. What I
especially remember is the coldest day of February 1989. I was
lying in bed in St. Paul's Hospital in Saskatoon. In walked Steve,
with two of his pals, Jim Hole and Justice Howard Irving. He had
talked them into flying a small private plane from Edmonton in
icy cold minus 40 degree freezing temperatures. Steve thought I
might need cheering up. That's the kind of guy Steve was.
And that's the kind of guy Steve has always been. He has
always contributed, enormously, throughout his life. He was
proud of his father and used to show visitors his father's
shoemaker's shop on Jasper Avenue in Edmonton. Steve's dad
died when he was sixteen. Steve helped enormously with the
raising of his three younger brothers, and their schooling.
Steve's famed football career took off when he won an athletic
scholarship to the University of Arizona. Many Canadians
remember the five years he played with the Edmonton Eskimos.
What they might not know about is his wrestling career. Steve
needed to augment his meagre university income but he couldn't
jeopardize his amateur athletic status and his scholarship.
Picture, if you will, Steve donning a mask to wrestle
professionally, incognito or so he believed. His opponent was
his pal Killer Gene Kiniski. One day Steve would win and, if you
can believe the coincidence, the next day Gene Kiniski would
win. Together, for tag team matches, they were the Masked
Marvels. What a great start for a political career!
Steve often measured, with pride, the distance he had
travelled from his birth in Poland to his role as a member of
Parliament, a Minister of the Crown and as Deputy Speaker of
the House of Commons.
As a Member of Parliament, he was unswerving in his
commitment to the concerns of his constituents. Not
surprisingly, the people of his Edmonton riding were as
unswerving in their support of him, a support that lasted a
remarkable twenty-five years.
In Cabinet he served all Canadians. His deep love of and pride
in his country came from his appreciation of the opportunities it
had held out to him, and to the family he and Betty created.
And, of course, it was his family which sustained him. He
adored Betty, his five children, and his grandchildren and gained
energy from their shared love. As much as he was the bright light
in Betty's life, she was the star in his. Together, they were warm,
generous, loving and giving people, and it was clear from the
moment you saw them why they had chosen to spend their lives
together.
Gerda and I remember well a trip we shared with Steve and
Betty to Mexico. That year Betty was celebrating her 50th
birthday. That trip became Betty's birthday party, the whole ten
days. Steve had arranged a birthday party, with gifts, every day
of that trip for her.
Many of you may know that Steve was a deeply religious man.
He and Betty have been faithful church-goers and faithful
believers. His faith was part of his life, and sometimes became
part of mine. I am sure that Steve knew, on a first name basis,
every bishop and cardinal in the church.
I remember one occasion during an annual meeting of the
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in Ottawa. A hot,
humid summer day sitting around Steve's pool, Lincoln
Alexander, a Baptist, and me, a Greek Orthodox, seated between
Emmett Cardinal Carter and Cardinal Flahiff, and in the
company of about twenty other bishops in shirtsleeves, debating
moral and political issues over martinis. Steve, of course, was at
the bar-b-que broiling up steaks.
135
If connections in the Church have any influence on where
Steve is right now, there's no question he's right at the top.
Steve died in the midst of life. We all assumed that he would
have been with us for many years to come. But now, even as we
mourn his passing, we give thanks for him, and for the happiness
he brought into all our lives.
To Betty, and to all of you: His children. His grandchildren.
His brothers and in-laws. And to his many friends-among
whom Gerda and I have always been proud to count ourselves-I
speak from the heart, and on behalf of all Canadians, when I
extend our deepest sympathies to you.
May this holy season, with its message of renewed hope and
love, prove a comfort to you in this time of loss.