CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 22, 1994
Bill C-229. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 2581
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 2585
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 2589
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2610
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 2613
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2614
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2617
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 2617
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 2618
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2620
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2620
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2620
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2620
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2621
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2621
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2621
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2622
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2622
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2622
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2624
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2624
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2625
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2626
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 2626
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 2626
Consideration resumed of motion 2627
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2627
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 2637
(Motion moved and agreed to.) 2645
(Motion moved and agreed to.) 2645
Consideration resumed of motion 2645
Motion for concurrence 2646
Bill C-19. Motion for first reading deemed adopted 2646
Bill C-19. Motion for second reading 2646
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and theHouse went into committee thereon, Mrs.
Maheu inthe chair.) 2646
(Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.) 2646
(Schedule agreed to.) 2646
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 2646
(Preamble agreed to.) 2646
Bill C-19. Motion for concurrence 2646
Bill C-19. Motion for third reading 2647
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 146; Nays, 92 2647
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 2648
Motion for concurrence 2648
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 146; Nays, 93 2648
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.) 2649
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 146; Nays, 93 2649
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 146; Nays, 93 2650
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 146; Nays, 93 2651
2581
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 22, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in
both official languages the government's response to five
petitions
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Joint
Committee on the Library of Parliament. In this report, our
committee recommends that it be authorized to act as advisor to
the speakers of the Senate and of the House of Commons when
they exercise their authority over the Library. We are also asking
permission to meet with a reduced quorum as well as during
sitting of the Senate. This is the first report of the Standing Joint
Committee on the Library of Parliament since March 5, 1970.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-229, an act to amend the Canada
Elections Act (registration of political parties).
He said: Mr. Speaker, as members know this is my very first
private members' bill. The purpose of this bill is to amend the
Canada Elections Act to allow the registration of political
parties by the chief electoral officer only when the party
nominates candidates in at least seven provinces that have an
aggregate of at least 50 per cent of the population of all the
provinces and in at least half of the electoral district in each of
those seven provinces.
For the purposes of the Canada Elections Act, ``province''
includes Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure today to present to the House of Commons pursuant
to Standing Order 36 a petition on behalf of many of my
constituents as well as others who reside in Saskatchewan.
These petitioners are interested in seeing Bill C-91 repealed
because of the dramatic effect it has had on the price of
prescription drugs in Canada.
In essence, Bill C-91 has driven up the price of prescription
drugs by over 120 per cent in the last five years. This has been a
severe problem financially for those people who require
prescription drugs. It also has hindered provincial governments
across the country in terms of restricting and reducing the drug
plans they have.
The Canadians from Saskatchewan who have signed this
reside in Semans, Duval, Nokomis, Earl Grey, Assiniboia,
Craven, Southey, Cupar and Strasbourg to name a few of the
communities.
I summarize by saying they are begging and requesting this
Parliament to repeal Bill C-91, the drug patent legislation.
* * *
(1010)
[Translation]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: No. 10.
2582
[Text]
Question No. 10-Mr. Simmons:
What action, if any, has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans taken to
resolve the many long-standing deficiencies- in management practices of the
fishing vessel insurance plan, including a rapidly declining insurance base, rising
deficits, and declining efficiency, the failure to improve client service and the
process for reviewing and approving claims, the plan's deteriorating
performance, and the Department's lack of corrective action, as raised by the
1992 Auditor General's report?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): The
Department of Fisheries and Oceans has taken a number of steps
to address concerns raised in the 1992 Auditor General's report.
In February 1993, a general manager at the executive level
was appointed for the program with headquarters in St. John's,
Newfoundland. This concentration of full line autority for
managing program resources across all regions has streamlined
decision making and reduced opportunities for diverting funds
away from the program. The consolidation of two regional
offices and a reduction of staff complement through attrition has
resulted in increased efficiency at decreased costs.
Steps have been taken to ensure the implementation of a
national FVIP data base by the first quarter of fiscal year
1993-94. This will provide needed management information for
ensuring more efficient administration, establishing appropriate
rate structures, maximizing revenue and setting national
standards in a number of areas.
A training program developed for field officers on vessel
appraisals and claims adjustments is now in progress. The first
two week session began on February 28, 1994 and the second
two week session started March 12, 1994. Training will also be
provided as part of the data base implementation.
Updated procedures for the review and approval of claims
now ensure that claims are forwarded to head office with proper
documentation. As a result, HQ approval has been reduced to
one week thus improving overall service to clients.
A report has been prepared assessing the reasons for the
declining insurance base and recommending measures to
reverse the trend. This report is now being analyzed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question mentioned
by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the remaining
questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
2582
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier) moved:
That this House deplore the government's lack of vision and lack of concrete
measures relating to job creation policies.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Since today is the final
allotted day for the supply period ending March 31, 1994, the
House will go through the usual procedure to consider and
dispose of the supply bills.
In view of recent practices do hon. members agree that these
bills be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, indeed we, the Official
Opposition, feel that it is important to make this House and the
government aware of the need to worry, and not just talk, about
employment in Canada.
Four heavyweight ministers-I do not intend to put them on a
diet -participated in the last G-7 conference. We are waiting
for them to inform us of the innovative solutions they learned at
that conference to help Canada improve the tragic situation of
unemployment here.
I must admit however that I am anxious to see what these
senior ministers will propose, considering that when the
previous crisis occurred, the G-7 advocated drastic measures to
control inflation and Canada subscribed to those, so much so in
fact that it tried to show the way and applied a solution whose
effects were worse than the problem.
In fact, it seems to me that the federal government must ask
itself what kind of policy would stimulate employment, as
Quebec has done perhaps because it has been experiencing
serious unemployment problems for a long time. Quite often
countries, including G-7 members and those which are most
easily and naturally prosperous because they have been wealthy
for a long time, think that employment is what is left once
everything else has been looked after. So the government looks
of course after problems such as inflation and the deficit, which
is largely the result of its anti-inflationary policies, and what is
left in the end is the employment situation.
Then nice speeches are made to say how sorry the government
is to learn of the plight of the poor ordinary citizen who is in real
trouble, who has no security, and who is deprived of what little
hope he may have had of at least getting a minimum income for a
while through UI benefits. So the government makes nice
2583
speeches to the effect that it is concerned about employment,
and it gets elected by pledging to look after the problem but, in
fact, it is essentially business as usual.
I want to take this opportunity to tell members of this House-
even though their previous income level was not necessarily the
same-that very few Canadians and Quebecers enjoy the same
peace of mind as we do. Indeed, many of them live in a great
state of insecurity which has a profound influence on the rest of
their lives.
(1015)
Of course, when we are in office, we are surrounded by
advisors who tell us: You must not worry about it. It is a jobless
recovery, it is the same everywhere, and you must get used to
people's anger. You have to be thick skinned and not let yourself
be moved if you see people who are having a hard time.
I would like to take the time allotted to me to say that there are
two main types of economic policy. The first, the most common
kind, is a sort of laissez faire, as I was saying; you look after the
fashionable parameters and live with the outcome once that is
done, and that is the more or less long-term unemployed.
We know that since the 1980s, some ideas that were in in the
1930s have come back in fashion; they say that basically only
the strong can survive, so let us help the strong and as for the
weak, well, too bad, they are disadvantaged so let them suffer.
But other countries over the years have developed other types
of policies where employment is not a leftover, not a residual
concern about which nothing can be done; no, they say: the
purpose of the economy must be to give ordinary people a
minimum, not just enough to keep them from dying, but enough
to live with dignity, to have some hope and fulfilment, and in our
societies for a long time to come, the key will still be
employment.
Some societies have taken the trouble to give themselves
instruments, not just macro-economic instruments, not just
monetary policy, not just a policy on the deficit, not just a trade
policy, but a policy concerned with how jobs are actually created
and lost and how, with patient effort, by influencing
macro-economic policies, through common effort and working
together, asking questions, even tough questions, the future of
people can be assured.
Unfortunately, we must admit that in politics, these methods
often take time and politicians, men and women in politics,
because I distinguish the two, can be in a hurry, their time is
limited. However, there can be no quick-fix solutions-there
are none. There is only the ability to look at a situation and to
develop approaches with people at the grass roots.
Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I will talk about
decentralization at some point and I will talk about Quebec. But
before that, I want to remind you of the situation, not for the fun
of it, because it is not at all funny. The latest figures show
1,559,000 unemployed people. Remember that the unemployed
counted here are those who are actively looking for work. You
can be unemployed but not counted in this category if you are a
discouraged worker. It is more practical that way; you are
forgotten.
In Quebec, how many are officially unemployed? There are
428,000, not counting all the long-term unemployed who are on
welfare. We can say without exaggeration that there are about
800,000 unemployed people in Quebec who are actually looking
for work, although not as Statistics Canada sees it. The lives of
800,000 people in Quebec alone are tied to the ability to find
work. It is a question of self-esteem, of parents being able to
face their children or help them, of people being able to build a home, have children. According to Statistics Canada, there are 1.5 million unemployed in this country.
(1020)
The Liberal government came to power on a worthwhile
slogan. In either French or English, it was ``jobs, jobs, jobs''.
The government rose to power on the heels of this catchy slogan.
The Liberals conducted a clever campaign. Their slogan
amounted to: ``Vote for us, vote Liberal''.
So, what has this government done to follow through on its
promise to create jobs, jobs, jobs?
An hon. member: It has created jobs.
Mrs. Lalonde: Since being elected? You must be joking.
Look at the record.
Mr. Speaker, would you kindly remind hon. members to be
courteous and to look at the latest Statistics Canada figures?
An hon. member: As the hon. member should.
Mrs. Lalonde: I have seen quite few figures, sir.
So then, what is the government doing? It does not like to be
reminded of its record, but that is our job. What action has it
taken? First of all, it cancelled the helicopter deal, without
giving any thought to preserving high-tech and scientific jobs,
as the Bloc had recommended.
Next, it increased unemployment insurance premiums. It is
trying to make people forget this decision any way it can by
saying that it will lower the premiums next year. I will come
back to this point.
The government plans to inject $1 billion a year into its
largest initiative, the Infrastructure Program. It hopes that the
provinces and municipalities will match this amount. After two
years, the government hopes to have created between 45,000 and
65,000 temporary or short-term jobs. It is a simple matter to
calculate the cost of each one of the 65,000 jobs, in light of the
problems.
2584
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite should stop saying that
they have created jobs. If that was their slogan, and if they are
satisfied with the Infrastructure Program-some bad language
comes to mind, but I realize that members cannot speak such
words in this House, unless they are willing to temper their
remarks and I have no desire to do so.
At best, the Infrastructure Program will create 65,000 jobs.
According to the Johnson government, the program will create
20,000 in Quebec. By extrapolating, we see that this initiative
will create 20,000 jobs, while the lives of 800,000 depend on
finding a job, often any job.
Therefore, when the government says it has followed through
on its promises when we know that this program is only a drop in
the bucket, it is showing a certain lack of understanding and
compassion, as well as extreme thoughtlessness. Its actions
must be sternly denounced. Can anyone argue that this is the way
to create jobs? However, for the government to be satisfied with
creating 65,000 jobs-and this is not done yet-by the end of
this period and to claim ``mission accomplished'', words fail
me, Mr. Speaker. Let me just leave it at that.
The government's next move was to bring down a budget,
which it claimed, with great fanfare, would get Canada out of the
woods.
(1025)
What was not mentioned too often though is the fact that the
forecasts-not the targets but the actual forecasts-for
employment in this budget see the overall rate of unemployment
move from 11.2 per cent in 1993 to 10.8 per cent by the end of
1995 in Canada. This means that the government itself is
resigned to doing nothing more than what is outlined in the
infrastructure plan and hope it stirs things up a little.
Mr. Speaker, this is my first mandate as a member of
Parliament, not that I did not try to get elected before, and if my
constituents have elected me to represent our riding, it is to
testify to the best of my abilities to the misery and despair of so
many people. I will never tolerate that the government does
nothing after running on a platform of ``jobs, jobs, jobs''. And
especially after claiming-and this shows its lack of
imagination-that 40,000 jobs will be created by the end of
1996 because it did not further increase unemployment
insurance premiums.
The government says-and I know the word for saying the
opposite of the truth cannot be used in this place-that it will
create jobs, when in fact the only thing it will be doing is not
further hindering job creation. The truth is, based on
Employment and Immigration Canada's indicators, that the
January UI premium increase probably prevented the creation of
9,000 jobs. That is the truth. We are expected to applaud the
government for not preventing the creation of 40,000 jobs by the
end of 1996! That is not my idea of a good employment policy.
The government has all the tools of a powerful state. In spite
of its huge debt, Canada is part of the G-7, although it is closer
to being booted out than ever before. It is among the have
nations. This wealth, admittedly, was acquired for a large part
owing to the richness of Canada's subsoil. As the government is
now discovering, its true strength rests with its human
resources.
Unfortunately, there is no easy recipe for investing in human
resources development, and job training, as powerful a tool as it
may be, is not a cure-all. I have spent a lot of time, along with
other members of the Committee on Human Resources
Development, in hearings where we were told repeatedly by the
people involved in assisting individuals looking for a job how
many of them have qualifications that they cannot even use.
Painting in glowing colours the advantages of a little job
training, which would be made compulsory, and having people
believe that this would solve all their problems and create these
jobs they are looking for is not permissible. In fact, it is
absolutely forbidden. In any case, it goes against the testimony
we heard from people working in the field. In Quebec alone-I
do not know the latest figures but I will use slightly lower
figures than those recorded during the last recession-over
4,000 engineers were jobless; we are talking about engineers
and not about someone who took a little three-month course to
upgrade his or her skills in some area. I am not underestimating
the value of such courses. But I am saying that to make people
believe they can get jobs after a short, compulsory training
period is fiddling with the truth.
(1030)
We will have many opportunities to come back to this issue.
However, I wanted to say that I participated-I did not check the
time I have left, I will be quick, I could have asked you before
continuing-with 1,200 other people in the Quebec forum on
social solidarity. What I want to say is this: There has been, at
least in Quebec, perhaps because the unemployment problem
there has been serious for a long time, a change in mentality. We
do not simply ask others to show their concern about jobs. We
know-and it may be true of unions, it is true of businesses,
governments, and individuals-that the unemployment problem
can only be tackled by means of a policy of solidarity. Solidarity
means that everyone, including the rich, will have to do their
part. We cannot simply let the rich carry on with their business
while telling others they must tighten their belts because we can
no longer afford to pay for social programs.
We in Quebec have been working on these issues for a long
time. We have developed the ability to act in concert with
employers, unions, citizens' groups, and governments. After a
long debate, we developed a capacity to reach a consensus.
Many see sovereignty as a project because we can no longer
afford to waste time on discussions. We want to act quickly to
2585
use the resources at our disposal in pursuing the priorities
developed in the regions of Quebec.
I am making this speech in this House because I know that
other regions of Canada are facing tremendous problems, that
they can no longer rely on their previous wealth, that they may
have to undergo a long process. But, if the government is not
aware of this, if it thinks it can collect revenues and leave those
in difficulty out in the cold, it is on the wrong track. It can
change course and that is the purpose of today's motion.
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul): Mr.
Speaker, instead of always criticizing everything this
government does, she should realize there is more to this than
infrastructures. Members should look at the situation for small
businesses in their ridings, get organized and help create small
businesses. These generate a lot of jobs and can be created in all
regions. I think that if all members look after their ridings as
they should, a lot of jobs could be created in the days, weeks,
months and years to come.
(1035)
I think the hon. member should look around in Quebec, as I
have been doing, since we have already started into small
businesses, and we have made a start with creating jobs. We are
looking in my riding at all the agencies that take care of job
creation and training, to ensure that people are not being trained
for jobs that do not exist. If we provide training and if once
people finish their training, they have no jobs, it is no use
training them.
We should have on-the-job training, with the assurance of a
job for at least the next few years because, as you know, small
business creates 85 per cent of the jobs in this country. I want to
ask the hon. member what she has done in her own riding since
she was elected and what kind of initiatives she has introduced.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have to smile when I see
someone who wants to put the employment problem right back
on every member's doorstep. I find that amazing. I do not see
why a party would want to get elected and have the power and
the instruments it needs to run the economy, if it means making
members responsible for job creation.
However, I will give you my thoughts on small businesses,
and I can tell you the concept was not discovered by the
newly-elected Liberal government. It has been common
knowledge for years. Anyone who is concerned about
employment issues knows where the jobs are. There are jobs in
the public sector, which are being cut because it is felt the public
sector is costing too much, which means fewer jobs and less
money in circulation. However, one soon realizes that jobs are
created by the business sector. At one time I was working for a
union and I said, at great personal cost to myself, that unionized
workers should be concerned about productivity.
Yes, small businesses do create jobs. But the federal
government, which runs Employment and Immigration Canada
and which has, and this is just an example, I am hitting the ball
back in your court, Self-Employment Assistance-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I might
remind hon. members on both sides of the House that they are to
address their remarks through the Chair.
Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I said this in the heat
of the debate, and I apologize. I certainly would not be able to
maintain this intensity when addressing the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say to the hon. member that
Employment and Immigration Canada, which has what could be
an effective mechanism, called Self-Employment Assistance,
decided, despite the unemployment rate we have in the Montreal
area, to restrict the number of persons-I think it is 125 or
165-to be given assistance in starting a small business.
However, it has been proven this option is effective. Throughout
the Montreal area, we see people who have projects but often do
not have enough money to make the initial investment. They
lack a framework and need help in the start-up stage- I have
done that sort of thing, and I know what I am talking about.
There are a lot of people like that. Unfortunately, governments
are only concerned about macro-economic policies and do not
care about how jobs are created or lost. We have businesses
closing that should not close, but they say these are lame ducks,
and so forth. There is a lot of time and effort involved in starting
a business, and sometimes all it takes is a few adjustments and
some management restructuring. With a little more attention
and assistance, far more could be done for these businesses.
As far as small businesses are concerned, I am looking after
my riding and helping specific businesses, but the hon. member
is not about to make me responsible for what a government
should be doing, including the obligation to know what has to be
done at the grass roots level.
[English]
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon.
member's speech which, and this might amaze her, I enjoyed.
Now I am asking her and her party to help me. I am not passing
the buck.
(1040 )
What I am referring to is last week in my riding of Kent in
southwestern Ontario, the provincial government removed the
excise tax on ethanol and also contributed $5 million to the
building of a $160 million to $170 million company in the
riding. I have been asking our government if it would do the
2586
same as the provincial government did and keep the excise tax
off ethanol for at least the next 12 years.
It is in the red book. It is environmentally friendly. The job
creation factor is that over 90 employees will work in this
factory, with a spinoff of over 400 to the agricultural area, taking
in the corn in the area to put into ethanol.
The next factory to be built after the completion of this
factory, anticipating the passage of this bill in the House, will be
in Quebec. It will be the same size; a $170 million plant to help
not only Quebec but Ontario. Another is being built in
Saskatchewan as well as an addition on the one already there.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I know that
members would want to seize the opportunity in the limited time
of questions and comments to make them directly to the last
spokesperson. If we are going to have a triumvirate discussion,
excluding the Speaker, we would have great difficulty getting to
the issues of the day.
The hon. member for Kent, please.
Mr. Crawford: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I ask the hon.
member if I could have her support and her party's support in
this very important matter of ethanol.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, you can tell the hon. member that
I will be very interested in learning more about that. From what I
understand, he could get our support.
If I may, I would like to add that, in Quebec, we have really
developed an expertise, because we had some problems, we
always have serious problems and we know how important it is
to combine in a synergic effort-although I do not really like
that word-forces that exist in an area. It takes time, but it is the
only sure recipe. Governments must know that macro-economic
policies absolutely have to be implemented, promoted and,
surely, prevented from interfering with what is going on at the
local and regional level.
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth)): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to respond
to the motion moved by the hon. member for Mercier.
I am very glad to reiterate for all hon. colleagues of the Bloc
Quebecois the Liberal vision of Canada. It is a Canada that
offers to all young Canadians the kind of opportunities to work,
to grow and to prosper as so many other Canadians enjoyed
before them.
It should be noted that part of a government's vision is
responding in an accountable, responsible and innovative way to
what it sees around it, and not only responding to the problems
but capturing the spirit of the potential that is there. This is what
we as a government are attempting.
I also welcome the opportunity to expand on this
government's actions to date on how we will create jobs and
opportunities through an integrated and effective approach to
investing in people. As the Secretary of State for Youth and
Training, I specifically would like to address the House on what
concrete measures this government is taking to improve the job
prospects of our young people, to get young Canadians back to
work in the mainstream of the workforce.
I should perhaps preface the rest of my speech with some
comments about how inspired I have been in my travels across
this country since having been appointed secretary of state. I
have met young people from all across the country, from the east
to the west, from the north to the south. It has been very
inspirational for me to know there is vast potential for us to work
with.
(1045 )
We have a wealth of resources in the ideas, the energy and the
leadership among young people. It should be noted that
generally young people have the potential, the talent, the ability
and the willingness. They need the opportunity and this is what I
would like to address today.
Other hon. members of the government will rise to speak on
the Liberal vision for Canada and how that vision is fuelling
concrete measures on several fronts to mobilize Canada's
economic and human resources to create jobs and opportunities
for all Canadians.
During the election last fall the Liberal Party articulated a
vision for a Canada where people live and prosper with a sense
of hope and opportunity. Our vision was clearly spelled out in
the Liberal platform called ``Creating Opportunity'' or the red
book.
It is a vision of an independent country that is economically
strong, socially just, proud of its diversity and characterized by
integrity, compassion and competence. These are the guiding
principles that generations of Canadians live by and they laid the
foundations for a great country and a fair society. The
government stands behind these principles and we will create
opportunities that reflect our strong belief in them.
As the hon. member for Mercier is no doubt aware, the Liberal
vision for a strong, cohesive and productive country hit a
responsive chord among many Canadians. They increasingly
felt isolated by their institutions, worried for our young people
and uncertain about their future.
The previous government adopted a wait and see attitude to
social and economic policy and left Canadians to fend for
themselves. However, this government has acted quickly to
address the new social and economic realities of a global
2587
economy by inviting Canadians to engage in a far reaching
examination and rebuilding of the very structures that have
made this country so great.
The impetus for change can be seen all around us. Where
Canadians were once sure footed, they now feel they are
slipping. Nowhere is the degree of uncertainty and the desire for
change greater than when we hear the call from our young
people to give them opportunities to contribute to their
community, their country and to join in with other Canadians in
building a brighter future for this nation.
Canada cannot risk seeing a generation of young people
sidelined in the job market because we did not have the right
programs at the right times. Canada had over 400,000 young
people under 25 who were looking for work each month in 1993.
That is an unacceptably high unemployment rate of over 18 per
cent. Without opportunity they will lose hope.
In human terms, there are a lot of idle young people whose
talents are being wasted. We need to ensure that young people
have better opportunities like access to work, education, job
training or community service. It is not for lack of interest. It is
for lack of opportunities that this situation exists.
The most recent labour force survey shows that while the
number of unemployed in Canada is down, the youth
unemployment rate is rising. It reached 18.1 per cent last month,
its highest level since last June.
We want to rebuild the social safety net for young Canadians
who need help to get their lives back on track. In restoring the
sense of security and opportunity, we want to offer choices that
will help them make their way in the workforce. That is what the
social security reform will accomplish.
I want to make it clear that helping young people make the
transition from school to the workforce is a major focus of social
security reform.
The government is calling on all Canadians to join in
rebuilding our social security net. We are strongest when we act
as a team. We are strongest when we combine the talents of
governments, business, labour, educators, community groups
and our youth. Together we have the human resources necessary
to find solutions. Together we can do a better job.
Young Canadians have as much to contribute and to gain from
the rebuilding of our social safety net as any other age group in
the country. They are a top priority because they are our future
workforce.
(1050 )
Young people will be the beneficiaries of these revitalized
social programs. They will see the productive outcomes of a
social security net that rewards effort, offers incentives to work
and restores hope for the future.
Our vision is to create a more productive economy by
investing in the potential of our young people. To do this we
have to recognize the needs of young people who are in the
workforce now and looking for a meaningful outlet for their
talents, energies and ideas.
We also have to plan for the next generation too: those
students who are just entering high school now and who will be
planning their careers for a yet unknown job market and the
generation after them as well.
Social security reform is being propelled by a strong desire to
meet the social and economic needs of Canada head on.
Canada's social programs have served us well but they were
designed in a different time for different circumstances. We
cannot keep waiting. The realities of the next century are on us.
On January 31 the Minister of Human Resources
Development announced a three stage process for social
security reform. It involves the participation of Canadians from
all levels of the community.
A parliamentary standing committee has been holding public
hearings and is scheduled to submit its report to the House later
this week. We have met a number of times with our partners at
the provincial and territorial levels. These meetings will
continue. A task force has been appointed to advise the minister.
From these discussions an action plan will be drafted and tabled
in the House in late April or early May. Canadians will be
consulted on proposals for social security reform to be outlined
in the action plan.
We are moving quickly because the economic prospects of
young Canadians can only improve if our system which can help
them make that transition from school to work is redesigned and
improved to meet their pressing needs.
It is time to rethink our priorities and come up with a plan to
meet the needs of our young people, our workforce and our
society in the 1990s and beyond. In doing so we will also put in
place a system that is responsive, compassionate and
economical.
The majority of jobs created now to the year 2000 will require
at least 17 years of education and training. That is high school,
plus four or more years of further schooling. Employers have
raised the ante. Yet approximately 60 per cent of young people
go looking for work right after high school. The doors to entry
level jobs will be closed to them unless we give them the
opportunities to improve themselves.
Youth unemployment is directly linked to education and
training. Between 1990 and 1993 jobs held by university
graduates increased by 17 per cent. The uneducated and
undereducated are being squeezed out of the workforce. The
longer they are out of the job market, the harder it will be to get
back in. The gaps on a young person's résumé will put them at a
great
2588
disadvantage when they are up against newer graduates just
entering the workforce.
Young Canadians have the highest unemployment rate and are
the most vulnerable to economic downturns. There may be
fewer youths compared to their baby boomer predecessors.
However, their needs are more pronounced because of the
increasingly complex world they are entering, in terms of the
workforce, what is productivity for a nation per se and because
of global competitiveness as well.
The federal government is offering jobs and hope to young
people who have been hit hard by the recession and have fallen
between the cracks in trying to find a job after leaving school.
The failure to make that transition has a ripple effect on the
economy and society.
What is particularly disturbing is the growing number of
young people who have never held a job. That is why it is
essential that we help young Canadians.
The Liberal government is committed to helping young
Canadians make that transition. It is a top priority and that is
why we are moving ahead with the youth service corps that was
outlined in the red book. The youth service corps will help offer
young Canadians an opportunity to serve and learn about their
country and gain important skills and valuable work experience.
(1055 )
The government will reach out to young people to prepare
them for the challenges of the future. Liberals believe now more
than ever that Canada needs the skills, talents and energies of
every young Canadian. The youth service corps will get
unemployed youth working in community service projects to
address the diminishing opportunities for young people as a
result of the tough job market.
It is not a question of whether young people want to work,
because they do. It is a question of giving them the opportunity
to do something constructive and rewarding that benefits the
individual, improves their community and strengthens our
country.
Canada simply cannot afford a lost generation. Demographic
trends clearly demonstrate Canada will soon suffer a worker
shortage. As baby boomers leave the workforce in large
numbers we will increasingly count on your young.
To compete globally in the next century we will need a highly
educated, highly skilled workforce. You need not be a futurist to
know our continued growth and prosperity depend on the
workers of tomorrow who are generally the unemployed youth
of today.
This venture will be less costly than unemployment insurance
and welfare and will give young people the tools to build better
lives for themselves and for our society. Young people are
searching for relevant work experience that will give them
saleable skills to get their foot in the job market door.
During my discussions with young Quebecers on the concept
of the youth service corps I heard firsthand their enthusiasm for
such a program. Quebec youth eagerly identified with the goals
of the youth service corps to give them practical skills and work
experience while contributing in a meaningful way to their
country.
The youth service corps is a smart and necessary investment
in our future workforce. It is a concrete measure which
addresses the serious need to help the unprecedented number of
youth who are squeezed out of the workforce, who are giving up
on finding work. Canadians age 18 to 24 who are out of school
and unemployed will have opportunities to gain a sense of
accomplishment, self-reliance and marketable skills through
practical work experience in the community.
Do we act now to offer young people opportunities so that
they can acquire some skills and learn good work habits? Or do
we write off a generation of youth and leave them unprepared to
compete for jobs? The government has decided to act.
The youth service corps represents one of several concrete
measures by the government aimed to better prepare youth for
the fast changing labour market. It is part and parcel of our
underlying vision to invest in Canadians. The same vision is
behind the social security review process.
Young people today want what other Canadians want: good
jobs; opportunities to enter and re-enter the workforce; the right
to be part of the mainstream and to be treated with dignity. That
is the essence of our vision for young people.
The government stands for creating opportunities for young
people. For the great majority of Canadians, jobs are at the top
of the list. A job is the best form of security. We want to give
young Canadians all the tools necessary to aim for, prepare for
and find jobs.
I should mention a number of other things that relate to youth
between the ages 18 to 24 who are unemployed, left on the
sidelines, out of reach of the opportunities. We also have a
general preoccupation with the poor, the disabled, the street
people, the people who are most in need and at risk. The
initiatives we have outlined in the red book express that very
well.
Let me give a few examples. We have proposed an aboriginal
head start program that will deal with preschool child
development. It will help greatly those sole parents who
struggle on their own with their children in the area of parenting
skills and nutritional skills. We have a great need there. These
are for the inner city poor.
In a particular area of Winnipeg, one out of three children
lives in poverty. This program is designed for the inner city
poor. We now have a program designed to help keep young
children in school called the stay in school program. It has been
2589
hailed as a success across the country. Many regions have
supported the program. There has been a marked difference in
the attendance of people who have been impacted by the
program.
(1100)
We also have the brighter futures program, which is a
carryover from the last government. We do not discard what
works. We try to perfect, adjust and make better things that
would work under our mandate.
We now have Youth Services Canada which will break the
cycle of dependency. It will take youth between the ages of 18 to
24 years off unemployment insurance and assistance. It will be
an enabling process.
We also have the summer challenge program on which the
minister will speak later. It is a very successful program. It is a
program for the young people of Canada who are out there right
now educating themselves, training and working. This is their
opportunity to work between the months of April and
September. They want to work and they are working.
We also have the proposed youth internship program. I could
go on and on about the wonderful things we want to do but my
time is running out. We have laid out our priorities. We have
expressed a commitment. We have looked at the human side of
all the misery out there. We have laid out our plans concretely.
For the first time in the history of the country the government
has come forward and laid out on paper what it wants to do.
In particular reference to my mandate we are committed to
helping our youth. Our commitment will be expressed over the
months to follow. It has only been since November that I have
been in this mandate. Conversely I have been inspired by these
young people. They are knowledgeable. They are mature. They
want an opportunity. They are a leadership resource and we aim
to work with them.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, I very much
appreciated my colleague's speech and the enthusiasm and
determination she showed in talking about the Youth Service.
She said that, thanks to that program, young people will have the
opportunity to get off unemployment insurance. We must
understand however that, given the recent unemployment
insurance reform, they will not go from unemployment to that
program since they will no longer be eligible for UI benefits.
If the prospects presented in that famous red book are so
extraordinary, please tell us why, after just a few months, the
Prime Minister got such a bad reception in the Maritimes and in
Shawinigan? What is perfectly clear for Canadians is that the
government made promises and that we are now being presented
with some well-intentioned measures that are totally out of
proportion with the real problems of our society and the extent
of those problems. The government promised us heaven on
earth.
Just remember what happened when Ms. Campbell said,
during a debate, that the unemployment rate would stand at 9 per
cent at the end of the century. She was treated like a pariah. Well,
I suggest you read our Minister of Finance's budget. What does
it say the rate will be in 1996 and in 1997? What are the
medium-term projections for the unemployment rate? We will
know in August.
The reality is that we are facing problems of a massive scale,
the Liberal Party made irresponsible promises and now it is
unable to abide by them.
I believe the last campaign was totally irresponsible as
concerns public finance; the idea was it would not be necessary
to cut government expenditures, all that was needed was job
creation. Now we see major cuts, particularly in social
programs, and we get some small measures totally out of
proportion with the problems; that is why people are so
disappointed.
I understand that a program of such a scale as the one
announced could be reasonable for a village or a small region.
(1105)
It is totally ridiculous to talk of investing $25 million in
venture capital for small business. We would end up with about
$60 per business for the whole of Canada. Twenty-five million,
fantastic! It would make more sense if we gave this amount to a
region in particular, to a small group of credit unions in the
south-western part of Montreal for instance. An amount of $25
million in venture capital for small business all over Canada can
only excite the imagination. But it has absolutely nothing to do
with reality. The problem is there are more than a million small
businesses in Canada. In the long term, the program is said to
amount to $200 million, but in the short term, it is $25 million a
year or $25 per small business. It is totally absurd.
The solutions you propose are out of proportion with the sheer
scale of the problem. Throughout the campaign, the government
described a situation becoming progressively easier. We now
notice that it is rapidly deteriorating and, what is worse, that
interest rates are affected more and more. Could the member
explain to what extent the measures she mentioned are geared to
the problems?
[English]
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to
respond to some of the concerns raised by the hon. member.
2590
I can understand the cynicism on the part of the Bloc
Quebecois. I have been to Quebec and probably the most
enthusiastic response in terms of the youth service corps
specifically was from the youth in Quebec with whom we
consulted. They were the unemployed, people dealing with
justice, young offenders, street people and street youth
organizations. They were very enthusiastic and wanted to
endorse it.
Opportunities big or small are not shunned by people who
need the opportunities. Opportunities for youth in Quebec to do
something with their lives, be it an opportunity for one person or
opportunities for twenty people, will not be pushed to the side by
young people. These young people were very enthusiastic.
Every opportunity for every person is worth gold to those people
whether or not the hon. member agrees.
We never said that we had magical solutions. I salute the
Prime Minister; I congratulate him. He went to the source. We
knew there were concerns. We knew there would be a lot of
reluctance. Change is difficult. Change is not without pain.
Change is not without the kinds of difficulty and the controversy
we are not afraid to confront. We know there is no pretty way
around making the changes that will eventually lead to long term
gain.
In the interim we as a government are prepared to face the
kinds of responses there are. We are prepared to make greater
gains in the long run: short term pain for long term gain. We
know there really is no pretty way around it. We never said we
had magical solutions, but we believe every opportunity we
create is for people who want it.
Perhaps as politicians we tend to extrapolate on what is good
for people in terms of jobs when we do not really have the right
to do so. Those young people want those opportunities. They
told us that. They endorse the programs enthusiastically.
We hear the concerns about job creation and small and
medium sized businesses. That was part of our platform. We
never promised paradise to Canadians because we knew the
problems that would be there when we were elected. We
promised commitment. We promised to work hard. We promised
to consult. We promised to try to create opportunities for those
people to do for themselves, not to do for them what they could
do better than we could as a government.
That is where we are going. That is our intention. I would like
the hon. member to be there to help us.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the secretary of state outline
the plan of yet another program.
No one can deny that there is a serious problem in the country
with youth unemployment. Certainly I am aware of it. The
secretary of state talked about the government getting its
priorities straight. I think the government does not have its
priorities straight.
(1110 )
In the period leading up to the election members of the Liberal
Party did their homework. They did polling to find out the cause
of the lack of jobs in the country. The message came back from
the very people who create jobs, the majority of whom are small
and medium sized business people, that the cost of doing
business was simply too high. The government's prior and
current neglect of the fiscal problems has caused high taxation.
It has driven up prices and the cost of doing business.
Jobs do not come from more government programs. There is a
direct correlation between the deficit and the financial problems
of the country and unemployment. If the government wants
reassurance of that it should go back and ask the people who
create jobs and will create jobs, the small and medium sized
business people.
The answer to youth unemployment and to unemployment in
general is not to put more programs into effect. There are no jobs
in the country. Small and medium sized businesses have so
much uncertainty about taxation levels and the cost of doing
business in the future that they are simply not expanding.
Investors are not investing because they do not know what the
taxation levels will be. Consumers are not spending because
there is so much uncertainty about the government getting its
fiscal house in order. We have university students with diplomas
clutched in their hands applying for jobs at McDonald's. There
are trained people out there but there are no jobs.
I would suggest the government should re-examine its
priorities and start to show some light at the end of the tax tunnel
to encourage small and medium sized businesses to start
creating jobs.
More social programs are not the answer. That is the
philosophy of the government that started 30 years ago, a time
when there was no deficit, a time when the debt was
manageable. It has instilled in youth an attitude of entitlement, a
``don't worry, don't take responsibility for yourself'' attitude
because the government will look after them with social
programs. The generosity of social programs has created this
attitude among our youth. Why would they work when the
government will look after them?
The government should look at where jobs come from, the
small and medium sized businesses, start to attack the problems
people are telling it about, and the jobs will be created.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am hearing a
fundamental difference in vision here. We have our priorities
right. We want to create jobs. We do not believe that investing
resources to better the lives of young people who are
unemployed, out of school and between the ages of 18 to 24
years is a poor investment. We cannot afford not to do it because
those young people are actually a drag on the social safety net.
We are either paying them unemployment insurance or welfare.
We
2591
have the choice of deciding whether they should be productive.
This is an effort to enable these young people.
If I might explain in detail, once young people use the
opportunities in community based pilot projects they get what is
called a completer's bonus. This bonus could be in the form of a
tuition voucher, a loan forgiveness note or a portable wage
subsidy. It could also give them a credit note to start a small
business or work with a small business. This is all directly
related. It is not a government program for government people.
It is the government's effort to provide adequate resources so
that young people can have opportunities they do not now have.
It is a modest effort. It will not solve all ills. However in our
review we are looking at every opportunity or every avenue to
do better. We are not saying that we will solve all the problems
of the world with one program. We are saying we cannot do
everything but we know we have to do something.
(1115 )
We have to help those young people out there. If the Reform
Party chooses not to, it sounds a little anti-youth to me and it
sounds like a bit of a downer on the attitude toward youth.
I have met many youth who are capable, who want to work,
who want the opportunities, who are on the cutting edge, who
show leadership and who are very good at what they do. I could
give many examples. I suggest that the hon. member go out there
and meet with some of those young people.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Resuming debate. I
wonder if the member for Elk Island could assist the Chair and
indicate if he will be splitting his time with a colleague or taking
the full 20-minute complement.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, the very first thing
on my agenda was to give notice that on behalf of the caucus
co-ordinator, called the whip in the standing orders, according
to Standing Order 43(2), our speakers on this motion will be
dividing their time.
The motion before us today is quite clear and quite succinct. It
states that this House deplores the absence of vision and
concrete measures from the government with regard to policies
toward job creation.
There is really no need to work on establishing the fact that
there is a job crisis in Canada today. The unemployment figures
are quite convincing. When one adds the innumerable
individuals who are unemployed and who have given up and
whose names are not even on the lists of the unemployed, there
is little doubt that there is a crisis in this area.
In the strictest sense of the wording of this motion, it should
be opposed. We should really be opposed to the motion and
hence appear to be siding with the Liberal government on its job
creation plan. As the members on the opposite side might have
applauded, some will be asking why. Is this motion before us
not in agreement with what the Reformers have been saying
about jobs?
In a way it is but if one takes the wording of the motion
exactly as it is stated, at least the last part, one cannot accurately
state that the government has failed to declare some concrete
measures with respect to job creation. It seems to me that this
government has proposed concrete measures for job creation in
line with the vision of this government.
The fundamental problem is that this government's so-called
jobs plan is the wrong plan. It will not work. I am sure members
opposite will correct me if I am wrong, but here is the summary
of what I see in their plan.
There is government deficit spending to review social
assistance programs. There is government deficit spending to
assist the space sector. There is government deficit spending to
establish an apprenticeship program. There is government
deficit spending to establish a youth service corps. There is
government deficit spending on day care potentially. There is
government deficit spending on home renovations, otherwise
known as the RRAP program. There is government deficit
spending on the granddaddy of them all, the infrastructure
program.
I hear a howl of protest because I am saying deficit spending.
Stop to think about it. Just saying that this money is being
transferred from other areas where we will not now be spending
it is an inadequate explanation.
My wife would be delighted if I told her that I have decided
not to buy a new luxury car. We will have all this money to do
renovations to the House. I would have had to borrow the money
for the car. Therefore it would be quite deceptive to indicate that
we now have a bunch of free money available.
We would now be borrowing it for another purpose but it
would still have to be borrowed, and so it is with these proposed
programs. As long as we have a $40 billion deficit we are doing
what we are doing with borrowed money. Instead of borrowing
for helicopters, we are borrowing for the things that I have
listed.
There is a jobs plan. The leader of the Liberal Party said often
during the campaign: ``We have the people, we have the plan''.
The problem is that the plan, based on borrowing and deficit
spending, will not provide any long term solution at all to the
problem.
(1120)
If the government could really solve the problem, and if the
only problem were jobs, then it would work for the government
to hire people to dig holes in the ground and then hire other
people to fill them in again. Obviously with that facetious
example I have shown that the job must add to the real wealth of
2592
the country if it is to improve our standard of living and our
economic well-being.
It seems to me the only real wealth we have is in the provision
of goods and services that have a market among our citizens and
the people of other countries. Therefore, and I hesitatingly
admit this but I think it is true, to the extent that the
infrastructure program enhances our ability to create real
wealth, it is useful and will contribute to a longer term
well-being, but only to that extent. There seems to be much in
the planned activities of this program that is temporary, short
term and that does not add to the ability of our nation in
providing needed goods and services.
Let me also bring to the attention of the House the problems
inherent in the government's debt-deficit plan. To a question I
asked in the House last week I was given the answer that the
deficit is under control. This government has stated publicly in
the recent election campaign, in the red book, in the budget and
in numerous statements both inside and outside the House that
its goal is to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of the GDP. I
must state seriously that I doubt this will happen.
This first year spending is actually going up and the reduction
in the deficit as a percentage of GDP is minimal and based on
some fairly generous assumptions on economic growth. If we
assume that the government assumptions are right, there is still a
huge flaw. If we assume that government spending will help the
country's economy, then the deficit as a percentage of GDP
should drop dramatically during periods of high growth. The
relationship should be the inverse of what is being stated.
Conversely, the deficit would normally increase as a percentage
of GDP in periods of low growth.
This is not to say that even if the government had it right, its
interventionism would be the right policy. Adam Smith said:
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner
they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most
unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to
no council whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands
of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise
it.
Is this what our government is doing? I say yes, just look at
government spending. Using the government's own projections
the deficits and debts will be growing year by year in perpetuity.
Using the government's own 3 per cent target, by the year 2000
our debt will be approximately $700 billion.
I challenge anyone to convince me or any of my constituents
that this is an acceptable level of indebtedness. It is
unbelievable that this government will undertake as a goal
taking the people of this country further and further into debt. I
cannot be convinced that this will have anything less than a
devastating effect on our long term well-being definitely as it
relates to the job problem. At the rate given by the government's
projections we will have $1 trillion of debt by the end of the first
decade of the next century.
What will work? Let us hear Franklin Roosevelt:
A programme whose basic thesis is, not that the system of free enterprise for
profit has failed in this generation, but that it has not yet been tried.
People do not need the government's assistance or
interference so much as they need it out of the way.
(1125 )
How do we get it out of the way? We reduce the deficit, then
debt, then taxes because the component of interest which is
growing so rapidly decreases. Then we will instil confidence,
both consumer and investor, so we can get the private sector
hiring again. We can eliminate interprovincial trade barriers.
We can eliminate the red tape barriers to business. We can help
with training, among others.
Perhaps I am forced to admit that the government has taken
hesitant steps in this direction. By mixing its incorrect theory
with some correct theory it is accomplishing nothing but
annoying both sides: the entrepreneur, and the worker who
cannot find a job.
I highly recommend that the government take the most
courageous step any politician can make to really spur job
growth and get out of the way. In the words of Lord Acton, the
finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away
because the passion for equality made vain the hope for
freedom.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. member
had to say. I found it rather interesting that the hon. member was
quoting different sources basically to suggest that government
should not intervene in any way whatsoever in the domain of
business.
However, I noticed a real contradiction with what the hon.
member had to suggest. I find it rather odd because he is
certainly agreeing with the Liberal policy of this particular
government. He suggested that government had a role to play in
training. I find that if government is not to intervene at all in the
domain of business, training is one of the most important areas
of business. I would like the hon. member to comment on that.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond
to that. I was previously involved as an educator for 31 years and
therefore am well aware of the need for training and the
effectiveness of it.
I would like to indicate in answer to the question that there are
areas where government needs to be involved. I do not think that
anyone would deny that. There are many areas in which we can
collectively as a nation do things better than individuals.
2593
However, having worked in the technical field I have found
that we work best when we work in consort with the businesses
that are hiring our graduates. I worked in a technical institute
and we did that. In many areas and many times we provided as
individuals and as an institute services on demand from industry
for specific training where they needed the help.
Therefore, I would not ever say that government should not be
involved at all. However, there are many areas where
government interferes. I would like to give a quick example.
At the technical institute where I worked there are some 750
instructors. About a year or so ago in January when we got our
cheques, our deductions for UI had increased sharply. Being in
mathematics some of us were doing quick calculations and
computed that collectively the 750 instructors of the institute
were contributing about $1,200 per year into the UI fund,
matched by the employer with a total of about $2,800 per year.
Had we been able to keep that money we could have spent it on
things we like. I could have had my roof repaired. Someone
could have been hired to do that. Instead we were simply
contributing an amount of money which would have provided 60
jobs at $35,000 per year just on that UI. That is an interference
of government: taking money by coercion to give it to people to
meet their basic needs without really providing jobs for them.
(1130 )
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, I want to
comment generally on the comments the member has made. I
really think it is up to him to be quite open and forthcoming with
Canadians about the kind of impact the deficit reduction targets
his party proposes would have on Canadians.
What the Reform Party proposes is exactly a more
concentrated version of what we have seen in this country for the
last nine years. They are the kinds of programs that have left 1.6
million Canadians unemployed and over six million Canadians
dependent in one form or another on unemployment insurance or
social assistance.
This is not the particular issue I want to raise with the
member. I would ask for some elaboration on his final comments
where he seemed to disparage the concept of equality as
somehow destructive of freedom and democracy.
I know that some people do not quite understand that equality
does not mean being the same. My personal view is that our
world, our nation and our communities require a multitude of
talents that our people possess. To not allow those talents to be
fully and completely used and developed through various
equality measures would limit our capacity as a society.
I really would like the member opposite to explain what he
has against equality and why he thinks that some groups really
are not quite as equal as he is perhaps. Could he just expand on
what he has against equality.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on both.
Since I graduated from university at a time when the debt and the
deficit were more or less under control we had a choice of jobs,
as many members in the House will know. That has changed
remarkably. There is almost a 100 per cent correlation between
the size of the debt in this country and the level of
unemployment.
There is no doubt in my mind that the deficit and
unemployment are closely related. The government is pulling
more and more money out of the pockets of individuals,
entrepreneurs and business people just to service the debt that is
resulting. That is the first part.
The second part concerns equality. Indeed I do believe in the
equality of people but in quite a different way from the way of
those who tend more toward the socialist end. I do not believe
that anyone in this country should suffer because of lack of
health care or lack of educational opportunities because of lack
of ability to pay.
I believe we need to make sure that in our governmental
system we provide equality of opportunity. However, I do not
believe we serve ourselves well, in fact I believe it is very
detrimental if we use government policies, especially in the
fiscal area, to provide equality of circumstance irrespective of
what the individual does.
We really need to get back to a system of solid rewards for
efforts expended. That would still provide everyone in this very
rich country the ability and the circumstance to provide for
themselves and to be very well off compared with the rest of the
world.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
address the opposition motion which reads:
That this House deplore the government's lack of vision and lack of concrete
measures relating to job creation policies.
It is my belief that to stimulate the economy and to increase
revenues for government, lenders, investors and consumers
must possess a larger pool of disposable income. Jobs are
created in the private sector, which the government readily
admits is up to 87 per cent, which follows the laws of supply and
demand. They would do a better job of creating long term
meaningful jobs with $6 billion in cash than the Liberal
government would do with its infrastructure program.
The role of government should be to do what government can
only do: peace, order and good government. It is not job
creation. It should regulate, administer, pass laws, defend
borders but it should not enter the marketplace to create jobs.
With regional development funds, grants and subsidies to busi-
2594
nesses, governments distort the private sector, create temporary
jobs and promote unfair competition within industry sectors.
When will governments acknowledge that they are in fact part of
the problem and not the solution.
(1135)
I would like to educate this Liberal government on the reality
of the private sector and not the perceived reality of the Liberal
government.
Government overspending results in the raising of tax dollars.
Higher taxation means that less capital is available in the
marketplace which leads to a drop in demand. When demand
drops, consumption drops, businesses close their doors and the
cycle continues. This vicious circle is the main reason why 1.6
million Canadians are unemployed.
It takes money to create wealth but the government takes too
much of it away from the people who know how to spend it. It
takes it out of the system and then wonders why unemployment
goes up.
The root of the unemployment problem in this country is the
debt. The Liberals would have us believe that the debt is only
one of many symptoms causing millions of Canadians to be
unemployed. The fact is that the government is now adding
another projected $41 billion-let us hope it is only that-to this
debt which will take it to $550 billion at the end of this coming
fiscal year. It is the debt and the interest to service that debt that
is causing the problem.
Currently the unemployment rate is at 11.2 per cent. At the
end of the year with the finance minister's own projections that
he has defended in this House, including the $6 billion
infrastructure program and the 168,000 short term jobs that it
will create, the unemployment rate will drop to 11.1 per cent
after 12 months.
This is one-tenth of 1 per cent. Is this what the Liberals call
job creation? Are Canadians across the nation and especially in
central Canada truly getting the changes that they demanded and
were promised by the Liberal government? The answer is no.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has said in
this House that capital creates jobs. So far he is right on. As a
businessman I know this to be true. But what politicians on the
other side of the House do not seem to realize is that there is a
big difference between the spending of debt capital that is
borrowed money and equity capital that does not have to be
repaid.
The private sector understands the difference. It is time
politicians did too. At risk money motivates; government
money wastes. The government is going to spend $6 billion on
infrastructure programs. Since it is going to spend the money
anyway that money should be spent improving the kind of
infrastructure that permits the productive sector of the economy,
the private sector, to function more efficiently which in turn will
allow it to create real long term jobs.
The government's role should be to develop an economic
atmosphere, an environment, an infrastructure that facilitates
investment, not to make the investment itself directly. The
private sector will do that.
In his speech at the G-7 jobs conference in Detroit in the last
two weeks, the Minister of Industry spoke of developing a
national technology extension network to offer technological
services across Canada. Sounds great. The minister stated:
``Small business will be encouraged to work more closely with
public sector research institutions to improve the
commercialization of new technology, base products and
services''.
When will the government listen to what small businesses are
saying: ``Get out of our pockets, get off our backs, and get out of
our way so that we can create the long term meaningful jobs''.
Let me give a specific example of this. When the government
talks about creating an information superhighway in
conjunction with the public sector backed by the government
with more government money, my suggestion is that it look
south to the United States and see how it is addressing this need.
Two entrepreneurs, William Gates and Craig McCaw, have
joined forces to build an extensive global communication
superhighway. It is the marketplace that is addressing the needs
in the states of consumers and not the government. I reference
the article. It is in the Financial Post of Tuesday, March 22, and
if anybody on the Liberal side of the House would like to read it,
they may learn something from it.
The government need not build an information superhighway
with taxpayers' dollars.
Freeing up the marketplace from government intervention
creates opportunities, incentives, and real long term meaningful
jobs. It generates real revenue and sends a message to investors
and to all Canadians that this country wants a future based on
prosperity not on government handouts and high debt.
The Liberal government must encourage the spending of
equity capital from the private sector and not debt capital as is
the current situation. For too long our governments have relied
on the spending of borrowed money, not equity capital, in the
funding of short term job creation programs that benefit specific
groups and not society as a whole.
(1140)
In a speech at the G-7 conference the Minister of Industry
stated: ``Well planned infrastructure spending offers a potential
for immediate job creation in the short term'', that is, while it is
being built. ``As well, there will be a payoff in the longer term
through the support of higher levels of economic activity when
it is operational''.
2595
Let us put this theory to the test. The Calgary city council just
last night at a marathon meeting agreed in a 9 to 6 vote, this is at
the municipal level, to use part of the infrastructure program of
the government to renovate the Saddle Dome. For those
members in the House who do not know what the Saddle Dome
is, it is a hockey rink, a facility used in Calgary to house the
Calgary Flames, the major tenant, and other programs and
events throughout the year.
Is this infrastructure money being well spent? Does this
benefit the city as a whole or just a select few?
In my opinion, there are a multitude of roads, bridges and
buildings that urgently require immediate attention that would
make it better for investors and businesses to live in Calgary.
This is not the proper use of infrastructure funds. Only a few
taxpayers will benefit at the expense of all taxpayers. Few if any
new jobs will be generated in this instance because most jobs
will go to contractors and workers who are already employed.
Federal funds will once again be used to interfere in a private
sector matter. This issue is between the Stampede board and the
Calgary Flames hockey club. With the Liberal program it now
involves all the taxpayers. The federal government has no
business allocating taxpayers' money to influence the outcome.
If the infrastructure program is intended to create jobs with
the benefit being an improvement to the nation's basic
infrastructure, then how can this be justified? The maintenance
of basic infrastructure has always been the responsibility of
governments which leads one to ask: What have they been doing
for the last 25 to 30 years to bring about such negligence with
regard to the basic responsibility?
The answer is instead of using taxpayers' dollars to take care
of the fundamentals such as roads, sewers and bridges, the
government has been squandering the nation's wealth on
inefficient, expensive social programs. Those programs in many
ways encourage people not to work, that is high UIC benefits
and generous welfare payments that all started with the Liberal
government in 1968 under Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Once again it is a vicious circle. Government ignores its basic
responsibility with respect to infrastructure in order to
concentrate on an extensive and expensive social agenda. It
increases the tax burden to finance that agenda, kills jobs
through the tax burden, declares job creation as part of the social
agenda, then spends more tax dollars to create jobs, working on
the very infrastructure it ignored in the first place. Have fun,
Liberal government.
I would like to conclude by quoting the hon. member for
Calgary Southwest who has stated many times, and in my
opinion is worth repeating many times: ``A dollar in the hands of
a lender, taxpayer or investor is much better than that same
dollar in the hands of a bureaucrat, a lobbyist or a politician''.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I could hardly contain myself sitting in this seat when
the hon. member talked about the infrastructure program. I am
afraid he does not understand the legislative structure of the
Government of Canada, the provincial governments and the
municipal governments.
If he were to understand that municipal governments are those
people elected by the grassroots citizens, the taxpayers of
Canada, and it is the municipal governments, whether they be
city governments, rural towns or very rural county
municipalities, those local governments are responsible for the
maintenance of their own highways, snow removal, their
bridges, their sewers, their water treatment plants, that entire
fundamental basic infrastructure that keeps Canadians doing
their day to day business.
It is not the federal government which has been squandering
its money. Its money comes from property taxes at the very basic
level. The reason the infrastructure program was brought in
arose from those municipal governments. I was part of one.
Many of the member's colleagues in this House were also. We
lobbied through our FCM to the federal Government of Canada
for the past decade to get the government to cost share in
infrastructure projects because they were falling by the wayside
and property taxes could no longer afford to maintain basic
infrastructure.
(1145 )
I reiterate that it was not the federal government squandering
money. It was the lack of property taxes by all Canadians that
could sustain our basic needs. We have shown the generosity, the
fulfilment of that need from municipal councils to cost share so
that we could build up those basic needs and maintain their
industries, their citizens, their competitive edge and provide
those jobs through a solid infrastructure. I would challenge the
member to debate and refute the municipal councils across this
country.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
history lesson on municipal government. I would also like to
comment that it is awfully nice to say how generous the Liberal
government is with money and funding to help, but whose
money is it? It is other people's money. It is borrowed money
and we have to stop borrowing because we have to stop adding to
this debt.
There are lots of income taxes around. Municipalities have
lots of ways to raise money to sustain themselves. This
infrastructure program is going to people who already have jobs,
who already are skilled. We need accountability.
Mr. Rideout: You do not know what you are talking about.
2596
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I know that this
period of questions and comments usually allows for lively
debate but I would hope that whoever has the floor and in this
instance, the member for Calgary Centre, would be able to
conclude his remarks.
Mr. Silye: Perhaps the hon. member who said that I do not
know what I am talking about does not know the rules. The
standing orders probably would help that member quite a bit.
The problem with the infrastructure program that the Liberal
government has put forth is that there has to be a mechanism for
accountability that it has created new jobs.
Our concern is that it is not really creating the new jobs,
witnessed by the member's own evidence that at the end of the
year the drop in unemployment is only one-tenth of 1 per cent.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to my hon. colleague.
His background is business and my background also is
business, starting as a small business person.
Mr. Silye: You should have stayed there.
Mr. Dhaliwal: The hon. member says that I should have
stayed there, but I think I can contribute to this House just like
he feels and that is why I am here. I want to comment and talk
about some of the points made.
The budget the Liberal Party put forward talks about small
business. It takes action on where the jobs are created.
Eighty-five per cent of all jobs created are in small business.
I want to tell members about the infrastructure program. The
hon. member said that was not creating jobs. In December I was
in Singapore. There one learns how important infrastructure is.
Its economy is booming. It has a very low unemployment rate
because of a strong infrastructure.
Infrastructure is very good for the long term because it creates
efficiencies. It lets business become more efficient and if one
looks at what has happened in Singapore, it has an incredible
ports system and an incredible airport system. All that has
created a tremendous economic boom there where it has become
the hub of that area.
The Liberal program is all about creating jobs. It is about
economic growth. If one looks at the Reform Party's position,
what it wants to do is bulldoze everything and cut the deficit in
three years. It thinks that will build confidence in the economy.
It thinks that will create jobs, that getting rid of thousands of
jobs is going to create confidence in the economy.
This is a dream for the Reform Party. It is not true that one can
create jobs by cutting $40 billion in a matter of three years out of
the economy. What we need is economic growth. What we need
is small business, incentive to create jobs and that is what we are
doing.
We are reducing the paper burden for small business. We are
looking at ways that small business can take advantage of
research and development. We are looking at ways in which
small business can export to other markets and that is where the
jobs are going to be created.
(1150 )
I want to tell the member that we have not heard any concrete
solutions from that side except cutting things like CMHC. If we
cut CMHC, all the funding for CMHC-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Having been
reminded of the rules of this House, I will try to interpret them as
fairly as I possibly can. In the timeframe that we have I would
ask the member for Calgary Centre for a short reply please.
Mr. Silye: My first response, Mr. Speaker, is that the
infrastructure program of the government represents only
one-half of 1 per cent of the gross domestic product. For the
wonderful things that this is going to create, like the leader of
my party says, that is like trying to fly a 747 with a flashlight
battery.
When the hon. member talks about our plan and how bad it is,
we have not had a chance to implement it. Give us a chance. He
talks about job creation. When the finance minister first
introduced the budget he said: ``Give our budget six months at
least. Do not hold anything that happens in the economy against
us for at least six to seven months. Then give us a judgment''.
Now the report comes in that higher employment has been
achieved and the Liberal government is quick to jump on the
bandwagon and try to take credit for it. There is no consistency
of logic there.
With respect to the fact that the government's budget in this
infrastructure program is well thought out and well planned and
that it is going to take action, I would continue to debate that. It
is all rhetoric. It is all talk. No action is being taken. It is filled
with 14 or 15 new committees to study everything from social
programs to a new study on the GST when the hon. member's
own leader-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. It is in that spirit of
continuing debate that we will resume debate with the hon.
member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting to see how the opposition motion
dealing with ``the government's lack of vision and lack of
concrete measures relating to job creation policies'' draws the
members' attention to this problem, which is a very real one, as
2597
we saw during the election campaign. The interest shown here is
much greater than in the case of previous motions calling for the
striking of committees. It seems that on the government side,
they are either getting highly specialized in that area or just
falling asleep. The motion before the House today is giving rise
to an interesting debate, and so it should.
As a matter of fact, the two major tasks the government was
supposed to tackle to meet voter expectations after it was
elected, were control of expenditures and job creation.
The budget tabled by the Minister of Finance was a blatant
indication of this government's failure to give itself enough
room to manoeuvre and make the cuts required to invest in job
creation. Because of this budget, Canada still has to pay a risk
premium on the money it borrows abroad. I think that this is
proof enough of the lack of efficiency and commitment on the
part of the present government in the area of job creation.
The most blatant betrayal of their election promises can be
found in the job creation field. I read somewhere in the Liberal
Plan for Canada, which is not ten years old but only six months
old, that unemployment was a waste of human and economic
resources. And that the top priority for a Liberal government
would be job creation.
And yet, this Liberal government is offering nothing more
than an infrastructure program. It will take a lot more than a
project, which might create 45 000 temporary jobs, to give hope
to the 1 565 000 Canadians who are out of work, 437 000 of them
in Quebec. The government's action does not reflect the sense of
urgency to create jobs they talked about during the election
campaign. Why is it? I think it is due to a lack of vision on the
part of the government. It is unable to show the kind of vision
necessary to face these tremendous times we are going through.
The structural changes brought about by the globalization of
the economy make the conventional wisdom obsolete. To meet
their objectives, the Liberals are counting on the economy
recovering on its own. For the Canadian economy to reach its
full potential, the annual growth rate should be above 4 per cent
over the next four years.
The few measures taken now will not be enough to meet this
objective; they are mere window dressing.
(1155)
The initiatives undertaken by the Liberals only touch upon the
problem and the government refuses to do something about
structural unemployment, which prompted the minister of
Finance to say that it would be unrealistic to think that the
unemployment rate would drop below 8 per cent within five
years. Is it no longer urgent to create jobs?
What would have been the building blocks of a stringent and
efficient policy to fight unemployment, which is a waste of our
very own human resources? The first building block would have
been to restore consumer confidence.
The election campaign restored hope among Canadians and
Quebecers for some major changes, including a change in
attitude for the government, and voters thought they finally saw
some light at the end of the tunnel. Instead, Canadians and
Quebecers learned that the estimated deficit of the Liberal
government would reach an all-time high, at $39.7 billion. They
cried wolf for several months and came out with a miserable
little policy.
Second negative signal, going after the unemployed instead of
unemployment. Following the unemployment insurance reform,
you will have to work more weeks in order to be entitled to less
weeks of UI benefits, and those benefits would, in several cases,
be reduced. Given that, the people in Quebec and in Canada have
no reason to regain confidence and to decide, for example, to
buy a house.
A young couple with no job security, where both spouses hold
seasonal jobs, will understand from the messages sent
concerning UI reform that, in a year or two, they will not be able
to get the income support provided by the unemployment
insurance program, because of the increased number of weeks
claimants have to work, and for that specific reason they will
decide not to buy a house. It would be totally irresponsible to
decide otherwise.
The government sent another negative signal when it decided
to wait until 1995-96 before reducing the unemployment
insurance premiums from $3.07 to $3, which proves that the
Liberals do not feel the situation is very urgent. To send a
positive signal to Canadians and Quebecers, they would have
had to freeze the premiums at $3 in 1994-95, and not only
starting in 1995-96.
No, job creation is not really an obsession for the government,
it is not even a priority, if you ask me.
Indeed, the government itself is undermining the confidence
of consumers by recognizing that these measures will only have
a minor effect on unemployment, since it is said in the Budget
that unemployment will hover around 11 per cent in 1995.
In my last years at university, an 11 per cent unemployment
rate would have been so totally unacceptable that people would
have taken to the streets. In those days, unemployment was at 3,
4 or 5 per cent and even then, it was considered unacceptable.
We are now told in the budget speech, which reflects the official
position of the government, that we can live with an 11 per cent
unemployment rate. This demonstrates, I think, that the
government is not up to its responsibilities and, above all, to its
campaign promises.
2598
I think one rare encouraging signal in the Budget is the
permanent renewal of the program enabling people to use RRSP
funds to buy a first house. However, as I have just said,
employment insecurity dampens the enthusiasm of many.
Another building block of a stringent policy would have been
to send a clear message to the government machinery as a whole
that the government is engaged in a ruthless battle against
unemployment. Instead, the Governor of the Bank of Canada is
replaced by another of the same philosophy. The monetary
policy of the Bank of Canada is praised even though it is
responsible for the fact that the recession was harsher in Canada
than in the United States.
The demagogic struggle which the Bank of Canada has led
and is still leading while the Canadian economy is plummeting
has contributed to kill whatever confidence consumers had in
the future of their economy. We must stop being afraid to be
afraid and achieve a new dynamism. It is not with this kind of
message that we will succeed in making progress.
If you compare the United States with Canada today, you will
understand why the Americans are far better off than we are.
Between 1989 and 1992, the United States pursued a monetary
policy aimed at containing the recession and stimulating
economic recovery. American monetary authorities are willing
to accept an inflation rate that is higher than ours. There is an
economic principle that says that if you fight inflation,
unemployment will go up, and vice versa. This principle is
long-standing and very fundamental since it is taught in any
introductory course in economics. So, we have been very
dogmatic and the results of that are obvious in the situation we
are facing today.
(1200)
The third building block of a measure that could have been
adopted is a job creation policy specifically directed towards the
main groups of unemployed Canadians that should be put back
to work.
I have been sitting on the human resources development
committee for a few weeks and I am very surprised by the way
people talk about how we are going to get things from the
disadvantaged. We are always on the defensive, whereas we
should take advantage of a department like the Department of
Human Resources Development to initiate positive measures, to
turn to people who are doers and who will help us turn the
situation around instead of simply guarding the status quo.
The primary group that should be targeted is young graduates,
people between 20 and 35 years of age. Nowhere in government
commitments is this group mentioned as being the target of
structural projects.
There could be other structural projects, but there is one
example that we have been focussing on in the House for a long
time, and I think that we will keep coming back to it. The Bloc
Quebecois would like the high-speed train project in the
Quebec-Windsor corridor to be carried out. The realization of
this project could have a ripple effect similar to that of the great
hydro-electric projects of the 1970s. We feel it is essential that
Canada and Quebec invest in railway infrastructure for
transportation of goods and passengers.
We have a vast territory and the maintenance of the road
network is very costly. Moreover, developing a competitive
economy while banking on individual transportation is not an
environment-friendly solution. The Bloc Quebecois is not
opposed to restructuring the railway system if this helps
increase its profitability. However, we have to proceed while
taking into account possible alternatives instead of abandoning
this mode of transportation bit by bit.
Rail transportation is not just nostalgia, it can also be a major
development tool, as much for Canada as for Quebec, and it is
urgent that we become aware of that and take action accordingly.
Canada and Quebec must therefore adopt an efficient public
transport policy.
The Quebec City-Windsor high-speed train project would
cost about $7.5 billion over a ten year period, but 70 per cent of
it would be funded by the private sector. The remaining 30 per
cent, about $2.3 billion, would be funded by the Quebec, Ontario
and federal governments. By getting involved in this HST
project, this government would help stimulate a $5.3 billion
investment by the private sector, not counting the spin-offs.
During construction, tax revenues generated by the project
would amount to $1.8 billion. Thus, the funding provided would
soon be recovered. The HST requires less funding than the
infrastructure program and is an investment rather than an
expenditure.
This investment by the federal government would not
increase the Canadian debt and would help make VIA Rail
profitable. It would create almost 120,000 jobs annually,
including 80,000 direct jobs in the construction of the
infrastructure and the manufacturing of equipment for the HST,
and 40,000 indirect jobs upstream and downstream from the
project. It would reduce unemployment insurance costs for the
government.
In 1991, the Ontario-Quebec Rapid Train Task Force made a
comprehensive feasibility study. Extensive public consultations
concluded that people in the areas affected by the rapid train
project would support it. It has been said many times that the
Quebec City-Windsor corridor is crucial and that it is important
that the cities in that corridor be made more effective in order to
succeed in a competitive market.
Since the committee concluded that the project is relevant, a
committee with representatives of the federal, Quebec and
Ontario governments was set up to make a cost-benefit analysis
of different technologies. The Bloc Quebecois advocates the
implementation of an environment-friendly technology. The
HST would reduce government spending. It would provide
intercity transportation at a much lower cost than an expansion
of road or air transportation services. This is a good example of a
2599
streamlining of expenditures which would have a positive
impact on job creation.
The multiplier effect of the HST project would contribute to
strengthening of local economies. In Europe, it has been
demonstrated that the HST can be an engine of growth for job
creation and economic renewal. It would attract hotels, office
buildings, convention centres, restaurants and other commercial
and tourist activities.
(1205)
During the election campaign, the finance minister
acknowledged the structural erosion in Montreal and made a
commitment to look for ways and means of solving this
problem. He made the following diagnosis: the industrial
structure of Montreal is obsolete and fragile and it is not being
replaced by new, dynamic, and technologically interesting
manufacturing industries. Why is it that the government does
not take any action consistent with this diagnosis?
The HST would be an industrial force for Canada and Quebec.
Our standard of living and our competitiveness depend on
decisions we make now. We cannot sign away our future by
rejecting the high-speed train or any other infrastructure project
of this kind. Time is running out. If governments act right now,
we will have a strategic lead on the North American high-speed
train market. There are 20 projects of this type in the United
States, a market estimated at more than $200 billion for the next
15 to 20 years. If we are the first on the market, our businesses
will benefit from exports of technology.
The Canadian government must have a long-term vision and
restart the economy by implementing innovative projects. The
high-speed train seems to be a much better way to create jobs
creation and increase competitiveness for a lower public
investment level.
Furthermore, we must also ensure that productivity gains
made by using new equipment, for example, in forestry, do not
benefit only investors. These people have a right to make
profits, but we must at the same time invest in tomorrow's
forests, thus allowing the workers who were replaced by
machines to work in tree planting, which will prevent in the
medium-term stock shortages like those which fishermen are
cruelly experiencing at the present time.
If we do not learn from the fisheries example, we will face the
same problems in forestry 20 years from now. Above all, we will
cause a serious social crisis in regions where traditional forestry
communities have maintained a balance between production
capacities and the growth of the forest. Given the new
machinery now in use, other means must be developed to
counterbalance the increase in production, or tree felling,
through adequate forestation techniques. A skilled workforce is
ready to take over such trades, but these people will never enrol
in high-technology training programs. They are qualified for
forest jobs, which I think we should provide them with.
Canada's slow recovery from the recession is also indicative
of the inability of the federal system to face the increasingly
deep changes sweeping the global economic order.
Jurisdictional conflicts, overlap and duplication, and
bureaucratic centralization all contribute to our slow responses
and to the inefficiency of the measures taken. Think of the
infrastructure program! I agree that this program is very good in
itself, but when it takes three governments to decide whether or
not a stretch of sidewalk should be laid in a village, I think
efficiency is definitely lacking.
On top of jurisdictional conflicts, unemployment is a problem
which is even more apparent to me on my riding tours. The
unemployed need training programs, but the whole array of
programs confuses them, not for lack of the required brochures,
not because civil servants neglect their jobs, but because too
many governments play a part in this jungle, and we have not
really developed the tools which would allow us to reach the
unemployed in serious need of adequate training programs.
There are 1.5 million unemployed in Canada, but only some
600,000 available jobs. That imbalance stems from the system's
inability to adapt rapidly to emerging manpower needs.
Moreover, Canada has not solved its regional disparity
problem, in spite of all the efforts made during the last 30 years:
federal-provincial agreements, federal economic intervention
in provincial fields of jurisdiction, and grant programs. Again
last week, the whole issue of regional development in Canada
came up once more, because we turned away from real
solutions, which require assigning responsibilities, powers and
the appropriate level of government's ability to tax.
(1210)
The problem has not been not solved since the solution lies in
deep structural changes which have yet to be settled after 30
years of constitutional debate. Some will say that Canadians do
not want to hear about the Constitution. However, they want to
put an end to the personal difficulties encountered by those
unemployed individuals searching for jobs, whom they meet
everyday. It is for us to propose solutions. Social program
reform is part of the same logic that brought about the disastrous
conditions we are experiencing today.
To conclude, I feel that the government should learn from the
past. In order to allow his country to emerge from the Great
Depression of the thirties, President Franklin Roosevelt did not
hesitate to look for new ways to restore confidence among
Americans. He undertook important programs, such as the one
in the Tennessee Valley, which restored the confidence of the
American people. Essentially, one only needs to have the
2600
political will and the necessary vision to put Quebecers and
Canadians back to work.
To build a society, one needs the participation of all human
resources and a revolutionary change in attitudes and practices
in order to allow each segment of this society to build its
development on its strengths.
The present government was not elected to act as the steward
of Canada. It was elected to turn things around and to give to
Quebecers and Canadians a sense of pride in their achievements.
There is still time to act.
[English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker, on
the day after the Academy Awards the remarks of the hon.
member opposite are interesting in the sense that they were very
flashy. It was a good performance.
I tried to follow his logic. I had problems listening to the
litany of events historically and of statistics quoted by him in the
early part of his speech which he attributes to the repercussions
on job creation. Like most members of the party opposite he
always refers to Canada and Quebec.
I have a question but I want to draw an analogy first. I live in a
border riding not far from the city of Detroit. In the late 1960s
we saw in Detroit the rise of the city state, a city at that time of
some six million people, not unlike the province of Quebec in
terms of population. In the late 1960s we saw the rise of a certain
economic pride in the black community. We saw the rise of a
saviour by the name of Mr. Coleman Young who became the
mayor of Detroit. Mr. Young promised the people of Detroit that
he would lead them out of the wilderness into some sort of
economic nirvana.
In 1993 Mr. Coleman Young decided he would not run again;
at 75 years of age he had had it. At the same time we find that the
population of Detroit has declined. The economic base has
declined and I ask the simple question why. It was the so-called
city state, this type of nationalism that arose in that city that
killed business. In fact development did occur in the state of
Michigan. It did occur in the United States but it did not occur in
Detroit because of the economic policies of that city.
Using the analogy that there is a certain element of
nationalism, much like in the city state of Detroit in the late
1960s, will this have a repercussion on job creation, the 465,000
people he claims to be unemployed in the province of Quebec-I
do not dispute that number-and are the policies of his party
also not contributing to that uncertainty, the creation of the
mentality that nobody wants to invest in the province of Quebec
because of the policies put forward by his party?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that I
talked not so much about the actual government's policy but
rather its lack of policy regarding job creation.
(1215)
As for nationalism which the member mentioned without
going into specifics, he was probably referring to the
nationalism of Pierre Trudeau who, by creating the Foreign
Investment Review Agency, caused serious investment
problems in Canada, problems which had to be corrected in
order to restore Canada's international image. My colleague was
probably referring to that kind of nationalism.
As for pride, I think we have shown in Quebec that despite the
current system's shortcomings we were able to develop
instruments for capital funds management. For example, the
influence of the Mouvement Desjardins and the Fonds de
solidarité des travailleurs has been such that, whereas Ontario
members of the industry committee are trying, in a roundabout
manner, to find ways to enrol them in a way that will allow them
to get closer to contractors, in Quebec we have already found a
solution to that problem.
We have also found a solution to another problem, namely
worker consultation and everyone in Quebec, be it employers,
union members, the government or political parties is asking for
the patriation of the jurisdiction on labour. There is a unanimous
agreement on that. Therefore, a sound nationalism is compatible
with positions that further a society's progress.
Let us not forget that our nationalism has also permitted North
America to sign the Free Trade Agreement because Quebec is
the province that gave the most active support to the agreement
and contributed the most to the initiative that will create a
certain economic boom in North America. In that sense I can be
proud of what we have accomplished.
[English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I hope the previous
speaker from the Reform Party listened to my hon. colleague
because he would have learned something about history that my
hon. friend mentioned and that I was going to mention earlier.
We had a depression when the law of supply and demand held
sway in the country, on this continent and in the world. We had a
mini replay of the thirties in the eighties. We got heated up and
there was to be no tomorrow. Interest rates went as high as 19 per
cent.
My question has to do with the jurisdictional wars I heard
about. In the House committee I am serving on we are working at
harmonizing matters between departments and levels of
government, not having wars. The infrastructure program was
very
2601
careful in putting decision making at the local level, at the
municipal level, and that is where it is. I have seen no evidence
of jurisdictional wars.
Perhaps my hon. friend does not have that kind of
co-operation in his riding. I do in my riding. People are very
pleased with the fact that they are deciding at the grassroots
level where the money is to go.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be appropriate to
repeat my position on infrastructures to make sure it is well
understood.
To provide this country with adequate infrastructures is fine
and is something we need. However, the present Canadian
system calls for too much manoeuvering between the three
levels of government-federal, provincial and local
governments-which have an input in decisions that, in my
opinion, should be taken at local level only. Without laying on
the table that the one solution is sovereignty, it is clear that the
centralized decision-making process is a problem in Canada,
one which we have tried to bypass in many ways. In terms of
regional development, departments were established in order to
be able to deal directly with clients because the federal
bureaucracy could not reach those regions.
Therefore, there is a structural problem. And the federalists
should have a vision about what they can do to be more efficient
and effective and stop developing tools aimed at making
governments more visible.
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I have a brief comment. As the hon. member was
speaking about rapid transit, modern communications and rail
fast track, I too could sympathize with those thoughts. Coming
from Nova Scotia, we would like to have a better transportation
system. We believe that rail is far more sustainable than
highway. We are looking in those same directions.
(1220)
However, what puzzles me is that as the member talks he
sounds as if he is talking as a federalist, as a complete Canadian
nationalist. He wants railways to go from Quebec to Ontario. He
wants them to be sustainable, to serve all Canadians. I am
wondering how this serves Canada and at the same time how he
can separate his thoughts from the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, if having a vision means that we are
looking for the economic development of Quebec and Canada in
an adequate and coordinated way, whether federalist or else, I
am saying that when Quebec is sovereign, there will still be
transportation needs to and from Canada, the United States,
Mexico, South America, Europe, every part of the world. Since
we will always need tools, we might as well have the best.
In 1867, the Canada compromise was based on the east-west
road. Why not redefine the territories, the jurisdictions and say
that Quebec is a country and Canada is another one, and that the
high-speed train could serve as one of the main communication
links between those two countries?
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad
to have the opportunity to address the members of this House
and to reply on this motion.
[English]
The motion would condemn the government for a lack of
vision in the area of job creation. I would like to comment on
this point. A motion saying that the House should deplore the
government's lack of vision and lack of concrete measures
relating to job creation policies shows very little vision and very
little concrete policies in and of itself.
It is a very shortsighted motion and a very shortsighted view
of the program the government has placed before Parliament.
All members of the House know what major issues are facing the
country: the economy, the deficit and job creation. These are
easy to see.
We have the example of previous governments that chose to
address one or another of these problems at the expense of the
others. Recent history has proven that an attack on the deficit
only aggravates problems in the other areas, stifles economic
growth, makes fewer jobs available to Canadians, and makes the
deficit worse. Our view is that we must see the interdependence
of all different problems we are trying to solve. This requires
actions based on an integrated plan or a vision.
Our plan is to provide support to the economy, to reduce the
deficit as quickly as possible without handcuffing economic
recovery and to create jobs in the process. By keeping a keen eye
on the process and the progress of each of the government's
initiatives we know we will see results.
We as a government have put before the House and before
Canadians a first step. It will not solve everything overnight, but
it will provide a basis upon which we can build. It is the first step
to economic recovery, to the well-being of individual Canadians
and to the elimination of the deficit.
We have listened to Canadians. We are implementing our plan
which includes jobs and growth. During the election campaign
we were very clear about the solutions we were proposing. We
are following through on them. One of the best and most visible
examples is the infrastructure works program, a government
program to rebuild the country's infrastructure over the next
three years.
2602
[Translation]
The infrastructure program is a shared-cost initiative to
which each level of government in Canada-federal, provincial,
territorial and municipal-will contribute $2 billion, for a total
of $6 billion over the next two years. There will also be some
flexibility so as to allow limited financing in the third year. The
program is based on the collaboration of all levels of
government in supporting infrastructure investment. The
private sector will also be invited to invest in these public
initiatives if their investments are considered useful to local
governments.
(1225)
The federal funds have already been divided among provinces
and territories according to a formula based on the population
and unemployment rate of each. I might add that that formula
was approved by the First Ministers last December. Each
province and territory will match the federal government's
contribution, as will municipal and local governments.
The infrastructure program is intended to stimulate the
economic recovery while responding to the need for
infrastructure renewal and improvement in Canada. In this way,
the program should help municipalities and communities to use
new, efficient and environmentally sound technology while
improving competitiveness and productivity.
We noticed a major reduction in the amounts spent for public
infrastructure in Canada. In 1960, our three levels of
government invested 4.3 per cent of the gross domestic product
in fixed capital, but by 1980 it had dropped to 2.5 per cent.
Members opposite stress that right now, our financial
resources are too tight to invest in infrastructure. We, on this
side, do not agree at all with them.
[English]
The health of our cities and towns is absolutely central to the
health of our economies. Good, efficient roads and
transportation services reduce costs to individuals and
businesses, avoiding expensive tie-ups, reducing wear and tear
on vehicles, reducing operating costs. In the same way modern
water and sewage systems are vital for servicing industry and
commerce, as well as for the health of Canadians and the health
of our environment. Without such services our communities
cannot attract new industries or maintain the industries they
have; local economies stagnate and communities die.
Our infrastructure has started to deteriorate and it will only
continue to deteriorate. We have heard much about leaving a
debt to our country and to our children. The cost of replacing
infrastructure we do not maintain is far greater than the cost of
maintaining it. If we do not do something now the debt we will
be leaving our children is in collapsing sewers, unsafe water
supplies, corroded bridges and crumbling roads.
There are longer term benefits to improving the infrastructure
and the quality of life Canadians have come to expect. Improved
infrastructure means improved environmental quality and
improved amenities. It is vital to our quality of life, whether
creating a clean and pleasant environment or a hospitable
environment for working, living and doing business.
There are major issues in each of our cities that require urgent
investment in infrastructure to remain competitive. These
projects are needed to allow Canada and communities across the
country to remain competitive and to continue enjoying the
Canadian quality of life.
Our goal is to develop economic, social and technological
infrastructure to support the efforts of all Canadians to make
Canada stronger in coming years. Infrastructure works is a
national program. We are investing in each province and
territory. The provinces and the territories, as well as the
municipalities, are matching our investment.
(1230 )
The infrastructure program is now a reality. Framework
agreements have been signed with all partners, getting Canada's
three levels of government working together for jobs and
working together for Canadians. It is a tribute to the government
that within barely two months of taking office we were able to
get all the partners to the table and get the agreements.
People across Canada are interested in our country's
economic well-being. They have businesses they want to keep
working. The needs and commitment of these Canadians are
also necessary to achieving the goals of the program.
All members have realized that in one way or another this
program will affect their ridings and their constituents. All
could probably list from memory a number of worthwhile
projects that have been brought to their attention by the people
who elected them. Not only will these projects be good for
communities but they will also give a boost to the businesses in
those communities. In each of those communities these projects
will put people back to work. There will be jobs for people who
are not working right now. This is job creation where it matters:
in the homes, in the businesses and in the neighbourhoods right
across Canada.
In every province projects will be submitted to a joint
management committee by municipalities, by school boards and
by other local groups. This means that the local level, the
communities across Canada will be the key to the program. The
projects that local governments are willing to approve, the
projects that local communities identify as their priorities, will
be the projects that make up infrastructure works.
2603
This is truly rebuilding Canada from the grassroots up,
rebuilding Canada in a democratic and equal way across the
country.
There is also a responsibility in this program for every
member of the House. Members can discuss with their town and
city councils their local priorities, their local needs so they
understand them and give them the support they can.
People will ask what infrastructure is. By agreement with
each of the provinces it has been defined as the physical capital
assets of our communities. That means the physical capital
assets of the nation, with an emphasis on physical infrastructure
associated with municipal services at the local level, things like
water treatment, water distribution systems, sewage and
drainage, roads and other transport facilities, buildings,
machinery, equipment, earth works, related construction
activities.
It can go further. The program has the flexibility to include
smart infrastructure such as information highways or social,
cultural and other economic priorities.
We have heard a great deal about government getting out of
the way of businesses. A number of members of the House are
obviously not aware that this program has the endorsement of
the industry associations that will be involved in doing this
work. The government does not go out and build roads and
bridges. Companies across the country go out and build roads
and bridges. We are giving them the opportunity to work again.
We hear a great deal from the opposition about listening to
people and representing our constituents. Therefore I find it
hard to understand why parts of the opposition have so much
trouble listening to the people and the level of government that
is closest to those constituents in their local towns, villages,
townships and counties. These are the people who for 10 years
have been asking their national government to take the
leadership to bring all three levels of government together to
rebuild the infrastructure of Canada. They continue to be strong
supporters of the program, as do the business associations that
will be involved in implementing the program.
(1235 )
The framework agreements specify the criteria that must be
met for project approval: incremental and/or acceleration of
investment; short and long term job creation; enhancing
Canada's economic competitiveness; use of sound, innovative,
smart technologies; bringing infrastructure up to community
standards. Also included in the criteria are: codes and bylaws;
enhancing long term skills in the workforce; enhancing
environmental quality and sustainability; the use of sound,
innovative, financial techniques, including the use of private
capital and distribution of program benefits within a province or
territory.
Yes, there will be an evaluation component so that when we
reach the end of the program and as it proceeds we will know
what it is accomplishing. This program will put people back to
work this construction season. We will see 50,000 to 65,000
direct jobs and many more indirect jobs as suddenly
construction workers and others in related industries have
money in their pockets. They will have the money to go out and
buy goods and services and to contribute to the public treasury
as well.
A great deal of the initial $2 billion investment we have made
will come right back to the government and to the people of
Canada through the contributions of those people who are now
working on this program instead of being unemployed.
From across the House we also hear a disparagement of
construction jobs as if these are only old style job creation
schemes and not real work for people. I am sorry, but somebody
who digs a ditch, who operates a crane, who moves cement
blocks, who puts a trowel to bricks is doing valuable, important
and constructive work for this nation. We are proud of the jobs
we are going to be creating. The people who will have those jobs
will be proud of them.
We have heard that unemployment figures are up.
Unemployment figures are up because this among other
programs is bringing hope back to the country. People who have
kept away from the job market are coming back because they
believe now, with a new government in place, there may be a job
for them.
The government believes it should keep its promises and put
Canadians back to work. We ask for support, not criticism, from
the other side of the House as we try to do that. By launching this
infrastructure program we are helping the economic growth,
helping Canadians get back to work and helping to reduce our
deficit.
I truly hope that when motions come forward from the
opposition, if they cannot be totally laudatory of our programs at
least they might be more constructive.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I listened carefully to my Liberal colleague's speech and there
are a few comments I would like to make.
First a general comment followed by a case in point. This
government does not promote job creation as it said it would
during the 45 days of the election campaign, and in its now
defunct red book. I think the red book can be thrown out,
considering the latest Budget brought down by the Minister of
Finance.
Of course, the infrastructure program will create between
45,000 and 60,000 jobs, depending on whom you talk to.
However, what are 45,000 jobs, compared with 1.5 million
2604
unemployed Canadians, including 428,000 Quebecers? These
45,000 jobs, the cornerstone of the platform of the Liberal Party
of Canada, are peanuts.
Does the hon. member not realize that this measure is totally
inadequate and provides no structural improvement of the
employment situation? Does she not realize that all the
measures taken by her government since the morning of October
26 have clearly compromised job creation and this country's
economic recovery?
(1240)
Mr. Speaker, I will give you a few examples which I have
found particularly revealing since we took up our duties on the
morning of October 26.
First of all, her government, after spending years criticizing
the high-interest policies pursued by our defunct Conservatives,
has now opted for the same policy. This means that as soon as
there is the slightest increase in inflationary trends, of the kind
we saw in the first quarter of 1990, the new Governor of the
Bank of Canada will administer exactly the same horse medicine
as his predecessor, which was vigorously condemned by the
present government. What does this mean? It means that as soon
as there is the slightest hint of economic growth, interest rates
will rise, and this will undermine job creation.
Second, since this government came to power, it has failed to
correct the laissez faire approach taken by the budget in recent
years. The latest Budget brought down by the Minister of
Finance is a failure as far as control of public spending is
concerned. So much so, in fact, that financial circles are starting
to express concern about the government's lack of control. This
means that we can soon expect an increase in the rates of interest
charged on government borrowing, a trend that may continue in
the foreseeable future.
I repeat, the government is undermining job creation,
although for months, if not years, it has been saying that the
Liberal Party of Canada is a party that promotes job creation. It
is part of the tenets of the red book as well.
Third, Mr. Speaker, as you know, the present government
insists on playing a role in manpower training, although this
comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other Canadian
provinces. When it goes on about job creation being so terribly
important, the fact is that by not withdrawing from this area, the
Liberal government is undermining our chances of creating
durable jobs and quality employment in the years to come.
How can members on the other side of the House say that the
government is doing something about creating jobs, when the
infrastructure program is merely a drop in the bucket,
considering one and a half million Canadians are unemployed,
and when the government takes the kind of measures it does in
this Budget?
Another point I would like to raise, if I may, Mr. Speaker, is
that on the other side of the House they keep saying they are
doing something about unemployment and want to intensify the
measures that will create jobs. What we find in the last Budget is
more like a planned attack against the unemployed, because in
the next three years, the government is going to take a little more
than $5.5 billion out of their pockets.
That is how the government wants to create jobs and attack
poverty, while refusing to restore the budget for social housing,
for instance, as it has been promising for years. If that is the way
it wants to improve the well-being of Canadians, as it did by
attacking old age security pensions and tax credits for the
elderly, well, Mr. Speaker, I am truly astonished that the hon.
member is still proud to be part of a government that is as far to
the right as its Conservative predecessors if not more so.
Mrs. Catterall: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank
my hon. colleague for his speech. I regret that I do not have time
to respond to all of the statements made, but I will do my best.
Yes, it is true that the infrastructure program is just the first of
many more initiatives to come. We acknowledge that this is only
the first step, a building block, but one that will create jobs in an
industry that is truly the cornerstone of the economy, namely the
construction industry. Therefore, it is very important to begin
here because projects can start immediately.
(1245)
These initiatives will create both direct and indirect jobs.
The hon. member spoke of controlling public spending. This
government has slashed $17 billion from its expenditures. I
would like to ask my colleague opposite the following question:
Which programs would he cut? In which areas would he reduce
spending and which Canadians would feel the effects of these
cuts?
The hon. member also spoke about training for all Canadians.
He knows very well that current programs are, by our own
admission, inadequate. We have called for broad program
reforms, for example, integrating training programs with social
programs. The hon. member knows that we are currently seeking
input from the Canadian public on ways to improve programs.
We will continue to follow this course of action.
The hon. member mentioned unemployment insurance
recipients. While we may have reduced our spending in this
area, our goal is to provide improved service to the unemployed
who have lower incomes.
Getting back to another point, the hon. member said we failed
to control spending. Now, he is criticizing one of our spending
control initiatives. Again, I ask him: Where would he have cut?
Which Canadians would have been affected?
2605
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The debate between the
hon. Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is a very interesting one, but other
members should be given an opportunity to speak.
[English]
In the time remaining, approximately five minutes to the
parliamentary secretary, I would like to recognize two members
who are seeking the floor. I will first recognize the member for
Lisgar-Marquette and we will come back to the member for
York-Simcoe.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member from the Liberal
government. I would like to give some constructive criticism.
When the infrastructure program was announced I thought
right away it was becoming too political. It was not really for job
creation. When I saw a $27 million grant being made to Quebec
City for a convention centre even before the guidelines were laid
out I was frustrated with the program.
This is my concern right now. I was just informed by some
constituents in Manitoba who talk to me quite regularly on this
issue that the provincial government now seems to have control
of about 40 per cent of that money designated to Manitoba. It is
not really going to go to the communities where these projects
are desperately needed. It is becoming a political issue in
Manitoba because of the provincial election due there in the next
year.
I would like the government to look at this and maybe change
some of the guidelines if that is the problem. It will not be
infrastructure for the benefit of the taxpayers; it will be
infrastructure for the benefit of provincial governments. That
worries me a bit. Could the member comment on that, please?
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to
comment on that. As I said, one of the strengths of this program
is that it is all three levels of government working together.
When projects come forward such as the one in Quebec City that
he mentioned it is because that is seen as the priority of the local
community for its long term economic development and health.
Similarly, while we have worked out agreements with all the
provinces and territories based on exactly the same principles I
enunciated, there is flexibility within each province and
territory to meet the requirements of that community. That
respects the diversity of this country and the different needs
across Canada, the different needs of different kinds of
communities.
(1250 )
The minister has made it quite clear that members of
Parliament have a role to play in this. Not just government
members of Parliament but all members of Parliament will be
consulted about the program and its use in their own
communities. All members' views will be sought and taken
seriously. I can assure the member of that.
If the member feels there is a problem I urge him to speak to
me or the minister responsible for the infrastructure program. If
it is truly a problem we will try and do something about it.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I
have just a few comments.
I want to congratulate the parliamentary secretary for her very
articulate and comprehensive outline of the infrastructure
program. I want to reiterate some of the points that she made in
her speech to the members in the House.
It is important to note that infrastructure is very important to
the economic well-being of this country as well as to the health
and the environmental sustainability of our communities. As
vice-chair of the parliamentary committee on environment and
sustainable development I am very concerned about those
issues. The parliamentary secretary was very good in her
explanation of how new sewers and things like that can enhance
the health and well-being of our communities.
When one takes a look at it in the long term, when one can get
rid of some of the problems that may cause illness and problems
associated with health as well as environmental pollution, that
can make a substantial saving in our deficit.
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the member has just
emphasized the point that this is an investment in the long term
health, economic and otherwise, of our communities. She is
absolutely right. If we allow untreated sewage to be put into our
lakes and rivers and to be dumped on our landfill sites we simply
end up leaving our children and grandchildren much bigger and
much more expensive problems than we have now.
Any member of this House can look around their own
community and find perfect examples of where, had problems of
contamination been prevented, it would have been far cheaper
than trying to clean up those problems after they occurred. I
thank her for raising the point.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I rise today to participate in this crucial
debate, given the current social and economic situation in
Canada and Quebec.
First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague the hon.
member for Mercier who has introduced on behalf of the
Official Opposition this motion denouncing the lack of
innovation, imagination and vision of this government in terms
of job creation, because we must realize the magnitude of this
problem in this country.
2606
In January 1994, unemployment in Canada was still hovering
around 11.5 per cent and 12.5 per cent in Quebec. This means
that there are currently 1.6 million unemployed individuals in
Canada, 425,000 of whom are in Quebec. That is unacceptable
and honest minds will see this constitutes an emergency, a
situation which calls for action, concerted action.
The Liberal Party of Canada apparently understood this at the
time-because timing is important here-of drafting the red
book presented to the voters during the October 1993 election
campaign.
On page 15, you can read the following:
-Canadians are facing hardship: 1.6 million unemployed, millions on
welfare, a million children living below the poverty line, record numbers of
bankruptcies and plant closings.
Our overriding preoccupation is to offer a government that will help in solving
problems and in creating opportunities for Canadians.
``Jobs, jobs, jobs'' was their theme. A catch phrase that the
people of Canada heard over and over, raising the hopes of
many, particularly in Atlantic Canada and Ontario, that the
government would finally see to it, as promised, that this
hardship be alleviated as mentioned earlier.
At this time, I would like to digress for a moment to deplore
the fact that this type of conduct seems to have become
contagious. When we see Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson
making easy, demagogic promises over which he has no control,
there is a common denominator: everywhere we find Liberals
who do such things. But have no fear, Mr. Speaker, Quebecers
know the score; they are not so naive and will not be fooled; they
will be able to judge those who have been in office for nine years
and who let this situation deteriorate.
(1255)
Let us return to the federal scene, which is our immediate
concern. What are the Liberals doing now about the
commitments they made in their red book? What about it, Mr.
Speaker? There is a huge gap between what they say and write
and what they do. What has come out of these commitments? A
coast-to-coast infrastructure program, in which the government
will invest $2 billion, it seems, with the co-operation of the
provincial and municipal governments. How many jobs will we
create for the 1,600,000 unemployed? It seems that we will
create 45,000 temporary jobs. How many in Quebec for its
425,000 unemployed? Fifteen thousand temporary jobs. You
should realize that this is what this government has proposed to
meet its commitments: 45,000 temporary jobs, which include
not only jobs that are created but also jobs that are maintained.
Of course, there is the Youth Service Corps that is also
mentioned in the red book. Here is what it says on page 35: No
group faces bleaker economic prospects than Canadians under
25. A Liberal government will help return hope to young
Canadians by creating the Canadian Youth Service Corps, which
will involve 10,000 young people a year. Mr. Speaker, do you
know how many people under 25 were unemployed in Canada
last month? There were 428,000 unemployed Canadians under
25, 18 per cent of this age group in the labour force, and this
percentage and this number are increasing every month. What
do they propose? A youth service corps with a fourfold mandate:
community service; discovering and understanding Canada, as
my colleague, the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, said
last week in this House; environmental awareness; and personal
growth.
That is very nice, it is well intentioned, but we have seen other
Katimaviks, we have seen other schemes dreamed up by
senators, but that is not what Canadians and Quebecers need,
especially the young people we were just talking about. They
need specific job creation measures to meet their needs, to give
them back their dignity and, in the case of young people, to give
them back their collective future and their personal future.
We do not need projects like Katimavik, but we know how
interesting it could be before a referendum to take young people
who are vulnerable, especially in Quebec, and give them the
proper conditioning to show how much people care about them
and how good it is to live in this very democratic country that
has no work for them. We know all that can be done with that
target group to win some more votes to keep Quebec dependent
on Canada.
In these two cases, faced with the same unemployment
problem, we see the very serious problem of joblessness
affecting the Canadian economy and the people of Canada. All
that this government has been able to find so far are
half-measures, the infrastructure program and the youth service
corps, things that skirt around the issue, that do not really solve
the problem but that can be described as a sort of smoke screen,
pseudo-solutions for problems that the government seems
completely unable to solve, despite its claims.
The same goes for the information highway, a scientific and
technological project, but what are they doing about it? What is
the action plan? What funds are being allocated to it? All we
know is that since October 25, 1993, the minister concerned, the
Minister of Industry, recently appointed an advisory committee
that will study the information highway, behind closed doors.
Meanwhile, our American neighbours apparently have a fairly
well-defined action plan, which has the full support of the U.S.
Vice President.
(1300)
Without knowing where we are going, we have appointed an
advisory committee that, until further notice, will meet behind
closed doors: such is Canada's electronic highway, Mr. Speaker.
2607
This illustrates very well the attitude of this government; we do
not know where it has been nor where it is going.
Regarding these commitments, we can honestly say without
fear of being mistaken that this government has disappointed us,
that it is beyond the hopes it had raised or tried to raise among
Canadians with respect to infrastructure and the Youth Service
Corps; it has only addressed unemployment in science and
technology in the manner we just mentioned. The government is
letting us down.
I would now like to speak to an issue I am particularly
interested in as industry critic: industrial conversion. Let us
refer once again to the red book stating the government's
intentions in this area and others. On page 55 we read this: ``The
defence industries today employ directly and indirectly over
100,000 Canadians. The end of the Cold War puts at risk tens of
thousands of high-tech jobs. A Liberal government will
introduce a defence conversion program to help industries in
transition from high-tech military production to high-tech
civilian production''.
That was the vision, the intentions of the Liberal Party of
Canada in terms of industrial conversion. It was a wise,
enlightened vision of the situation but unfortunately, after this
document was released, we never heard again of this
government's so-called vision or intention to encourage the
conversion of military production to civilian production.
Yet, this sector is in dire straits. Between 1987 and 1992, the
deliveries of arms manufactured in Quebec fell by more than 48
per cent, almost by half, from $1.6 billion in 1987 to $810
million in 1992.
Businesses in the defence industry are value-added high-tech
manufacturing ventures where salaries are high. The number of
Quebecers working in arms production is estimated at over
46,000. Electronics, aerospace, general transport and EDP are
the most active sectors in the defence industry. The major
defence companies are very well known: Bombardier, CAE,
SNC, Lavalin, Pratt & Whitney, Bell Helicopter, Expro, Héroux,
Marconi, Paramax.
All these companies were successful in finding their niche in
an international competitive environment. Together, they are
responsible for over one quarter of all the research and
development work done in the Montreal region. They have
always enjoyed the federal government's financial support to
develop defence capacities.
This shows how the conversion of these defence companies,
given the geopolitical changes occurring all over the globe, is
important, especially in Quebec, to maintain a healthy
high-tech industry.
During the election campaign, the Liberals made four major
commitments regarding industrial conversion. First, to expand
the mandate of the Defence Industry Productivity Program or
DIPP, to help the industry convert and diversify, a $150 million
program. Second, to establish an economic conversion
commission, with the participation of industry and labour, to
facilitate and coordinate the process of conversion in the
defence industry. Third, to develop joint conversion
arrangements with the United States, the market for 80 per cent
of our defence exports, in order to establish a concerted
conversion strategy. Fourth, the conversion of Canadian
military bases, for example in training centres for peacekeeping
forces.
As we saw earlier, the government's intentions were
illustrated by the closure of military bases, without reference to
any kind of conversion. As for the new mandate of DIPP, it is
said in the budget speech that, indeed, this mandate will be
expanded in three years to possibly include some form of
assistance for conversion and diversification. But at the same
time, the government says that in three years, and not right now,
the budget allocated to that program will be reduced by $10
million per year.
One wonders why wait three years given the problems of that
industry, a slowdown of all activities, a reduced number of
contracts in general, as well as a need to transform that military
industry into a civilian one.
Moreover, we never again heard anything about this idea of
setting up a commission to look at the conversion issue with the
companies and workers affected.
(1305)
Yet, there is in Quebec an example which seems to serve as a
model for all researchers and university people interested in this
issue. I am referring to EXPRO, a company specializing in
military products, which is famous for having experienced all
kinds of problems throughout its existence, including labour
relations problems. When it realized that it was obviously and
clearly in jeopardy, the company decided to come to grips with
its problems, this with the support of its workers. It set up a
manpower committee, made an in-depth review of the situation,
hired consultants, established a diagnosis, and now EXPRO is a
company with a civilian production instead of a military one. I
think this is an example to follow. EXPRO is showing that where
there is a will, there is a way.
Yet, the situation is serious, and some members of the
aerospace industry have already reacted to the government's
intentions, and especially to its lack of vision, as illustrated by
its decision to cut in the military sector and elsewhere, without
having planned anything to make up for the impact of these
measures.
So, last week, representatives of this industry, who worry
about the government's intentions, asked for an urgent meeting
with the Minister of Industry to find out just what these
intentions are and to discuss them with him. I am talking about
such prestigious industries as CAE and SPAR Aerospace, which
asked to meet with the minister because of the government's
attitude and lack of planning. We do not know what transpired,
2608
but we sense that there is a malaise in this industry regarding the
government's actions, or lack of action.
We have to be aware of the dangers which would threaten our
economy should inertia, a lack of planning, or a lack of vision
guide the government's actions and policies.
There is a precedent in Canada. A very high-tech industry of
the time-I am referring to the AVRO ARROW case in the
fifties-had to cease operations, which resulted in thousands of
Canadian engineers leaving the country to go to the United
States, thus triggering a massive exodus of brain drain.
If the government fails to take any action, the same will
happen to the Canadian economy which, in a matter of a few
years, may lose a very substantial number of qualified people
who might otherwise have stayed here to try to turn the situation
around.
Furthermore, while in Canada there seems to be a conspiracy
of silence in this respect, in the United States the Clinton
administration plans to provide $20 billion in assistance over
the next five years for defence conversion. Here in Canada, $150
million will be spent over the next few years on defence
research, and this $150 million will decrease by $10 million
annually, starting in 1996-97. There is a difference in vision
between the two administrations which is enormous.
What is particularly exasperating, and shocking as well, is
that there are plenty of projects that could be converted. The
Bloc Quebecois was very clear about that during the debate on
cancelling the helicopter contract. It is not just cancelling the
contract but knowing how we can make the best of the situation
and convert a project that was rather questionable, from the
military point of view, to civilian production that will benefit
the population and ensure that the know-how will stay, in
Quebec in this case, and that it will be used for civilian purposes
and that the budgets will be maintained.
At the time we said that after cancelling the helicopter
contract, the government should proceed with construction of
the high-speed train. The manufacturing process would require
equally complex technology which would have made it possible
for our researchers and scientists to stay here and continue to
develop and do research, but this time for civilian industries. If
the government were to go ahead with this project, it would be
able to develop new expertise in a field with a very promising
future, apparently, in North America, and Quebec and Canada
would be able to capture a substantial part of the market so that
the principal expertise in North America would be spread from
Quebec City to Windsor, via Trois-Rivières. However, the
project is on the back burner, and the government does not really
know where it is headed in this respect. Once again, the
government lacks vision. There is also the sad case which we
will not forget, despite the government's apathy, namely the
case of MIL Davie of Lauzon. This company, which built
military vessels primarily for the Canadian government, is
facing a situation where it will no longer receive any contracts
because of the government's decision to pull out of this field.
The company has come up with its own conversion plan
depending on the good will of the current government which
could, if it wanted to, award the contract to build the Magdalen
Island ferry to this shipyard.
(1310)
We learned again yesterday that the government does not
know where it stands. It still does not know whether it will order
a new ferry to be built or whether it will purchase one from a
foreign shipyard. If the political will existed, the contract would
have been awarded to MIL Davie a long time ago, since it has a
conversion plan in place and has the facilities to build the ferry.
If the government were to proceed on this, it would be killing
two birds with one stone, that is it would be keeping our
domestic know-how here in Canada and would be conducting
research and development and converting former military
facilities for civilian purposes.
In conclusion, I have to wonder where all of this is leading.
Clearly, this government is guilty of lacking vision and empathy
for the situation experienced by hundreds of thousands of
Canadians and Quebecers. This government does not know in
which direction it is heading. It lacks not only vision, but also
the political courage to address the real problems facing people.
The red book is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Personally, I am deeply disappointed and concerned because
these are old methods which today have led to public cynicism.
People realize that during election campaigns, candidates say
just about anything. Once in office, however, they continue to
provide the same kind of government and style of administration
they once criticized. Nothing changes. This type of cynicism is
encouraged and this contradicts the nice statements made in the
red book.
How is it that today's Liberals and yesterday's Tories seem to
have so much in common? I will conclude on this note, Mr.
Speaker, perhaps because there is a common denominator. Both
parties are financed by the same persons. They both feed from
the same trough and both produce the same results.
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member speaks about Quebec youth and their
vulnerability to federal Liberal programs.
I would have to differ. I have great respect for the Quebec
youth. I believe the young people of Quebec are just as
intelligent, if not more so, than the rest of our young people in
Canada.
2609
We have smart, competitive, aggressive, intelligent young
people throughout this country.
He would suggest that the young people of Quebec are
vulnerable, they are susceptible, they are less than knowing of
what kind of program they might get into if they pay allegiance
to the youth corps program. I disagree. I would give them more
credit. The young people of Quebec are very intelligent and they
will decide whether it is a good program or not. It is not
incumbent upon us to suggest that they are not that intelligent.
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her
question. I do not think that we have to wonder if our young
people are intelligent or not; we can take that for granted with
the great performances recently turned in by Quebec youth
internationally in the Olympics. We saw how competent and
intelligent our young people could be.
What gets me, and I refer to something that happened to us in
the past, is everything the federal government could do when
Quebecers were deciding their future. We know how much the
federal government got involved. We had Katimavik with
Senator Jacques Hébert at the time, all that can be done to give
our young people a feeling of belonging to the Canada of today
and tomorrow.
We certainly know what the federal government tried to do in
the 1980 referendum campaign. There was the Council on
Canadian Unity through which the federal government got
involved, although Quebec had a law limiting the ``yes'' and
``no'' sides to $2 million each. The federal government's
involvement in the 1980 referendum is estimated to have been
between $15 and $20 million. We are expecting a similar kind of
operation when we see the government, as if by chance, come up
with a similar initiative called Youth Canada which seeks to
promote better understanding of Canada.
(1315)
I repeat what your colleague, the member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, said, a better understanding of
Canada. He told us about the four main projects, the four major
thrusts, and I think that in complete intellectual honesty we can
suspect this government's intentions, what it intends to do about
the future (of Quebec) and to make Quebec stay in
Confederation, and as we say in Quebec, what are a few
thousand bucks, Mr. Speaker, it never bothered them.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for Trois-Rivières for his speech.
[English]
He mentioned in it the real problem, le vrai problème. It
seems that one of the real problems we are facing, the solution to
which will help everyone in Canada and particularly I hope the
young people to whom he refers, is simply getting the economy
moving.
I know that the member listened to the parliamentary
secretary's remarks earlier about one aspect of the budget which
was the infrastructure program. She stressed the jobs which will
be created and she stressed the value for our economy in the
future of improved infrastructure, as he knows.
There is one aspect which relates to this business of getting
the economy going that she did not stress greatly. That is that
through the infrastructure program which affects Trois-Rivières
as it does the riding of Peterborough, already capital is being
released, capital which is already there.
I do have a question about this, with respect for the hon.
member for Trois-Rivières. In my riding for example, there is a
seniors group which has already raised a great deal of money,
some hundreds of thousands of dollars toward a new building.
They are able to move on that building sooner than was the case
before. I believe the flow of those moneys will help stimulate
the economy.
There is also an arts group which has done the same thing. It
has not raised quite as much yet but these are moneys which are
there which will be released into the economy because of the
infrastructure program.
Also in the public sector I would have to say one of the
townships in my riding has money from dump fees. J'ignore
l'expression française de ce terme.
The township is in fact being paid for the discomfort of having
a dump on its property. It has accumulated those fees and it is
going to spend them constructively on local projects with some
jobs and by the way local raw materials, sand and gravel and
things of that type.
Once these projects start, and in my riding we are talking
about scores of construction projects in 17 or 18 townships, in
the city, in the county, in the university and in the college, scores
of these projects all starting when the frost is out of the ground.
Again the wages will be paid, the wages will be spent. This
capital which I have mentioned will flow across the country.
If it scores in Peterborough, I do not know if it scores in the
Trois-Rivières area, hundreds if not thousands of those projects
will take place and all of them we hope will stimulate the
economy and that will help the young people and all the people
of Canada.
I wonder if the member would care to comment on that point
from the point of view of what is going to happen in
Trois-Rivières once these projects start.
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. We in the Bloc Quebecois are not against the
infrastructure program. We are against it being the solution the
2610
Liberal government seems to have found to deal with a very
serious problem in this country with 1,600,000 unemployed
people.
I think this is easy to demonstrate. The government says it
will create 45,000 temporary jobs, and we must remind you that
when they talk about jobs, they talk about maintaining jobs;
45,000 jobs created and maintained for 1,600,000 unemployed
workers. I do not see how the hon. member for Peterborough can
think this will solve in any way the situation in his riding.
Assuming that unemployment should be around 10 per cent-it
is now around 13 or 14 per cent in my riding of
Trois-Rivières-it is no reason to rest easy and tell ourselves
that the government is up to the task.
Especially since-and I see the Minister of Human Resources
is here-this same government is going after the unemployed
rather than unemployment, the poor instead of poverty itself.
We hear the government tell the poorest among us, those who are
already in a bad spot, because unemployed workers are in a bad
spot, that from now on they will get 55 per cent instead of 57 per
cent of what they were earning and work longer to receive less,
for a shorter period. I think they are going after those who are
poorest.
(1320)
They say we must modernize and revamp-the words they use
are exceptionally subtle in denoting intellectual honesty-our
social programs. We do not know how but we do know one thing
as I speak: the government was able to figure out how much it
will cost in two or three years, so it can spare the public purse by
going after the unemployed and the poor: $7.5 billion, including
$5.5 billion in unemployment insurance. We know that already.
That is what I rise against when I hear such comments.
First of all, we have no real solution for reducing
unemployment since the so-called infrastructure program is not
a solution, it is not even a half-measure. At the same time, the
government is going after those who are already hard pressed
while leaving the richest Canadians alone. They create
committees to examine whether their measures are justified or
not. The time has come to review our thinking because the
underlying process, as everyone is increasingly aware, is the
disappearance of the middle class, like in an underdeveloped
country with few rich people and a lot of poor people. This is
what we think.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to speak at this time, particularly in light of the
comments just made by the hon. member.
[Translation]
First of all, the motion before this House is incorrect and so
are the comments made by the hon. member from the
opposition. I will take this opportunity to set the record straight.
For one thing, this year, there will be more jobs for Canadians,
and particularly for Quebecers. The Conference Board said
there could be as many as 57 per cent more jobs for Quebecers
this year, as compared to last year.
Unfortunately, the opposition fails to mention the positive
initiatives, measures and efforts the government and the private
sector have made to create employment across Canada.
[English]
In saying that, I do not think we are here just to argue about
figures. I think we are here to argue or talk about a very deep felt
need by Canadians to have the opportunity to share in work, to
have a sense of dignity, of making a contribution to their own
and their family's well-being. The prospect, the hope for a job,
for themselves and for their children is one of the great
ambitions that we have always held out to Canadians.
What is not recognized in anything I have heard or listened to
by opposition members so far is any recognition whatsoever that
the world of work has changed and that we cannot simply fall
back on old methods, that we cannot simply defend the status
quo, that we cannot simply argue on a rhetorical basis for what
used to be.
[Translation]
I found particularly interesting, for example, this comment
from the editorialist for La Presse, Mr. Alain Dubuc: ``Program
reform is simply a must for everyone's sake. Lucien Bouchard is
making himself the advocate for status quo''. And I would like
to draw point out this line: ``Out of demagoguery or sheer
narrow-mindedness, the Bloc Quebecois nationalists are
turning into advocates for inflexibility and inertia''. How true!
It is true that the members across the way are advocating
inflexibility and inertia and using demagogical arguments.
(1325)
[English]
This is not a time for that kind of narrowness of spirit, that
unwillingness to change, that attempt to exploit people's deep
concerns for immediate partisan advantage.
We have to talk about how to put a good employment strategy
in place in this country, something that takes into account
various elements. There is no single answer. There is no panacea
for the creation of employment. It is something that is affecting
every country and it is going to take a full, concerted,
comprehensive approach.
2611
When I attended the job summit last week in Detroit where the
seven major industrial countries were brought together, we
talked about the fact that in those seven countries alone there
were over 30 million people unemployed and the number is
growing.
In Europe there has not been any job creation or any growth at
all for the past year or two. In the United States there is job
creation but it is low level jobs, part time jobs, insecure jobs at a
wage that is not reasonable to live on.
The Canadian answer is to find a balance somewhere between
the two. We must make sure there is growth and job creation,
that we stimulate the economy, that we provide a boost in the
private sector to give a new sense of momentum to the broad
base of job creation that the private sector must provide. At the
same time we must recognize that there are fundamental
changes going on in the labour market, that it is not simply good
enough to have a job at a minimum wage if that minimum wage
is below the poverty line. It is not good enough to say to workers
that they can have a 20-hour part time job if there are no benefits
attached.
Those are the kinds of questions we are wrestling with.
Unfortunately members, particularly those in the Bloc
Quebecois, do not want to face those issues. Their
representative on the parliamentary committee refuses to deal
with the fact that there must be some change. Instead they go
out, organize a demonstration and say to keep things the way
they are. If we stay with the status quo then the jobs will not be
there, the income will not be there, and the opportunity will not
be there.
When this government is asked where is our vision, our vision
is to undertake one of the largest, most comprehensive attacks
on the question of unemployment ever seen in this country. We
have initiated on a number of fronts a broad based employment
strategy.
We have already heard some of the measures that have been
brought forward today. There is the infrastructure program
which by estimates could create 60,000 to 70,000 jobs. This is a
way of providing a catalyst to get a spark into the economy. Now
that we are beginning to grow at a level of 3 per cent a year there
has to be a little bit of an electric shock treatment to get people
hiring again. The infrastructure program should not be
measured simply in the numbers of jobs directly created but also
what it does to send a signal that begins to say to Canadians that
we can start doing things again.
I must say when I listen to members of the Reform Party or the
member for Mercier say it is a waste of money it seems to me
those members do not really quite understand what it is all
about. It is not a waste of money if you invest in better roads,
better transportation and better infrastructure because that
creates productivity. It creates the ability to generate more
wealth.
If you allow your infrastructure to deteriorate, if you have too
many potholes in the roads, if you cannot move information
along an electronic highway or if you cannot begin to rebuild
your schools and universities, then you will not grow.
We may argue about spending the money. It may be asked who
is going to invest in a new road system. Is an oil company going
to invest in new roads? Is the bank going to invest in a new
training college? Are they likely? That is the responsibility of
the public sector. It is the responsibility of government. That is
why we have taken on that responsibility.
(1330 )
I hear members opposite say that it is a waste of money. That
simply indicates to me they are not serious about the issue. They
are not really looking at a growth strategy or an employment
strategy. They are caught up as the apostles of rigidity or
demagoguery, as the editorialist in La Presse said.
We introduced a number of measures in the budget. The
infrastructure program was one. There is significant support for
small businesses because the records show that is where jobs
will come from. They will become the engine of job creation if
we give them the right incentive or the right signal.
I find incredible the ignorance of members opposite who have
criticized our efforts to relieve small business of the payroll
burden in order to create jobs.
[Translation]
I find the Bloc Quebecois' position incredible. They are
against efforts to reduce UI premium rates which will have a
positive impact on small business.
Here is a good example to illustrate my point. Take a small
business with 100 workers. As a result of this initiative or plan
to reduce UI premium rates, this business will save $30,000.
That is enough to hire another worker, one more employee.
[English]
How can we argue against a measure clearly designed to say to
small businesses that by bringing down their cost structure, by
giving them better cash flow and by reducing some of the burden
placed upon them they will be given the incentive to go out and
hire people?
I met a week or so ago with representatives of the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business which represents hundreds
of thousands of small businesses across the country. They said
that was one of the best things any government had done because
it began to say to them that we would rely upon them. They said
that their membership would now take up the challenge because
we have taken the initiative to show we care.
2612
Yet we hear members on the opposition side saying that it
does not matter or it does not count. I happen to believe it is very
important to give the right incentive and the right stimulus to
small business as part of an employment strategy to free up
creative juices and to give the cash flow that is necessary.
Members opposite-and I know they would not do it
deliberately-distort the impact of that. They make all kinds of
claims that changes in the UI system will have an enormous
effect upon the poor.
[Translation]
I think it was Mrs. Trépanier, Quebec's Minister of Income
Security, who said that it had a slight impact.
[English]
Our own figures show that it will be no more than an
additional $100 million in terms of people coming off the rolls.
People do not recognize that simply because we increase the
level of weeks of work does not mean to say that people will stop
working. A lot of companies and a lot of organizations presently
cut their work time to suit the 10-week period. There may even
be more work to do, but they cut it and put people on the
unemployment insurance rolls as a way of helping their own
balance sheets.
A member of Parliament in our caucus who was chairman of a
major school board in Ontario said it was a common practice for
school boards to hire people on nine-month contracts and then
let them go for three months in the summer so that they can pick
up UI. That is not a practice we condone. That is one reason we
are saying if we begin to relate the weeks of benefit to the weeks
of work we begin to provide the proper relationship. We begin to
say that one works to earn benefits; one does not get benefits by
not working.
(1335 )
It is no wonder the editorialist in La Presse says: ``Il y a les
apôtres de la rigidité et de la paralysie''. C'est une bonne raison
pour cette déclaration. They are not thinking. They do not have
an employment strategy. They do not have any strategy that
encourages people to go back to work.
That is a lot more important than collecting UI. UI is a crucial
program to help people make transitions from work to work. It is
not long term dependency. That has been part of the problem.
Over the years we took a good program and started changing it to
the point where it became a program not to make that transition
but to try to solve all other problems.
We are saying let us have a proper program dealing with long
term unemployment. That is one of the reasons we are
conducting a major review. That is one reason we invited the
participation of members opposite even though they now refuse
to participate.
Let us have a special program for long term unemployed
people. They should not be kept on UI in perpetuity but they
should have programs of training, job creation, income
supplements or whatever the proper mix will be, so that we find
ways of getting someone who can no longer stay in the labour
market back in. We should focus or target that need exclusively.
We should have programs designed for that need, not try to
tinker with old programs that no longer fit the bill.
This is why we are conducting the review. Opposition
members say there is no vision, but that is the vision. Where is
their vision? There is nothing in their motion or in anything they
have said. Our vision is to get people back to work.
Let us talk about young people. Let us talk about what is
happening to the close to half a million young people between 18
and 24 years of age who are without work. It is probably one of
the most tragic circumstances we have. How do we come to
grips with the difficult problem of enabling people to make that
changeover from formal education back to work? In many cases
formal education does not even work any more for them. Many
young people no longer fit into the school structure; they drop
out. There is a 30 per cent dropout rate. It is a tragedy.
If we do not have sufficient levels of education and training
we know there will be no jobs. We are not back in the age where
skills are unimportant. We are in an age where if one does not
have that basic element one will not work.
That is why we place a lot of emphasis on this point. We have
included in the red book-and I will be introducing them very
shortly in the House-initiatives for a major program of
apprenticeship-internship. It will take tens of thousands of
young people to give them experience in the workplace. It will
be a combination of education and good, solid experience in
employment so they can acquire the necessary skills. That is the
commitment we made. That is a vision. That is a proposal. It is
part of our program. We are negotiating with the provinces now
to make sure they are on side.
The secretary of state spoke this morning about proposals for
a major youth corps to give community employment experience
for young people right across Canada. When they cannot obtain
their first employment we get them into a setting where they
learn skills, produce their first resumé and learn how to do
something useful and important. It will give them some hope.
We are looking at major changes in student aid and student
loans programs to give another incentive to young people to get
back into the training and educational stream. Along with the
discussions we are having with the provinces we are putting in
place a serious, broadly based youth employment strategy. I am
very pleased to announce today that as part of the strategy we are
2613
substantially increasing the amount going into summer
employment by 20 per cent so we can say to young people: ``Go
back to school and we will help you get a job to get there''.
That does not come easy. We have reallocated money. We
have brought together another $20 million which will mean that
over 60,000 young people this summer will have an opportunity
for employment sponsored in a wide variety of circumstances.
When the opposition says we have no plans or actions, I say we
just announced another one today as part of a broadly based
scheme.
It is interesting that not once did we have a question from
members of the Bloc or members of the Reform Party about
summer employment and what we are going to do with summer
students. They were so deeply concerned about our young
people they never got around to asking questions about that.
They have only been here for a couple of months but they never
quite got around to the question of what will be happening to
young people this coming summer.
(1340)
Members of Parliament in my own caucus asked me about it
every week. They had the good sense and understanding of what
was happening to young people, and that is one reason the
government responded to its own caucus.
The question of employment will take a real effort by many
Canadians. I hope the committee will report this week on what it
heard from a broad base of consultation in the first phase. We are
also negotiating seriously with all the provinces to talk about
how we change training programs and how we change social
security to get people back into the workplace.
We are meeting with a wide variety of advisory groups. In the
past two weeks I have met with 15 different groups across the
country.
[Translation]
Today, comprehensive consultations are being held in Montreal
with several social groups to discuss changes relating to the
social security net.
[English]
We are talking to Canadians to involve them and to say that
change is necessary but we can do it together. We can do it as a
country united in the fundamental objective of getting people
back to work and of restoring the dignity of work.
The only people absent from the debate, the only people who
seem to be withholding their participation, are members of the
opposition. They do not seem to think it is important enough to
look seriously at how we can change our social assistance
system by giving incentives to go back to work. They do not
think it is important enough to be looking at what is happening
to young people in our society. They do not think it is important
enough to look at long term unemployment and how to get a
much better mix of programming to deal with the problem. All
they want to ensure is that there is somebody to go to the
barricades, organize a demonstration and say: ``Stay with what
you have''. Fortunately that is not the message of Canadians.
We are listening to the people who are not in the extreme
groups on the left or the right. It is interesting that one group of
people on the far right is saying that we should trash every
program we can find and the group on the left is saying that we
should keep every program we have. Fortunately a large group
of Canadians in the middle say that change is necessary but it
should be done responsibly and carefully so that we can get the
country back to work again.
I ask members opposite to help create a climate in which there
can be jobs for Canadians. They should help to put together the
building blocks of an employment strategy that recognizes the
creation of employment in the private sector, that relieves the
burden of payroll taxes, that has a specific target for the long
term unemployed, that looks seriously at a child care system,
that enables women to participate fully with a sense of security
and that works in dealing with our young people.
If we can put those elements together, if we can put the right
package together over the next several months, we will create a
new vision for the country. We will have given Canadians a new
sense of identity. It will not be tied up with some kind of false
debate about the Constitution, who controls this or who is
responsible for that. The fundamental point is that we will have
restored for Canadians a sense of hope and opportunity that they,
their families and their kids can go back to work. That is the real
meaning of what the country is about, and we intend to do it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I take note of the number
of members interested in asking questions of the minister. I will
try to accommodate as many as possible. I would ask members
to keep in mind the great interest stimulated by the intervention
of the minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the Minister of Human Resources Development, and
not Natural Resources as I said last week. In any case, I wonder
if ministers have any real powers, regardless of the department.
So, I listened carefully to the minister, whom I have known
for some time now. I must say that he is very articulate and he
sounds convincing but, once again, the content of the red book
and the speeches we hear every day are the absolute opposite of
reality. I must first ask the minister how he thinks he can create
jobs by, on the one hand, investing one billion dollars in
infrastructures and, on the other hand, taxing UI benefits for the
unemployed, to the order of $800 million for 1994-95,
following changes to UI which is within the scope of his
department. What does that mean? It means that, on one hand,
the purchasing power of Canadians is reduced by $800 million
while, on the other hand, one billion dollars is invested in
infrastructures.
2614
That means that nothing is created. On the one hand purchasing
power is reduced, while on the other hand money is being
distributed, and we are told that people will spend more and that
jobs will be created. The minister does not understand the
economy at all, because he is not creating anything. The results
are almost non-existent.
(1345)
Moreover, the minister says that he will create jobs while also
increasing taxes and personal income tax by $1.7 billion over
the next three years. Over that same period, he will also increase
taxes by $1.8 billion for small businesses. And he thinks he will
create jobs that way. He is completely wrong and he does not
understand anything about the economy. If jobs are created in
Canada, it will certainly not be because of the Liberal Party and
its alleged vision on economic development and employment. If
jobs are created, it will be thanks to the initiatives of individuals
and certainly not because of this government's measures.
Indeed, there is absolutely no vision in its way of doing things,
which is to tax Canadians even more and then try to create jobs
with an inadequate program. If you want to create jobs by
investing one billion dollars and then take back $800 million,
not to mention the fact that Canada's gross domestic product is
somewhere around $700 billion, I can tell you that one billion
will not make much of a difference.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like the minister, who is responsible
for manpower training to tell us when he will fulfil a request
which the Quebec government has been making for at least three
or four years. When will he delegate manpower training to
Quebec? In doing so, he would immediately save at least $300 to
$400 million, while at the same time ensuring more effective
manpower training in that province? All Quebecers, whether
they belong to the business sector, the unions or the government,
support this request. When will the minister do something about
this?
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg-South-Centre): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I would like to say to the hon. member that I did
address these issues directly and that I am surprised by all the
contradictory statements he made. On the one hand he says that
we have to bring down the taxes and rates, and on the other hand
he says that we should not touch the unemployment insurance
system. We have done that. We have reduced the UI premiums.
That will stimulate employment and help small business to
create jobs. Our policy has had another major impact on
workers. It has increased by $70 to $80 the income each worker
can spend on goods and services for his or her family, which is
also good for small businesses. That is not too bad. Workers now
have more money in their pockets. At the same time, we provide
stimulus for small businesses and for workers.
[English]
I am trying to tell the hon. member that his party is very
confused. On the one hand members say not to touch UI. On the
other hand they say to bring down the premiums. We have done
that; we have brought down the premiums and the stimulus
effect is there. However, to bring down the premiums we have to
make sure that we can still pay for the deficit of the UI system
which this year is $6 billion. We have to bring down the deficit
of $6 billion. That is the reason we balance it out. In a way it
ensures more benefits going to the poorest people, not less.
(1350)
Unfortunately members opposite in their statements
somehow forget the facts, which is too bad. I feel sorry they have
this selective memory. It is not a good thing in a situation like
this to be so selective in your memory. It gets you into trouble.
We have increased the benefits for the poorest in society. We
have created a new linkage between work and benefits and we
have given stimulus to private enterprise to create new jobs. It
seems to me that is not so bad a proposition.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, the
opposition motion deplores the lack of vision in the Liberal
policies on job creation and I think the minister missed the point
here.
The infrastructure program has no vision because it amounts
to less than half a per cent of the gross domestic product. That is
like a family of four winning $200 in the Lotto 649 in a whole
year.
Then the minister goes on to say that high unemployment
affects every country. That is simply not true. Places with low
taxes like Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands have more than 97
per cent of their people employed. There is a direct link between
taxes and unemployment.
Countries with high tax loads have high unemployment.
There is a terrible lack of vision from the government in failing
to recognize that it is the high tax rates that are causing
unemployment and that the problem can be cured by reducing
government spending.
Will the minister acknowledge that high taxes are the cause of
unemployment?
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, one
important revelation from this debate is that we now understand
the employment strategy of the Reform Party. It is called the
Cayman Islands employment strategy.
2615
An important set of principles can be taken to heart. How do
the Cayman Islands support their projects? A group of offshore
companies register there in order to escape the tax burdens of all
the other countries in the world.
What the member is suggesting is that Canada should be a tax
haven for all the misfit companies around the world that want to
escape their rightful obligation to pay their taxes to their rightful
government.
Now there is one hell of a good employment strategy coming
from the Reform Party. Let us have a Cayman Islands
employment strategy, says the Reform Party. Except I do not
think Canadians want to have a Cayman Islands employment
strategy.
Canada is a serious industrial country, one of the top seven
countries in the world. Canadians realize we need a
comprehensive strategy, not just infrastructure but a wide
combination. Infrastructure is important in one element;
stimulation to small business is another; reduction of the payroll
tax for small business; serious training programs; real attempts
to get their educational system in place, a broad based
comprehensive program.
That is what is going to create jobs, not following the precepts
and principles of the Cayman Islands.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
first I would like to express some gratitude on behalf of Tom
Hanks who, had the Minister of Human Resources Development
sought a different career, may not have won the award he
received last night.
I would like to point out a couple of things. The minister
talked about the apprenticeship programs, student loans, the
youth service corps. He lumps them all together and says that we
reject them. That is wrong. Certain programs have more merit
than others.
For example, the apprenticeship program leads specifically to
a direct career job and is something well worth pursuing. On the
other hand to say that our poor youths after graduating from
college can be helped by putting them in a make work
community project which does nothing to enhance their career
expectations may not be good value spent.
I would look to the unemployment insurance rebates. We
often hear about smoke and mirrors. Let us look at that
particular one. After we carry away the mirrors and disperse the
smoke what we have is a raise in UI premiums by the
government which, even before it implemented it, says: ``We
have created another job in small companies''. I would suggest
if that were true what the minister should have done was raise
the rates by $3 instead of the 30 cents. Then the government
could have knocked that entire $3 off and would have had 10
times as many jobs.
(1355 )
If the infrastructure program is needed, fine. Let us talk about
the need for infrastructure repair. Let us not bring in the smoke
and mirrors again and call it job creation because it does not
create jobs. We have already discussed at length the fact that
most of these jobs will be put to contract which will go to
companies that have their crews and it will not create any new
employment at all.
In creating the jobs we are talking about, the government will
spend $70,000, according to studies, to create a $35,000 job
which produces a $10,000 benefit to the government.
To create jobs for $1.6 million worth of people we would need
$96 billion. Even if the roof of this building opened up and that
money dropped in and it was spent without increasing the
deficit, we would still have no jobs at the end of that year when
that money was spent. The government's infrastructure program
does not create employment. It simply addresses a different
problem and the problem remains.
How is the government going to bring on long term jobs when
it maintains the old Liberal strategy of tax and spend and not
addressing the deficit?
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am
really thrilled that the hon. member with such a profound
question left me 30 seconds to answer it. The question deserves
that length of answer.
How do we do it? It seems to me that there is one fundamental
principle the hon. member should understand. It is that investing
in our country, investing in infrastructure, investing in schools,
investing in roads is one of the primary elements of creating
growth and jobs.
By opposing the infrastructure program that was called for by
every municipality across the country to improve its
transportation system they are standing in the way of long term
job growth development.
In the meantime they are also facing the fact that 40 per cent
or 50 per cent of construction workers are out of work and this
job creation program is one element among several that will get
them back to work, create growth, and show the Reform just how
their Cayman employment strategy makes no sense.
The Speaker: It being two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by
members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
2616
2616
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, on
March 31, 1966 a group of black South Africans who were
holding a peaceful demonstration were massacred in
Sharpeville. During the same year the United Nations declared
March 21 the International Day to Eliminate Racial
Discrimination.
Yesterday International Day to Eliminate Racial
Discrimination was celebrated around the world. In Vancouver I
was a speaker at the event organized by the Vancouver
Multicultural Society in co-operation with the Vancouver
Police Department.
The road to democracy is hard and dangerous. Canada is a
blessed country where we do not have to endure acts of racism
but we are still far from being a racism-free country. A strong
message must be sent out that racism and discrimination can no
longer be tolerated. These two diseases must be completely
stamped out for Canada to become an example to the rest of the
world.
March 21 makes people pause and think. Through education
and example we can achieve equality for all and respect for each
other.
Let me congratulate the many volunteers-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
president of the Union des artistes, Serge Turgeon, presented
sportscaster Richard Garneau, with le Prix du mérite du français
dans le secteur culturel, a merit award for French language use
in the cultural sector. For some time now, the Conseil
pédagogique interdisciplinaire du Québec has been recognizing
each year the outstanding contribution of an individual or
organization to the promotion of dynamic and correct use of the
French language.
Mr. Garneau reminds all Quebecers as well as francophones
across Canada that correct use of a spoken language forms an
integral part of everyday life, both at work and at play.
On behalf of all the members of this House from Quebec, I
would like to pay him a well-deserved tribute.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to draw the attention of the House to the gallery. In our
presence today are family members of police officers who have
been tragically killed in the line of duty.
They have come to Ottawa to take part in the unveiling of a
memorial dedicated to those officers who have made the
ultimate sacrifice during the service and protection of their
communities.
Names like Van der Wiel, Sonnenberg and King may not be
widely known but they should be universally respected. It is that
respect that I am expressing to the families assembled here
today.
The dedication will take place at the Summer Pavilion on the
Hill at 5 p.m.
I encourage all members to take a moment today to remember
those officers who have been our most noble and brave public
servants. May their legacies be a reminder to all of us of the need
to reform our criminal justice system so that no more lives are
needlessly lost to those elements of society who have not
learned to respect the laws of our land.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, as a result of a
1983 blood transfusion, a Nepean constituent became infected
with HIV and consequently developed AIDS. He carried this
devastating disease unknowingly for 10 years before he was
diagnosed with full blown AIDS. As a result of not knowing, his
wife is now an AIDS carrier.
Federal and provincial assistance has been offered to only
those directly affected by HIV tainted blood. They fail to
recognize the secondary victims of this tragedy. This couple had
no way of knowing that he was carrying the HIV. Had they
known, cautionary measures would have been taken.
The primary victim has received financial assistance to help
him in his time of need but who will help the secondary victim,
his wife? I implore the Minister of Health to reopen the federal
extraordinary assistance plan to take into consideration
secondary victims of the tainted blood scandal.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to salute the Fenelon Falls Secondary School girls
2617
curling team which has earned a berth in the upcoming
provincial high school curling championships in Sault Ste.
Marie starting today until March 25.
We have all heard of the surprise performance in sporting
competition, the small conquering the large, the David and
Goliath syndrome. The courageous team I speak of, skip
Jennifer Dickson, vice-skip Andrea Howard, second Cayley
Rodd and lead Christina Dunn, won but a few games in the
Cannington-Lindsay-Fenelon league this year.
However, in true underdog fashion the team peaked at the
right time, finally winning a shootout against Trenton to see
which team would represent central Ontario region at the
all-Ontario provincials.
It is the first team from Fenelon Falls to compete at the
championships and it will face a level of competition never
before experienced.
I salute this team as it heads into uncharted waters and wish it
all the best as it represents all central Ontario schools at the
provincials.
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
there have been repeated calls in this House for reform of MP
pensions, especially in the matter of double dipping. This, as
members know, involves taking a government salary with the
right hand while accepting a government pension with the left.
My colleagues of the Reform Party opposite have been most
eloquent in attacking this practice.
The taxpayer's dollar is the same dollar whether it comes
from provincial pockets or federal pockets. I would therefore
ask my Reform colleagues to join with me in urging that all
parties institute a code of conduct whereby no MP collects a
salary and a taxpayer funded pension at the same time.
I am sure all would agree, for example, that a $61,000 Alberta
government pension on top of an MP's salary is a flagrant
example of double dipping.
The Speaker: I would hope that the statements would be of a
more general nature as we go on.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, it was with
dismay that we heard about Hyundai's decision to suspend
indefinitely the operation of its facilities in Bromont. Over 800
workers will be affected.
The Bloc Quebecois and the people of my region are outraged.
Must I remind that Hyundai received substantial grants from the
federal government to build its facilities in Bromont?
Now, we are told that company officials refuse to meet the
primary stakeholders to discuss the situation. How can a
company like Hyundai treat its workers so offhandedly?
The Bloc Quebecois urges the federal government to act
immediately to preserve these workers' jobs as well as to make
sure this never happens again. More than ever, the government
must manage public funds with a strong hand.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to call the attention of the House to a potential
tragedy for Canadian aviation history.
In a Prince George RCMP hangar rests the Grumman Goose.
This plane was built in 1944, can land on water, snow or ground
and has logged over 24,000 flying hours. It has seen service on
both coasts, in Ottawa and the high Arctic. It has been used for
drug busts, surveillance, rescues and air shows in addition to
ferrying people and equipment.
The RCMP may have to sell this 50-year old plane and the
National Aviation Museum cannot afford the estimated price tag
of $300,000.
I implore the RCMP and the government to reconsider the
possible sale of this plane to give Canadians the time to find
alternatives for raising the money to preserve this piece of our
heritage. If not, the last flight of the Goose will probably take it
out of Canada forever, heading south of the border to the highest
bidder.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Mr.
Speaker, recently I had the pleasure and opportunity to visit CFB
Greenwood and Camp Aldershot in my riding of Annapolis
Valley-Hants.
During my visit to these bases I was most impressed by the
dedication, professionalism and commitment of our men and
women in the Canadian Armed Forces. These men and women
often do their work with little or no public recognition. Yet our
military has made a significant contribution to the maintenance
of international peace and security.
2618
This strong tradition of pride and service is a model for
nations around the world. I am proud of the personnel serving in
CFB Greenwood and Camp Aldershot.
As we embark on foreign defence policy reviews in the
months ahead, I urge all parliamentarians to reflect on the
professionalism of our military and the important role it plays at
home and abroad.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, Kenneth
Kidd, professor emeritus at Trent University, died recently.
He was born in 1906 and educated in Toronto and Chicago. He
was a pioneer of modern archaeology in Canada. His work
included excavating the famous Ste. Marie Among the Hurons
site near Midland, Ontario and a project at the Cartier-Brebeuf
site in Quebec City. He was an early student of petroglyphs in
Canada.
He moved from the Royal Ontario Museum to Trent as
founding chair of the department of anthropology.
In 1969 he founded the first university native studies program
in Canada at Trent. This was a seed well planted as there are now
upwards of 40 such programs across the country.
Ken Kidd and his wife Martha, both distinguished and
productive citizens of Peterborough, received honorary degrees
from Trent in 1990.
I am sure that my colleagues in this House join me in
extending our condolences to Mrs. Kidd.
* * *
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, five sons and daughters of Mabou, Nova Scotia
made their family and their community proud at last Sunday's
Juno Awards in Toronto.
The Rankin Family brought home four Junos including
entertainer of the year, group of the year, country group of the
year and single of the year.
Combining beautiful harmonies and energetic step dancing,
the Rankins have gained international acclaim performing their
unique brand of Celtic music across Canada and around the
world. They are part of the thriving musical culture in eastern
Nova Scotia that has its roots in Canada's Scottish heritage.
We in eastern Nova Scotia are proud to share this rich cultural
heritage with the rest of Canada. We could have no better
ambassadors than the Rankin Family.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
the Minister of International Trade have told us: ``Human rights
are no longer tied to trade'' and business sense.
The Liberals had promised a more ``we'll go it alone''
Canadian foreign policy, one more in line with Lester B.
Pearson's vision. Let the naïve think again! The Liberal
government is sending the way of the trash heap a long-standing
tradition of defending human rights, reducing Canada to the
condition of petty trading nation without any vision, or heart or
soul.
One Liberal minister after another will visit China over the
next few months, but the Canadian ministers will not bring up
the legitimate concerns of Quebecers and Canadians about
human rights issues.
I hope that Canada will come round. There is nothing worse
than a nation losing its soul.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of
people employed in the aluminum industry in Canada, in both
British Columbia and Quebec, to express outrage and contempt
for a policy which will provide a $60 million export credit to
help finance a new aluminum smelter in South Africa.
This deal is tantamount to providing Canadian taxpayer
assistance to construct fish packing plants in Spain or pulp and
paper mills in Brazil. It demonstrates an arrogant and elite
attitude with respect to taxpayers' funds which we on this side of
the House believe should be regarded as funds held in trust.
I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt the vast majority
of Canadians would never support this loan guarantee and this
leads me to believe that this government does not much concern
itself with how Canadians want their affairs managed.
* * *
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday,
March 17 approximately 700 residents of my Cambridge riding
had an opportunity to air their views about the controversial site
for the Kitchener prison for women.
2619
Much of the controversy stemmed from the fact that the
previous Conservative government did not seek input from
residents of Kitchener's Doon-Pioneer Park prior to site
selection. This Liberal government has made a serious effort to
correct the wrongdoings of our predecessor.
The hon. Solicitor General of Canada reopened the file into
the Kitchener prison project shortly after the election. He
provided the residents of Kitchener with an opportunity to voice
their concerns at Thursday's meeting, something that my
constituents have been asking for since the site was announced.
The residents of Doon-Pioneer Park and I would like to thank
the minister for taking the time to listen. We all hope that his
final decision will be a reflection of what was said at Thursday's
meeting.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East): Mr. Speaker, the
world short-track speed skating team championships were held
this past weekend in Cambridge, Ontario.
Félicitations à Nathalie Lambert, Sylvie Daigle, Isabelle
Charest, Christine Boudrias and Angela Cutrone whose
performances assured Canada the women's team title.
[Translation]
On the men's side, the Canadian team made up of Frédéric
Blackburn, Mark Gagnon, Derrick Campbell, Denis Mouraux
and Stephen Gough came in second, behind the South Korean
team. Congratulations!
This was the last competition in Canada for Sylvie Daigle and
Nathalie Lambert, two of the Canadian short track speed skating
team's stars.
[English]
Sylvie and Nathalie have both had exceptional careers and are
to be commended for their dedication to their sport.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville):
Mr. Speaker, due to very difficult economic times in Canada
many Canadians have been forced to practise fiscal restraint and
responsibility.
Canadians from all regions of this country have responded by
tightening their belts and going without many necessities they
could otherwise have. They have done this even though many
others have continued to live high on the hog.
There are many examples of where fiscal restraint has not
been practised to the same degree. One such example is the
recent lavish farewell functions to honour the outgoing
Governor of the Bank of Canada. Almost $30,000 was spent to
bid farewell to John Crow. It is outrageous that Canadians are
expected to foot the bill for this lavish spending.
Mr. Crow spent many years preaching restraint but when it
comes time to depart it seems like one does not practise what
one preaches.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, today a splash of
ice cold reality was flung into the government's face with the
abrupt increase in interest rates which will inevitably send a
shudder through the investment and consumer communities.
The international money lenders have sent an early warning
signal to the federal government by increasing interest rates and
placing pressure on the Canadian dollar. The budget confidence
appears to have lasted only two months.
Did the government address the issue of unemployment in this
budget? No. Did the government make a realistic revenue
estimate in the budget? No. Did the government build higher
interest rates into its estimates of government costs next year?
No.
When rates jump and the dollar falls, the federal deficit will
jump and interest rates will be forced up. As a Chinese proverb
says, unless we change directions we will likely end up where
we are headed.
_____________________________________________
2619
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Without waiting for the results of its foreign policy review,
the government has already made its decision. It has made a 180
degree turn and set a course that is guided by strictly
commercial interests, thereby turning its back on protecting
human rights.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would confirm
that his government intends to promote Canada's trading
relations at the expense of human rights. I also want to ask him
whether on his trip in China, he will allude to the oppressive
policies of this dictatorial regime only in very polite terms and
in private, on the weak-kneed advice of his Minister of Foreign
Affairs.
2620
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
whenever we have a chance, we raise the issue of human rights
throughout the world, and that includes when we discuss politics
with the Chinese. We also discuss the problem when it is time to
make decisions on distributing envelopes for development
assistance.
However, we realize that we must maintain normal trading
relations with China as with other countries. We also believe, as
has been the case in the Soviet Union, that these countries
become more open as a result of economic growth and trade with
democratic countries, and that when they experience the
benefits of market economies and democratic freedoms,
obviously attitudes change.
When I go to China, I intend to raise the issue of human rights,
but at the same time, I would like to maintain normal trading
relations with that country. I think this is the best way for
Canada to protect our commercial interests and at the same time
be present so that we can raise the issue of human rights with the
authorities of that country.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that by letting
commercial interests prevail over human rights, Canada is
relinquishing its historic responsibility, since the Prime
Minister knows perfectly well that polite comments behind
closed doors will have no impact on foreign leaders who
systematically violate human rights? I would like to ask him
whether that is why Canada did not express public support for
U.S. protests against China on the issue of human rights.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we always raise this issue, and we did. We have an international
policy that is different and does not depend on the position of the
United States, and I think Canadians want Canada to take an
independent position in this respect. For instance, we were the
first country, well before the United States, to recognize China.
It was not until after Canada recognized China that the United
States did so.
I think Canada has always raised the issue of human rights and
has always traded with China. Under the Diefenbaker
government, we were already selling wheat to China. We have
had trading relations with the Soviet Union, and we always
raised the issue of human rights. We did not change our
priorities, but we know, and we say this quite frankly, that it is
no use being holier than thou. If I told the President of China,
who represents 1.2 billion people, that the Prime Minister of
Canada was telling him what to do, he would laugh in my face. I
think the best way to accomplish something is to help this
country develop its potential, and once they have had many
exchanges with the Western world, they will understand the
benefits of democracy and respect for human rights and
economic progress in a market economy.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): The
Chinese leaders are not going to be impressed by our dollars.
What they will respect is an international conscience which
Canada has always brought to bear throughout the world and on
which its present prestige in the world is based.
There is a clear lack of continuity between the great
international accomplishments that are largely the work of the
Liberal Party, and its heirs here in the House today, who are
frittering away that legacy.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether this means that
on his trip to Mexico, he will not raise the issue of human rights
violations in the province of Chiapas with the Mexican
President, although as a trading partner, he will be in a position
to do so.
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
as soon as we were informed of the problems in Chiapas, we sent
a note of protest to the Mexican government. If you read the
notes that came from Mexico, you would see that we were one of
the first countries to do so and one of the countries that protested
most vigorously.
Nevertheless, we believe that it is normal to have trading
relations with Mexico. I am surprised to hear the Leader of the
Opposition say we should not have trading relations with
Mexico and China because we do not like the way they govern
their countries.
We have always had trading relations, and it would be
hypocrisy to claim that we can cut off our trading relations with
countries with whom we disagree on the issue of human rights.
We have always traded with China, the Soviet Union and
Mexico. We intend to continue and to raise the issue of
fundamental freedoms at the same time.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
as expected, the Dominion Bond Rating Service of Toronto
lowered the federal government's credit rating yesterday,
justifying its move by the government's inability to put its fiscal
house in order. This lower rating, which will translate into
hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the taxpayers of
Quebec and Canada, revives the spectre of major hikes in
interest rates, a scenario which occurred before under the
Liberals in the early 1980s.
Does the Minister of Finance not agree that this lower rating is
tantamount to an unequivocal condemnation of Canada by the
financial community, signalling the failure of his budget with
regard to public spending control?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, in lowering this rating,
the
2621
DBRS was following the lead taken by another agency last year,
that is to say before our budget. So, no connection can possibly
be made between our budget and what has just happened.
Second, this rating relates to only 2 per cent of our debt,
namely foreign currency. As for the budget, it is very
unequivocal. Our goal is to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent
of the gross domestic product within three years. We will
achieve our goal and ultimately eliminate the deficit. That is our
goal and we will achieve it.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
the Dominion Bond Rating Service quotes explicitly the budget
as the reason for lowering the credit rating.
Does the Minister of Finance not recognize that failing to take
seriously our proposal, the Bloc Quebecois proposal, to review
and cut the fat in federal government expenditures was a bad
move and that such an irresponsible move could end up costing
the people of Quebec and Canada hundreds of thousands of
dollars, while at the same time causing job losses and allowing
interest rates to skyrocket?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I have not heard the
Bloc Quebecois propose any cuts. All I heard was: ``Do not
touch military bases. Do not touch unemployment insurance. No
reform. No restructuring. Do not do a single thing.'' That is the
Bloc's position. So, we have no lesson to take from them.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
last week we asked the Prime Minister if he would respond to the
falling dollar and rising interest rates by making a stronger
commitment to deficit reduction.
The Prime Minister refused to do so and now just yesterday, as
has been mentioned, the Dominion Bond Rating Service
downgraded its credit rating on the federal government foreign
currency debt.
The DBRS said in making its downgrading that the federal
government policies are not stringent enough to get the
government out of the debt trap and if it wants a better rating it
will have to include some meaningful spending reductions in the
1995 budget.
Is the Prime Minister now prepared to direct the finance
minister to bring forward a stronger deficit reduction program
before the government's credit rating is further downgraded?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, what the DBRS said was that we have a
high level of foreign debt at the federal-provincial level, that is
the corporate level. That is true. That is the situation. We as a
country are heavily indebted at the federal and provincial levels
and it is going require co-operation with the provinces which we
have already begun, and that is true.
(1425)
The Dominion Bond Rating Service said that our productivity
is up, our inflation rates are down and there is great room for
strength within this economy. It also said that it was putting the
downgrade on but 2 per cent of our foreign debt and it
maintained the triple-A level on our Canadian debt.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question.
Surely the finance minister is not suggesting that this
downgrading was done lightly or frivolously. Surely members
across the way know that the eyes of investors and borrowers are
on the frontbenches of government, looking for signs as they are
worried about the government's fiscal situation.
Is not the minister concerned that this downgrading could be
the beginning of a trend and what steps is he taking to prevent
downgrading of all of Canada's outstanding debt?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, first of all our budget was well received
by the majority of the rating agencies.
Second, we very clearly set out that in the first stage of our
budget that we were going to arrive in three years at a deficit
target of 3 per cent of GDP and it will be the first time in the last
15 to 20 years that that has been attained.
Furthermore, we said this is the first stage of a two-stage
budget. We also said that cutting at the margins and nibbling at
the edges does not apply. Fundamental reform to unemployment
insurance, to defence, and the way the government operates is
what is required and that is what this government is going to do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, it
is not how members of this House, either on this side or that
side, react to the government's signals. It is how the money
markets react and that reaction has been negative.
Increasing scepticism that the federal government is not
really prepared to come to grips with the deficit problem is now
leading to concerns that the government may attempt to inflate
its way out of a portion of its debt and cause interest rates to rise,
the bank rate today rising from 4.25 per cent to 5 per cent.
Will the minister assure the House that the government will
resort to deeper spending cuts before it will allow inflation rates
to rise above present levels?
2622
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the only inflation I hear
about in this House is that party that wants to inflate the number
of members of Parliament who are in this House.
Let us be very clear. Prior to Christmas the Government of
Canada and the Governor of the Bank of Canada arrived at a set
of monetary targets which we did within the first month of
taking office, something that it took the previous government
two and a half years to arrive at. Those monetary targets are
among the most stringent of any industrial country in the world
and we are very proud of them.
This is a low inflation country. We have paid a great penalty to
get there. We are not going to lose the benefit. We are going to
remain a low inflation country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Yesterday the minister encouraged us to continue reading the
Toronto Star. Well, this morning I took him at his word. I learned
that at least five Canadian publishing houses had already
expressed an interest in acquiring control of Ginn Publishing.
How does the minister explain the fact that the CDIC has not
responded to Canadian publishers interested in purchasing Ginn
Publishing? Furthermore, will the minister recognize the need
to conduct an inquiry into the actions of the CDIC, which has
systematically rejected all efforts made by Canadian publishers
to buy Ginn Publishing?
(1430)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we were fortunate to have a few documents
tabled. They clearly indicated that certain Canadian publishers
were interested in buying Ginn. However, I did not see a specific
purchase offer in these documents.
We are not so much concerned about events which took place
nearly 10 years ago as we are about what has happened since this
government took office. And I have seen no direct offer to
purchase Ginn since this government has been at the helm.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, it is surprising, nonetheless, that no purchase offer has
been made. The CDIC had promised to issue a monthly
prospectus and it has not done so. Therefore, the minister must
admit today that while no offer has been made, some interest has
been expressed nevertheless. An offer can be made if there is a
prospectus. But this government never issued one.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): How can the
Minister of Canadian Heritage seriously continue to claim that
the CDIC was determined to sell Ginn to Canadian interests, but
received no serious offer, when the evidence he has points to the
contrary? Will he not agree that he is losing all personal
credibility as far as this matter is concerned?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am not the manager of the CDIC. I do not have the
financial skills to take on that job. Moreover, I do not think it is
up to the Minister of Heritage to start doing some advertising
outside his field.
My area of responsibility is Canadian cultural policy.
Regarding this matter, I have stated clearly on several occasions
that I consider Ginn to be an exception. While admittedly this
may not have been a particularly fortunate transaction, the
policy itself is sound. It calls for supporting and protecting the
Canadian cultural industry, including the publishing industry.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister for International Trade.
I wrote to the minister several weeks ago expressing objection
to his announcement of a $60 million U.S. credit arrangement to
finance a new South African aluminium smelter.
In his response the minister stated that several Canadian
companies either received or retained business contracts as a
direct result of this export credit.
Officials from the South African embassy informed my staff
that only one Canadian company, SNC-Lavalin, is directly
contracted on this project, that they secured their contract
almost two years ago and were well under way prior to the
federal government's credit deal.
Will the minister be forthright and tell the House precisely
what motivated the government's decision to extend almost a
$100 million Canadian credit for this South African smelter
project?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on a previous occasion about the
number of companies participating it was under the umbrella of
SNC-Lavalin in Montreal which has the contract for the design
of the plant.
The other companies that are gaining the benefit are suppliers
to and associates of the principal contractor.
2623
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question. Does the minister not acknowledge
that the use of Canadian taxpayers' funds to assist in the
construction of aluminium smelters in South Africa is extremely
unfair to the British Columbians and Quebecers employed in the
aluminium industry who pay those taxes?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
No, Mr. Speaker. It is our expectation that any excess supplies
on world markets will disappear by the time the proposed
refinery comes into full operation. We do not believe it will have
any adverse impact on the Canadian aluminium industry.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Canadian Heritage decided to allow the sale of Ginn
Publishing to Paramount only for fear of being sued by
Paramount.
(1435)
The Star quoted Paramount's lawyer, Mr. Grover, who
yesterday ruled out the possibility of Paramount suing the
minister if only the minister had stood up to them.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Now
that I have reassured the minister that he no longer has any
reason to fear being sued, will he do what he should have done
from the beginning in the Ginn Publishing case and cancel the
sale to Paramount?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised to discover that our colleague's advisors
are Americans. Mine are Canadians and I believe what they tell
me.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, for the
minister's information, it is the Toronto lawyer of Paramount
who made that statement. Toronto is still in Canada, Mr.
Speaker. Tell the minister that! It is not very far from Kingston
either.
Not only do we read English-language newspapers but we
usually read a contract before we sign it. Since Paramount's
lawyer himself expresses serious doubts about his client suing
the Canadian government, it would be rather surprising if the
government's lawyers had produced a legal opinion without any
reservations that would have prevented the minister from going
back on the deal.
Does the minister, who has failed miserably in his first test as
defender of Canada's cultural heritage, not believe that he
should table the legal opinion to show that he is really above
reproach on this?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to know that the lawyers in question
are Canadians but I believe that they serve an American master.
As for the legal opinion, I am pleased to be asked this question
in this House after being asked the same question outside the
House, as this opinion contains quotations from Cabinet
documents which, according to the settlement negotiated
between a previous government and this one, cannot be
presented in this House. I abide by this rule.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
On February 14, I asked the minister why he had approved a
$60 million credit for the construction of a new aluminium
smelter in South Africa, when this plant will be competing
directly against Canadian producers.
The aluminium industry is very important for Canada,
especially British Columbia and Quebec, since almost 10,000
people are employed in our ten smelters. These plants are
located in Shawinigan and in nine other ridings represented by
members of the Official Opposition. In recent years, hundreds of
Quebecers-
The Speaker: Order. Would the hon. member please put his
question.
Mr. Ringma: Does the minister admit that this new
aluminium smelter in South Africa poses a direct threat to the
job security of thousands of workers in Quebec and British
Columbia?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
No, Mr. Speaker, the smelter in South Africa will not come on
stream until late 1996. I do not believe at that time there will be
any adverse impact on the prospects of Canadian aluminium
companies and workers.
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, I
want to ask a supplementary question. Does the minister not
agree that the markets normally control excess production
through spending cuts or plant closures? Is the minister
implying, by predicting a better balance between supply and
demand, that we can expect more cuts and layoffs in the
Canadian aluminium industry?
2624
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, the current difficulties in the aluminium industry
basically arise from the supply excess from Russia.
I believe the glut that is now on the international market will
resolve itself through the more orderly marketing of Russian
excess production and in the near future we will see a return to
more normal circumstances in the world aluminium trade.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance, who is also
responsible for regional development in Quebec. In answer to a
question on the future of the Hyundai plant in Bromont, the
Minister of Finance confirmed yesterday that he had begun
discussions with the Quebec government and with Hyundai, in
order to find an alternative proposal. Today, we learned that
none of the big three American automakers showed any interest.
Given the refusal of GM, Ford and Chrysler to take over the
Bromont facility, can the minister tell us what alternatives are
being considered by the federal government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, this Friday, officials
from the Quebec Government, the Federal Office of Regional
Development and Hyundai will meet, and we hope that the
company will propose a recovery plan or some options.
Following this meeting, senior officials from both governments
will meet with us, that is myself as minister responsible for the
Federal Office, the federal Minister of Industry, and Quebec
government's officials, at which time appropriate decisions can
be made.
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker, I
hope that Hyundai will give these people a better reception than
this morning, when it refused to meet with the mayors. Given
that Hyundai did not respect the commitments it had made to get
government grants, does the minister intend to recoup the $26
million paid by the federal to the company, and will he pledge to
reinvest that money to develop sub-contracting activities in
Quebec's auto industry, so as to alleviate the impact of the
closure of Hyundai's plant, until the facility reopens?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the money provided,
that is $23 million by the federal but $46 million in total by the
two levels of government, is guaranteed. It is protected. What
we will do really depends on the outcome of the discussions
which will be initiated on Friday with the company.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
The Ontario government is embarking on a new system of
long term health care reform for seniors which will favour the
not for profit home care providers, eliminating the commercial
provider agencies. As well 20,000 health care workers are
employed in Ontario by the private sector agencies.
What does the minister intend to do to ensure that the federal
tax dollars transferred to the Ontario government are spent in a
cost effective manner?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada transfers a great deal of money to the
provinces to provide extended health services for home care,
residential care and nursing home care. Approximately $550
million goes to Ontario alone.
I must add that the Canada Health Act does not dictate how
these dollars should be spent other than to say that they are for
extended health care. We believe they are being spent in this
manner.
(1445)
The exercise of how the dollars are spent and how they
organize extended health care is under provincial jurisdiction.
I would emphasize however that I believe they should
seriously consider continuing private enterprise in terms of jobs
in that sector as it is a cost effective manner of delivering the
services within some non-profit agencies.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister of agriculture.
Many Canadian farmers say they would like to choose
between marketing their product through the Canadian Wheat
Board, other grain companies or directly with buyers in the
United States or other countries.
What steps is the minister taking to give farmers the choice
they want and allow farmers and others to compete with the
Canadian Wheat Board?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, a variety of representations have
been received by me on this particular point. The
representations go both ways. Some farmers and farm
organizations are
2625
strongly advocating support for the Canadian Wheat Board and
its traditional strength as a marketing agency on behalf of
Canadian farmers. Others are taking a different point of view
and supporting the argument that is contained in the question
that has just been asked.
As I say, I am receiving a large number of these
representations. Some of them propose the notion of a plebiscite
as a method of resolving this controversy on the prairies with
respect to grain marketing systems.
To those who have proposed the notion of a plebiscite I have
responded with a number of technical questions that I think they
ought to address and think carefully about before rushing to
embrace that particular form of solution.
At this moment in time, to my knowledge, I have not received
any replies to those questions but I anticipate I will. That will be
a part of the input that the government will take into account as
we consider this question.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question for the minister.
Canadian grain farmers have been demanding for years that
the wheat board be democratized and that the board monopoly
be brought to an end.
In a recent poll only 29 per cent of grain farmers want the
wheat board to remain the sole marketer of barley to the United
States.
When will the government stop resisting farmers' requests for
more choices in marketing their barley and hold a plebiscite on
this issue?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, in response to the first question, I
indicated there were a number of serious issues that those who
advocate the notion of a plebiscite might want to consider very
carefully, one being the legal basis on which a plebiscite might
be held.
Those who recall the previous government might remember
that government was ensnared in some rather serious legal
difficulties because it acted without the proper legal authority,
according to the Federal Court of Canada.
There are a whole range of other questions having to do with
the structure, the voting list, the wording of the question and the
kind of majority required to carry the question. There are eight
or nine technical and logistical questions that need to be
answered very seriously before one would rush to embrace this
particular proposal.
I have put those questions very seriously and sincerely to
those who advocate the notion of a plebiscite. I await, with a
great deal of interest, their response to those questions.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of
Human Resources Development stated that the federal
government had no plans to introduce specific adjustment
programs to help workers who lose their jobs because of recent
international trade agreements. Once again, the Liberal
government is doing an about-face on a major economic issue.
Before the election, the Liberal Party stressed in particular the
need for free trade adjustment measures.
My question is as follows: Can the Prime Minister confirm
that his government does not intend to introduce specific
adjustment programs for workers displaced by NAFTA,
considering that this was a sine qua non condition for his
supporting NAFTA?
(1450)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member I
would like to point out that in addition to the NAFTA agreement
we have also just signed a major agreement on the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. A number of other major
changes are taking place internationally.
When I answered the question I said we are not providing
specific adjustment for one event; we are providing adjustment
for all workers affected by major changes internationally and we
will continue to do that.
I would simply say to the hon. member she could be far more
helpful if she participated in the development of those
adjustment programs rather than opposing them as she has for
the last several months.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister believes that the recent reform of the unemployment
insurance program is the way to help workers affected by
NAFTA and GATT, I would like to suggest some very
enlightening reading material to him.
The red book will soon be a source of embarrassment for the
Liberals. It states the following and I quote: ``Governments
must assist individuals and firms to deal with the restructuring
that is occurring as a result of trade liberalization. Such
assistance is critical to building acceptance of structural
reforms in the Canadian economy''.
After criticizing the Conservative government so harshly, the
Liberals are taking exactly the same attitude. Why are you
reneging on your party's commitments?
2626
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, first let me say how pleased I am
that the hon. member has finally read the red book.
Worker adjustment is a very important concern of this
government. That is why we have introduced a number of
training and adjustment initiatives as well as program changes
and made counselling available. The purpose of job training and
social security program renewal initiatives is to help Canadian
workers grappling with the problem of change in the business
world and with changing working conditions in Canada.
Our government is deeply committed to helping all Canadian
workers, not just a small select group.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
last week the Minister of Transport was asked a question
regarding the approval of a casino on the Vancouver waterfront
by the Vancouver Port Corporation. He responded that the
government has nothing to do with this decision, stating that an
independent board is responsible for deciding these matters.
Could the minister explain to the House how this board is
appointed and what criteria is used in determining who receives
these appointments?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
just to clarify a part of the questioner's premise in respect to the
decision, I want to make it clear that the definition of what will
be acceptable in any province with respect to gambling or
casinos is within the purview of the provincial jurisdiction and
that is what I meant in answer to that question earlier from the
hon. member.
With respect to the criteria used in making nominations to any
boards for which the government will be responsible, the
primary consideration of course is competence.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): I have a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Both the unions and the shipping companies recommended
the reappointment of Patrick Reid, the past chairman of the
Vancouver Port Corporation. They all agreed he was doing a
great job.
Despite this unusual show of solidarity the Prime Minister
and cabinet approved the appointment of Mr. Ron Longstaffe to
this $65,000 part time position.
(1455 )
The former campaign manager for the hon. member for
Vancouver Centre has been quoted as saying that he has been a
supporter of the Prime Minister for 10 years and that is all part
of the political-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The question.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): The question is
does the minister still maintain that the decisions reached by this
board are independent and not influenced by his government?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
once the hon. member is a member of a party that develops a bit
of history, he also will be able to refer to people who have
supported his party for a long time. It is certainly not something
that any of us are looking forward to.
With respect to the decisions that are made by port authorities
in various parts of the country, it is the intention of the
government that local autonomy be an important part of any
decision making process.
Beyond that, and I want to make it very clear, at the port of
Vancouver, the port of Montreal or any other of the facilities
under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada we always
insist on people being appointed who have a national vision of
their responsibilities.
* * *
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): Mr. Speaker,
my question is also for the Minister of Transport.
The Grain Transportation Agency announced last week that to
fill the grain sales of committed grain and the grain that we will
be selling until the end of July, the railways need an additional
5,000 hopper cars.
Without these additional cars, grain sales will suffer and the
ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay will suffer
serious slowdowns. We know the 5,000 cars are neither
affordable nor available.
Will the minister order today that all hopper cars be used
exclusively within Canada and forbid the use of hopper cars east
of the port of Thunder Bay? Will he continue to order under
section 17(4) of the Grain Transportation Act the use of truck
transportation where feasible so that this grain can get to
market?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank the hon. member for his question.
We have gone through this before. As the hon. member
knows, it was partly in response to his request that we were able
to enter into a special arrangement that allowed for trucks to
convey some of the grain.
2627
The hon. member will know that the experiment was not
terribly successful but we would want to look at any options that
will allow for the efficient transportation of grain to market. We
certainly will take the hon. member's comments into
consideration and come to a decision.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We are in the
middle of Francophonie Week and the government keeps
making high-sounding statements about the importance of the
French fact and its place in the world, but in reality its policies in
support of Canada's French-speaking people are much less
generous.
In view of some discrepancies between his own statements
and those of his senior officials, can the minister confirm that
funding for the Federation of Acadian and Francophone
Communities in Canada will not be cut by 5 per cent?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to say that we have managed to spare
communities such as the one he just mentioned from existing
cuts in my department.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Last week the media in British Columbia reported two
instances of a disturbing trend in the drug trade. In Nanaimo, an
undercover RCMP officer went to a residence to make a drug
buy. While the suspect was not home, the transaction was
completed by her eight-year old daughter. Likewise in another
undercover buy in Vancouver, the drug dealer used his six-year
old son to carry the drugs.
What steps is the minister prepared to take to protect children
from this criminal exploitation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
touched on a subject of grave concern to members of the
government. I saw those reports last week and was horrified by
them as I am sure the hon. member was.
As I said on January 27 when I spoke in the debate on the
speech from the throne and outlined the initiatives we have in
mind for both strengthening the criminal law of the country and
focusing on crime prevention, we will not tolerate conduct that
induces children into the commission of crimes.
(1500 )
I said at that time that there are sections now in the Criminal
Code that make it a criminal offence to use children in the
commission of crimes and I called upon the provincial
authorities to enforce those provisions vigilantly. I intend to
continue in that effort. Beginning tonight, I am meeting for two
and a half days with my provincial and territorial counterparts.
This among many other important justice issues is on the
agenda. I can assure the hon. member we will take all reasonable
steps to ensure that this does not happen again.
The Speaker: It being 3 p.m., I have a point of order from the
hon. Minister of Transport.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I want to rise on a point of order to respect an undertaking I made
in this House on March 11.
On that date in responding to a question from an hon. member
I expressed the concern many of us had about the safety of
minivans as a result of some reports in the press. I indicated I
would have my department look into the matter because it was a
serious question.
I am now able to report my officials have informed me that
testing results and accident data indicate that minivans offer a
level of passenger safety comparable to that of other passenger
vehicles.
I would point out for the benefit of members that there is no
requirement for minivans to be equipped with bumpers because
it has not been demonstrated they would improve the safety of
vehicle occupants.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for permitting me to respect the
undertaking I made in the House several days ago.
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. minister recognizes that
there could have been other venues but I am glad he shared the
information with this House.
_____________________________________________
2627
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, the motion
before us today as proposed by the Bloc Quebecois reads that
this House deplores the absence of vision and concrete measures
from the government with regard to policies directed toward job
creation.
2628
It seems to me that actually this House should be saddened by
the absence of vision of this government in terms of job
creation.
It certainly saddens me that the leaders on the government
side have been in politics for so long that they really have no
idea any more of how jobs are created in the private sector.
During the 1993 election campaign the now Prime Minister
took the position that the economy simply needed a kick-start
and that the infrastructure program proposed by the government
would be that kick-start.
At the time the leader of the Reform Party stated that trying to
start the Canadian economy with a $6 billion infrastructure
program was like trying to start a 747 with a flashlight battery.
Six billion dollars represents such a tiny portion of the gross
domestic product that any effects of it are probably impossible
to measure. If I were grading the performance of the Prime
Minister I would have to say that he earned a D for believing it
was possible to kick-start the economy with a $6 billion
infrastructure program. If he were playing a game with the
public vote I would have to award him an A+ for his ability to
convince the public that this would actually work.
Just how much of a kick-start to the economy is this program?
Statistics Canada puts the gross domestic product for Canada for
1992, that is, the sum of all the goods and services produced, at
$688.5 billion. The $6 billion job creation scheme at $3 billion
per year for two years represents just .44 per cent of the gross
domestic product. That is less than half a per cent of the gross
domestic product. How could anyone seriously think that could
kick-start the economy?
(1505)
To put things in perspective, it is a little bit like a family with
a gross income of $60,000 per year winning $264 in Lotto 649.
What difference would it make to its living standards? It would
not even pay for the kick-starter on a motor bike.
I have to wonder whether the members on the government
side ever bothered to do the calculations or whether they just
took the red book at face value. If they just accepted the red book
proposal without doing the calculations then every single one of
them should be ashamed for failing to show leadership, for
failing to do the basic research that is essential if we are to be
leaders.
On the other hand, if they did the calculation and came to the
obvious conclusion, realized the implications and still failed to
tell their constituents then they should be ashamed for deceiving
the voters. There is no way out for the government members.
They must admit to lack of research ability or they must admit to
deception.
Reluctantly I must give them all a D for deception or an F for
failure.
Think about who is paying the price for this boondoggle. The
federal government is putting up one third, the provinces are
putting up one third and the municipalities are putting up one
third. There is only one taxpayer. Clearly this money has to
come from the taxpayers and since the federal and provincial
governments are running deficits, obviously it has to be
borrowed. At the municipal level at which they are not permitted
to run deficits it will obviously increase property taxes.
The whole program is a disgrace. We may benefit in the short
run but it will be our children and grandchildren who carry the
mortgage into the future.
I know that government members are itching to say: ``Will
you take the share of the infrastructure program in your
riding?''. I know they think they can paint me into a corner on
that. The people of North Vancouver have to carry their share of
the debt burden for this program so it is only just that they take
their share of it as well.
Nobody wants to pay interest on somebody else's loan for
infrastructure and neither do the taxpayers of North Vancouver
want to pay interest on somebody else's infrastructure program
in Canada. We will take our share but it does not mean that we
agree with the program.
Prior to being elected I was in business for 13 years. I owned
and managed a successful communications company with a staff
of 10 until 1990 when I sold that business to start a leasing
company. That company specializes in leasing to the small
business sector, particularly home based businesses. Many of
my friends are business people employing staff in the range of
10 to 15. I understand small business and I know what helps
create jobs. I know what it is like to meet a payroll. I also know
the job killing effects of excess taxation.
This is something that many of the government members do
not know because they have always worked in the public sector,
they have always been aldermen, they have always been
politicians. How could they know what it is like? Their pay
cheques arrive in their bank accounts each month and they have
always done so. It is easy for them to broaden the tax base
because they do not have to foot the bill.
However, let me explain what is like to be in a small business
in which everything is so competitive that one does not get the
choice of raising the prices the same way that the government
can raise taxes.
On the sale of a fax machine for $600, a typical dealer in that
industry will make about $75. That is the gross profit. In B.C.
the combined GST and PST comes to $84. The two levels of
government get $9 more than the dealer does for the sale of that
product. Out of the $75 the business has to pay all the overhead,
the salaries and the commissions and, if there is anything left
over, 25 per cent tax on what remains.
2629
In any particular month a business may have to remit income
taxes, employee deductions, GST, PST, municipal taxes,
workers compensation and property taxes. It is very
disheartening for small business people to be remitting two or
three times as much tax as they make for the companies and
themselves. This is the single biggest disincentive to job
creation. It causes business owners to avoid expansion. It causes
them to avoid staff hiring because of the support costs. It
encourages an underground economy full of cash only deals.
Excessive taxation is killing jobs and forcing honest people into
a tax revolt.
(1510)
Compare this situation with a place like Hong Kong where the
tax rate for corporations is only around 15 per cent and the
unemployment rate is only 1 per cent. Nobody minds paying
their taxes when they get to keep 85 per cent of what they earn.
It is time that this government admitted it has a spending
problem, not a revenue problem, and began taking steps to
drastically reduce government spending. If it would do this the
business sector would realize that something is finally being
done about government spending, confidence would be restored
and there would be a promise of tax relief in the future. This
would encourage business expansion and the creation of new
jobs.
I know this is true because I am from the small business
sector, which is more than many of the government members can
say for themselves. The light at the end of the tunnel would turn
back on again and companies would begin reinvesting in new
jobs and expansion.
We need to move the emphasis away from the public sector.
We need to move it away from the public sector to the private
sector if we are ever going to again experience a strong and
healthy Canadian economy with the potential for adequate new
job creation.
This House should be saddened by the lack of vision of the
government side and I urge the government to take a real look at
the situation. It is not magic, it just common sense. If we could
get our corporate tax level down there would be a rush of all
those businesses that have relocated into the United States back
into Canada to create jobs for the people who need to live and
work here.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Madam Speaker, I would like
to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and assure him that I
come from the small business sector as well. I am a chartered
accountant and worked many years with small businesses and I
even have two or three of my own small businesses still in
operation. Much to his chagrin, that is just not the case on the
government side of this House.
The hon. member made a comparison between Hong Kong
and Canada. That is very easy to do. He talks about a 15 per cent
income tax rate, but he did not really tell us about whether Hong
Kong has a medicare system or whether it has other kinds of
social welfare systems that the people of Canada have learned to
expect and live with.
I wonder if the hon. member could mention some of those
points.
Mr. White (North Vancouver)): Madam Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his two questions.
I am pleased to know that he has been involved in the small
business sector. As a chartered accountant, which he says he is,
he would know the tax difficulties that small businesses face. An
accountant spends most of his time trying to help small
businesses with their tax problems. Everybody knows that the
taxes are too high.
I would also thank the member for bringing up the situation of
Hong Kong. I put it into my speech exactly to elicit that sort of
question.
Obviously Hong Kong is at the other extreme from Canada at
which there are no social programs but everybody is working
because they absolutely have to.
I would not suggest that we turn Canada into that sort of
situation. I do believe that there is a position somewhere
between where we are now and the situation that is represented
by Hong Kong that would be a much better place for Canada to
be today.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): Madam Speaker, in
listening to my friend in the Reform Party talk about the $6
billion as representing such an infinitesimal part of the gross
domestic product, it makes me wonder if he has ever been a
farmer or ever been a gardener and planted a seed. When one
plants a seed it grows and it bathes in the sunlight and takes
nutrients from the soil and multiplies. That is exactly what this
infrastructure program is intended to do. It is the seed that we
have planted.
(1515)
In the great riding of Halton-Peel I have had reports from the
municipalities which say that the choices they have made for
infrastructure renewal will have a spin-off effect in those
municipalities for the next 10 to 15 years. Therefore, I would say
to the hon. member that when he is thinking about this
investment in infrastructure this is not just a two-year wonder
that will employ a few people and then end. If the projects are
well chosen, I can assure him that it will help greatly with
economic renewal in this country.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, I thank the
member for mentioning the $6 billion job creation program
again. The B.C. share represents only .33 per cent of the
spending on infrastructure for this year. It is very tiny.
2630
The member raised the comparison with a seed. Before
getting into this position I used to grow my own vegetables so I
know how a tiny seed can grow into a very large plant. In this
case, although the government may have the intention of
planting a seed and having it grow, we all know in our hearts that
it is not going to work. There may be the occasional good
program that comes out of this but there are plenty of examples
already. I made a statement in this House about this a few days
ago. There are already many examples of where this
infrastructure program is being used for political rewards:
private boxes in stadiums and things that do not contribute to the
overall benefit of society.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Madam Speaker,
I have a couple of comments and a question for the hon. member
from Vancouver.
I do not think we Liberals need to take any lessons from the
Reform Party when it comes to small business. We realize how
important small and medium sized businesses are to the
economy. It has been said many times and I will repeat it here.
Small and medium sized companies have produced about 85 per
cent of the new jobs in this country in the past few years. They
are an important segment of the economy.
I would warn the hon. member from Vancouver to be careful
in his simplicity about reducing taxation. I know that taxation is
sensitive and one can take taxation too far with respect to
business. In many cases we have taken it too far. When he uses
the Hong Kong example, I can come back with the example of
the United States of America which has an unemployment rate
of about 6.5 per cent. It sounds good at the surface but there is an
enormous price to pay for that because of their inability to
distribute wealth in any reasonable way. The United States of
America has an enormous problem when it comes to poverty.
Poverty turns into disaster. There is the matter of crime in the
United States. It is directly attributable to poverty.
When the hon. member talks about taxation he should also be
very mindful about distribution of wealth or does he not care
about the distribution of wealth? Would he just leave it to the
marketplace and all of its inherent injustices?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, since I have
to be brief I will only make a comment on the distribution of
wealth.
It is well known that if one took 100 per cent of the income
from all of the people who earn more than $100,000 a year and
gave it all to the poor, they would get a couple of hundred dollars
each. What use is it taking money off people with high taxes on
this pretext of redistributing wealth? It does not work.
(1520 )
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Good
afternoon, Madam Speaker. I extend my congratulations on your
Speakership. This is my first opportunity when Madam Speaker
was in the chair to say that and I wanted to very much.
Now I want to do some other things. My good friend from
Mercier brings before this House a resolution. Let me say
something else, Madam Speaker, that as long winded as I love to
be, I am going to be all of 10 minutes because my good friend
from Durham is going to follow me for the second 10 minutes of
our 20 minute period.
My friend from Mercier would have the House deplore the
government's lack of vision and lack of concrete measures
relating to job creation policies.
I say to her that is a marvellous resolution. It is certainly
grammatically correct. All the words are in the right place. It is
procedurally correct. It is in the correct form for the House. It is
certainly politically correct. That is what an opposition
normally does. It says that it is not good enough, we want more.
Procedural, political and grammatical are three of the four
litmus tests that one must always apply to any resolution before
this Chamber.The fourth is whether the motion is substantively
correct. Is it correct in substance?
My friend from North Vancouver as always is in the Chamber.
He is nodding so vociferously I have a feeling he has something
going with the member for Mercier. He must have written the
resolution. He is pleased with the wording in the resolution and
annoyed at me for suggesting it might not be absolutely letter
perfect.
How gracious do you want me to be? I have already conceded
that it is at least three parts correct, so we are 75 per cent of the
way there.
Let us look at the other 25 per cent. Is it correct in substance?
By analogy I say to her you can lament the poverty of a rich man,
but that does not render him poor. You can cry in your beer about
the low alcoholic content of your beverage, it will dilute the
beer, but otherwise will not prove your overall thesis.
The smart thing to do, I say to the member, before rushing out
to deplore, to lament or to cry in your beer is to analyse the beer,
find out what it is you are about to deplore, and satisfy yourself
that you know what you are talking about before you begin
deploring it, let alone talk about it.
What are some of the cold hard facts? There are several, but
there is a word in this motion, I love it, vision. Vision connotes
something down the road. It suggests that somebody back there
had some perception of what ought to be or what might be and so
you say to yourself: ``Who's the author of this resolution''.
Ostensibly it is the member for Mercier, my good friend, but just
possibly it is her House leader.
2631
(1525 )
Just possibly it is her leader. Just possibly it is a committee
project. Perhaps all 54 had a hand in this. I do not see too many
taking credit, but let us give her credit. She is at least the author
of record and she uses the word vision. Let us look at the vision
of the author because it is very insightful.
Could it be the same author who wrote a document called ``A
New Party for the Turning Point'' last May? Could it be the
author of a document that was circulated widely during the
election of last fall in Quebec? Could it be the document that
talked extensively about the separation of Quebec? I understand
that because it is a publicly stated part of the party's platform. I
have no difficulty as a matter of principle with that being in the
document. It would be deceptive on the part of the party if that
were not in the document. I do not decry that. However, since
this is a party that decries the lack of vision of others then the
implicit question is this: How about its vision on this same
subject?
We go to the document. They had a fair amount of hindsight
on page 7 of the document, the first reference on employment. It
says that naturally there has been a considerable increase in
unemployment. That is not exactly vision. It is not a bad
observation but it is based on past experience, not on what might
be.
Then we slave through the document, which makes for some
pretty good reading actually, and wind up on page 22. On page
22 there is a table which again, for the second time now in 22
pages, refers to job creation by name or by inference.
There it says that in 1988-89 the federal government spent
$2.7 billion on job creation exclusive of transfer payments. That
is not bad but it is also hindsight. It is also what has been. There
is not one solitary sentence about what the vision of the member
for Mercier would be on the subject she now deplores.
What are the cold hard facts? I suppose a not too cold but
certainly hard fact is: ``66,000 lost jobs returned'', a story a
week ago in the Financial Post. Another not too cold but
certainly hard fact: ``New jobs jump in February'' in the Toronto
Star a week ago. These are some of the hard facts, not
particularly cold.
``Job rate drops to 11.1 in February''. My good friend from
Calgary Centre enters the debate. I am so glad to see him. His
favourite paper, the Globe and Mail, says that the job rate
dropped to 11.1 in February. These are just a few of the cold hard
facts.
I see my time is quickly running out. Let me come to one more
issue. The issue is Chicken Little, the sky is falling. The easiest
thing in the world is to say that everything is wrong with the
world. The easiest thing to say is that the sky is falling. Unless
members have some information for me to say how they are
going to prop it up, I do not want to hear it. If I am going fast, I
would like to go without knowing.
It is true whether on the issue of separation from Canada or on
the issue of job creation that my good friend from
Lac-Saint-Jean, the Leader of the Opposition, had a Damascus
road experience, no question about it. The day he left the Tory
cabinet, he had a true Damascus road experience.
For those members who are not as biblically correct as I
pretend to be, Paul on the road to Damascus did a 180 degree
turn and saw a light. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean did a 360.
He did a turn on the road, but when he finished turning he was
still going in the same direction, away from the light.
I stick to the issue of job creation. He realizes that the party he
aided and abetted for a number of years was on the wrong track
economically, with regard to national unity and a number of
other issues.
(1530 )
I respect his decision to see the light. What I lament about
with his behaviour is that he did not just do a turn, he twirled. He
turned not only into the light but back away from it and in the
process missed a great opportunity to not only to help build a
great country but to get more young people, more people of all
ages, back to work. That is what I lament over.
That is why the deploring in this motion is about all the wrong
things. The basic premise of the resolution does not bear
scrutiny. I appeal to the members of this House to treat the
motion for what it is worth, a politically correct motion that the
Official Opposition was obliged to move. We respect its
adherence to political correctness. We appeal to the House to do
the right thing and stick by the government which has a program
for youth, an apprenticeship program, that I could go into. I have
pages. I have not even started my several page speech here.
There are so many things we are beginning to do. Have we
done it all in four months? Not quite, but we are working on it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Madam Speaker, I
listened carefully to the hon. member's parody. I think he should
immediately sign up, in fact I strongly recommend that he sign
up with the Quebec national theatre school. There, he will find
an appropriate forum to put his great public speaking skills to
the service of Quebecers first and Canadians second. As far as I
am concerned, his approach with respect to the people of Canada
and Quebec is unacceptable. He has tried to play on the word
``vision'' and make a joke of it. However, we must admit in this
House that the Liberal government has indeed lacked vision in
all the projects it has proposed so far.
2632
I will simply remind my hon. colleague that 400,000 jobs are
presently vacant with no one to fill them for lack of training, of
adequate training that is. I will also remind him that we have
1,500,000 unemployed people in this country. So, can he make a
serious commitment to put everything having to do with
manpower training, duplication and overlap in the hands of the
provinces so to speak, to allow surpluses to be made and
millions of dollars to be set aside to help our young people to
create, to be creators instead of mere welfare recipients? Is he
prepared to admit or submit to his government that job training
should come under provincial jurisdiction?
Mr. Simmons: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and
friend from Chicoutimi, a man of great vision and foresight, the
first person to recognize my skills and qualifications for the
Quebec national theatre.
[English]
Despite the member's opening remarks about my parity and
so on, I am sure what I was doing did not escape him at all. In
effect I was saying practice what you preach and preach what
you practice.
(1535 )
In the opposition's document of last fall there were only two
fleeting references to unemployment and both related to past or
current events. Neither gave any indication nor any inkling as to
what the Parti Quebecois would like to see done insofar as the
issue is concerned. It is difficult to preach to others if one does
not have the solution. That was the thesis of what I was
attempting to say. If I said it badly I apologize to my good friend
from Chicoutimi.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Madam
Speaker, as always the hon. member for Burin-St. George's
said what he wished to say eloquently. It is absolutely amazing
how he is able to say so little but so well. I applaud the hon.
member.
As this is such an exceptionally serious topic that we are
debating today and the hon. member knows so well that his
home province, of all the provinces, suffers the most from
unemployment, could he say something about having the
portability of labour across the country that includes Quebec so
that people from all parts of this country can go wherever they
want to find employment?
Mr. Simmons: Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and
colleague from Edmonton Southwest.
Let me first address his concern about my style of speaking.
Newfoundlanders in the foyer at a funeral tell jokes. That does
not mean they are glad the guy is dead. That means they have a
very particular way of dealing with an issue. If we can get a
message across with a bit of humour or relieve a situation with
humour we do it. Whether it works is for others to judge.
However, the subject is deadly serious. I can give the member
an example that we have chafed under for a long time in
Newfoundland. If the member knows the border between
Labrador and Quebec he will know that there are two
communities, one called Labrador City just east of the border
and one called Fermont, Quebec just to the west, 12 miles from
Labrador City. The person who lives in Fermont can drive down
and work in the drug store or the shop in Labrador City, as she
does and has for many years, but the son of the guy who owns
that store cannot get a job in Fermont, Quebec. That has gone on
there for many years. That is wrong.
The lack of labour mobility across this country is wrong and
discriminatory. It has caused a fight between Ontario and
Quebec recently. I concur completely with my colleague that-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Resuming debate, The
hon. member for Durham.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Madam Speaker, it is always
a great delight to follow my hon. colleague, the member for
Burin-St. George's.
Concerning this motion brought forward by the hon. member
for Mercier, lack of vision and lack of concrete measures
relating to jobs, I have to speak against it.
I want to talk about unemployment. Unemployment in this
House has been regarded as something bad, something
unfortunate, something systemic of our capitalist society and
something that is wrong about where we are going in our life.
I would like to give a little history lesson, going back to the
17th century when people did not understand the concept of
unemployment, when people worked seven days a week and
basically dropped dead from work. There was no such thing as
unemployment. They had to survive by working day in and day
out.
By the 19th century we were into the industrial revolution.
Things were not necessarily any better but there was a better
standard of living. People started to live longer. By the time we
got to the 20th century and the Second World War we discovered
that we had developed all kinds of new technologies, all kinds of
things that made our businesses and our lifestyles more liveable.
We discovered that we did not have to work the long hours we
did in the past.
(1540)
Around that same time the labour force participation rate in
Canada went up. In other words, more people, mainly females,
joined the workforce. We had a huge increase in the supply of
labour, all at the same time that our technologies were becoming
innovative.
Now we are abreast with the 21st century. This is a knowledge
based society. New technology has come to the fore: computers,
computer graphics, laser technology, all kinds of new
innovations that have made this the knowledge based society.
2633
What has this done? This has created even further
unemployment. I wonder if people could put their eyes on the
concept that unemployment is merely a factor between needed
productive hours and productive capacity. By that I mean we
need x number of labour hours to produce our output. The reality
is that these relationships have been changing over time. As we
become a more technological society, we suddenly discover we
need less labour input.
I question whether this is a failure of our system or whether it
is something to be proud of. Are we evolving into a society in
which we have to work fewer hours?
I can remember when I was very young my parents working
six days a week. During my working years we have all worked
five days a week. The question is do we need to work as many
hours as we do and why are we working as many hours as we do?
Maybe we are chasing a materialistic society. Maybe we are
chasing all kinds of things that we do not really need.
The reality is unemployment has continued to go up from the
17th century right up until today. We can look at a number of
features if we want to focus on the unemployed; those 1.559
million people currently out of work in Canada, plus a certain
number of those on welfare, who could be gainfully employed.
As a consequence we have a huge mass of people not working.
At the same time we have people in our workforce who are
working 60 hours and 70 hours a week. Clearly the problem with
unemployment is not that it exists but that it is concentrated in a
small group of people. Unfortunately it is getting larger.
What is the solution to this problem? The problem is that
unemployment is concentrated in the youth, the unskilled and in
those who have watched their skills change. This is probably a
growing sector of our unemployment. Those people possibly in
their forties who started off in the job market believing that they
had a job for life have found that structural unemployment has
caught up with them and put them out of a job.
How are we going to change our unemployment rate? Our
unemployment rate, as I mentioned, is merely a factor of
required labour hours. Either we increase the number of labour
hours by increasing our business activity or we change the
labour hours to some extent. I will leave the debate about
changing labour hours for another day.
Basically our other orientation is to increase the number of
required labour hours by increasing productivity. Within that
parameter of increased labour hours we also have to look back at
the pool of the unemployed, the people who are unskilled, those
people who have structural change in their lives where their
skills have disappeared and the youth who possibly have
dropped out of school at a very early age and similarly are
unskilled. How could we address increasing the number of
labour hours? We can do it in two ways. We can increase our
productivity.
(1545)
The government has enacted legislation regarding a reduction
in payroll taxes. It would reduce the costs of businesses to
employ people. It would create an incentive for businesses to
employ more people and to expand in our society. It would
create a demand for more labour hours. This is something our
government has done, and I go back to the original motion, in
terms of concrete measures.
We have implemented an infrastructure spending program to
create assets, to create productive resources. One municipality
in my riding has agreed to increase the size of its arena. It has an
employment policy to employ local workers. People who are
unemployed will be working. There is a promise of work. The
infrastructure spending program is what I call seed capital
because it has a tendency to grow. If a job is created for one
person working on the arena, he goes downtown and buys more
products. He consumes more. He creates more jobs. It is a way to
increase productivity.
We have addressed to some extent the need of small and
medium sized businesses to have access to better capital. We
have done it in a number of ways. We have talked about
implementing a code of ethics with the banks to allow small
businesses better access to capital markets. We will also
implement other programs to deal with access to equity capital
markets. Once again it will give business an incentive to create
new jobs.
Another initiative of ours is the information highway. It is
another aspect of 21st century technology; it brings Canada into
the 21st century. It is the second stage of our technological
revolution.
Finally, we have to increase the opportunity for wages and
employment. We have to look at the pool of unemployed people.
Do not mistake what I have said. I did not say it was good that all
these people are unemployed. I am saying that unemployment
may be with us for a long time. It may be an asset if we handle it
properly.
To effect skills so that people who are unemployed today have
better access to the job market when expansion occurs we have
the youth corps. It will teach some skills to young people who
are currently unemployed and have dropped out of the high
school system. We have implemented an apprenticeship
program to give young people and others job experience. It will
give better skills to those people whose skills have shifted over
the years.
The original motion refers to lack of vision and lack of
concrete measures. That is not so.
2634
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Madam Speaker, again, in
his speech the hon. member referred to this famous
infrastructure program. Let me tell you that this program which,
according to government members, should solve the
unemployment problem in Canada, is in my opinion simply a
way to shift the deficit burden to the provinces.
(1550)
The deficit burden is and will continue to be off loaded on the
municipalities since-and I have the figure to prove it-several
municipalities in my riding, before they can participate in this
infrastructure program, will have to invest an amount about
equal to their federal subsidies.
Let me also point out that municipalities willing to participate
in this infrastructure program but unable to afford it will have to
increase their debt load. Who will pay for this? It is always the
same taxpayer who must pay, whether the money comes from
the federal, provincial, or municipal government.
I would like to hear his opinion on the money that Canadian
taxpayers will have to spend on the infrastructure program,
without solving the unemployment problem in Canada and
Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. Basically he is quite right. There is only one
taxpayer in Canada. The question is how to best utilize our
economic resources so that we create employment. The
infrastructure spending program, as I just mentioned, has an
expansionary effect. In other words as people go back to work
they start paying taxes and reducing the deficit. Clearly we
cannot continue with such high levels of unemployment. The
real way to reduce our debt is to get a lot of people back to work.
I am always amazed hon. members to my left invariably talk
about the federal deficit as if it were some kind of unusual
phenomenon of the Canadian federalist system. The province of
Quebec has a debt. The province of Ontario has a debt. France
has a debt. The United Kingdom has a debt. There is nothing
unique about the federal government deficit. They all have debt.
The problem is that we have to deal with it.
Trying to turn this whole system on its head and blaming the
federal government for the fact that we have to pay interest on
our federal debt is not a realistic argument.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Madam
Speaker, with regard to the debt and the infrastructure program,
has the hon. member considered the whole concept of the
amount of our debt and what we should do with regard to it?
Unemployment is a direct result of overtaxation. Canadian
consumers have less disposable income and consequently
companies have more expensive products with fewer people
trying to buy them. The infrastructure program should be dealt
with as an infrastructure program and nothing else. It does not
create any permanent jobs. It increases government debt.
Mr. Shepherd: Madam Speaker, I will give the hon. member
a brief example. The erection of a building will create
technological innovation for my riding. I do not believe once the
building goes up the function that goes on there will suddenly
not have an ongoing factor. It is just the reverse. I believe
infrastructure spending will continue.
By the way, why do we not talk about Japan? Japan has a
surplus and it still has unemployment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Madam Speaker, I am
always keenly interested in taking part in a debate when the
subject is job creation. The subject becomes all the more
stimulating when we tack on the words ``concrete measure'' and
the mandatory ``urgent''. Concrete and urgent action. That is
what hundreds of thousands of unemployed people are
expecting. It is absolutely essential that these words be reflected
in the government's day-to-day initiatives. The ministers who
have the means to improve the horrendous job situation quickly
and efficiently have to realize that when the will to introduce
concrete and urgent measures is lacking, the government is
condemning hundreds of thousands of unemployed people to
harsh, intolerable living conditions.
(1555)
The extent of the unemployment situation has harmful
consequences and deeply affects our social fabric. Unemployed
persons, along with their families and children, quickly find
themselves living in hellish conditions, without adequate
financial resources. Day-to-day survival becomes a problem.
Tensions mount and the pressure increases as the unemployed
scramble to meet basic needs. Many households experience
crises, dramas and break-ups.
Intolerable living conditions brought on by unemployment
affect the mental and physical health of those involved. In the
long term, significant social costs are incurred and it is we who
ultimately must pick up the tab. These things are happening in
every one of our ridings and the situation is deteriorating. Our
social fabric is unravelling and the public's anger is simmering.
The Prime Minister can say what he likes but the way he was
welcomed last week is proof that the public is fed up with pious
wishes and nice speeches.
The people no longer believe in promises. They want action to
get them back into the labour force quickly. If the members
opposite fail to understand the message and to respond quickly
2635
to the demand for jobs, they will expose our society to more
serious problems very soon.
If the government does not pay enough attention to the
repeated warnings heard in recent days, I sincerely believe we
are moving towards a dark future. Our children will pay for this
inertia. For some such as the well-off, including some of the
members opposite, the daily problems of the jobless may appear
trivial, not very important, since their own current assets allow
them to secure their descendants' future. If I were in their shoes,
I would worry and start asking myself serious questions.
We have seen great empires melt away because of crises
caused by serious socio-economic problems. In my riding the
situation is alarming: over 30 per cent of the labour force are out
of work. Worse still, these people see no light at the end of the
tunnel. Signs of employment recovery are non-existent. The
members opposite promised us job-creation measures. They
said over and over it was their priority with a capital ``P''.
Where are these measures? Where is this well-publicized
job-creation plan?
The people in my riding are now seeing the Liberals' lack of
imagination and unwillingness to create jobs. The government
is falling back on its infrastructure program, which is clearly
insufficient to put people back to work. What a crock! It is not a
project creating or maintaining 45,000 temporary jobs that will
restore confidence to the 1,559,000 Canadians and 428,000
Quebecers without jobs.
For workers, it is disappointing to see this government take an
almost passive attitude in the face of the unemployment crisis. It
throws out a few crumbs and then sits and waits for the expected
economic recovery to turn the situation around. However,
economists agree that this recovery will not bring a miraculous
increase in the number of jobs. Miracles do not happen in this
world, as the members opposite know full well. So what are they
waiting for to take action? What are they waiting for to innovate,
introduce new programs, stimulate the economy wisely?
(1600)
Nice speeches are not concrete and urgent measures to create
jobs. In my riding, the infrastructure program will create or
maintain only a few hundred temporary jobs. It is not very
convincing from a party that proclaimed itself, before October
25, of course, the saviour of the economy and the great creator of
lasting jobs. It already admits that these measures will only have
a minor effect on unemployment, since the budget forecasts that
the unemployment rate will remain around 11 per cent in 1995.
The government always says it cannot do more given the
current financial situation. The lack of money has become the
favourite tune of the members opposite whenever the Canadian
people ask them to invest more money. This tune is
unacceptable. In its last budget the government decided not to
trim fat or eliminate waste. Had it listened to us and shown the
will to thoroughly examine all these programs, it would have
had enough financial leeway to foster and invest in job creation.
But it has made its bed and must now lie in it.
In the March 21 issue of La Presse, we read that 1,000
Canadian entrepreneurs will participate in the Expo 1994 trade
fair in Mexico. This is not a bad thing. These business people
will test the ground and look at the opportunities offered by that
country's 86.5 million people. This is all well and good but when
these entrepreneurs need help to penetrate that market, what
kind of support can they expect from a government that decided
to maintain waste and fat instead of giving itself greater
flexibility? Fat and waste are not concrete and urgent
job-creation measures.
The same applies to small and medium-sized businesses.
They must be supported in their development and their plans for
the future. Where is the Liberal government's flexibility? It
does not have any, just crumbs that do not allow for real
development. Our economy is based on regional small and
medium-sized businesses. We must stimulate, even favour their
creation. The government must get out of its rut and support
dynamic environments such as universities, polytechnic schools
and engineering departments; it must go there to find new ideas
and people able to start new small and medium-sized
businesses.
If the members opposite just sit and wait for an economic
recovery, do you really think the economy will pick up? So far,
the Liberals have not shown any vigour, any new idea in their
job-creation strategy. Roads, aqueducts, sewers, viaducts and
bridges are all they came up with. They will create or maintain
small, precarious jobs, spend some $2 billion without, in the
end, investing anything in new medium and long-term projects,
when such projects could create jobs in addition to stabilizing
and strengthening our economy.
Madam Speaker, I would now like to draw your attention to an
issue I deeply care about, which I have often raised with the
ministers opposite. It is the construction of new social housing
units and co-ops throughout the country. As we know, the
Liberals have maintained the Conservatives' decisions in this
area. Low-cost, co-op and non-profit housing programs were
abolished on January 1st; from now on, not one cent will be
spent on providing decent accommodation for the 1,200,000
Canadians in urgent need of housing.
Yet, these programs aimed at helping the poorly housed also
created many jobs.
(1605)
Statistics indicate that building 1,000 new housing units
generates 2,000 jobs in the construction sector. That is a lot of
jobs. We kill two birds with one stone: Employment is
stimulated and living conditions are improved. I am convinced
that
2636
many contractors and construction workers in my constituency
would be very pleased if several hundred social housing units
were to be built in our riding. This would be a concrete social
measure which would be beneficial from a socio-economic
point of view. Unfortunately, members opposite decided
otherwise. They chose to leave poor families in slums and
instead go for fat and waste. This, for me, will always remain a
shameful decision.
When we talk about employment, we must necessarily deal
with professional training. In that regard, we are all aware that a
significant amount of public money is wasted because of
program duplication and the federal government's interference
and desire to control and centralize.
For a long time now, there has been a consensus in Quebec to
the effect that the federal must delegate all powers to the
province regarding this field of jurisdiction.
It has been clearly demonstrated that the vocational training
system in place is more and more obsolete. In Quebec alone,
$250 million could be saved every year by eliminating
overlapping. The system shows obvious flaws under the
pressures of new technologies and new forms of work
organization. In fact, the system does not allow individuals to
quickly and adequately meet market needs. It is too
burdensome, slow, complex and costly. The federal government
interference in this field is certainly not conducive to promoting
an efficient training system. It is individuals who pay the price
for this interference. The system simply does not work.
Individuals and labour markets are both adversely affected. We,
Bloc Quebecois members, are asking the federal government to
completely withdraw from this sector. However, as long as
Quebec remains part of Canada and keeps paying taxes, the
federal government will have to transfer to the province its fair
share of public money. This patriation will finally allow Quebec
to train efficiently and quickly its manpower, based on the needs
of the labour market.
This is another concrete measure which will help develop the
ability to work of the unemployed, and consequently reduce the
unemployment rate.
In conclusion, I ask members opposite to take a close look at
reality. Good horse-sense should tell them it is time to shape up
and have a vision. Look beyond the immediate future. Try to see
what the next few years hold; try to see what will happen with
labour and consumer markets, services and products of the
future, as well as new technologies. Look at all this and try to
find initiatives which will make us ready. If you do not
undertake this exercise and come up with a vision now, in ten
years we will still be building roads to support our economy. I
am very aware that this technique was once very profitable for
old parties, but individual workers want more than just using a
pick and a shovel for a short while to earn a living.
Our workers are intelligent and they want to be considered as
such. University students work very hard for three or even five
years to earn their degree. And then what do they find on the job
market? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Yet these people
represent our future: they have all the skills and knowledge
necessary to rebuild the economy.
I ask the government to open its eyes wide and invest in real
employment, as opposed to short-lived programs, so that all
these young people can have a future.
(1610)
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services):
Madam Speaker, I have some esteem for the hon. member and I
was a little disappointed-I understand that she belongs to the
Official Opposition-when she made comments like ``cut the
fat'' that feed into people's fears, this dishonesty propagated by
members of the Reform Party.
As a former deputy minister, I saw how much fat there was,
and there was not so much because we have been cutting the fat
for years. This does not mean that we cannot review what is
going on to see if we could do better. But I find the suggestion
exaggerated, not to say dishonest-that would be
unparliamentary. It gives the impression that we could wipe out
the debt, the deficit and everything else. I have so much esteem
for my colleague that her statement surprises me. If I
misunderstood her, she can correct me.
This proposal before us today lacks a certain credibility. It is
incredibly gloomy and pessimistic. I would never believe that
my colleagues in the Bloc are so pessimistic and gloomy.
Frankly, it pains me; I think that I will throw a little party to try
to cheer them up a bit.
When they talk about housing, they talk about a certain kind
of people and they use what is going on in an attempt to give a
very wrong impression. They do not talk about the $100 million
to be spent over two years to repair houses across the country.
They do not talk about the $2.1 million to be used to maintain
650,000 existing homes. They do not talk about the $170 million
in savings. And the hon. member does not know if there might be
some social housing initiatives. How pessimistic: everything is
dying or falling apart.
What really bothered me is that they do not understand. Do
they not listen to what is going on? They talk about the
infrastructure program as if it were only about spades and
shovels, but she did not study the programs, because there are
very few spades and shovels. We are talking about a training
network across the country. Is that spades and shovels? We talk
about setting up high-tech companies. Is that spades and
shovels? Yes, you have to break the ground with spades and
shovels
2637
to build the building so that we can have information networks,
but their view is very narrow. They do not see beyond spades and
shovels. I find that very disturbing.
When we talk about small and medium-sized businesses, for
example, we have known for a long time that more than 85 per
cent of jobs come from such businesses. We know that these
businesses need capital. We know that they need to invest in
research. We know that they need to group together and that is
what we are doing. It is too bad that my colleagues in the Bloc do
not understand that it is happening.
Why did they not talk about summer jobs that will increase by
20 per cent? Did they not know? Are they badly informed? Do
they not have a research office? Do they not talk about it? What
is going on? Did they talk about the Youth Service Corps? No,
they did not! Did they talk about the apprenticeship program?
No, they did not! There are so many good things that could have
been mentioned, but no, all they see is doom and gloom. What a
pity!
Maybe the hon. member would like to react to what I said. If I
misunderstood, I will gladly apologize with a big smile.
Mrs. Guay: Madam Speaker, our dear parliamentary
secretary certainly has acting talents. He sings even while
talking to us.
About the fat, he may not like that term, but it refers to tax
shelters, to family trusts and that sort of thing. It is not
mentioned explicitly but that is what it is about.
(1615)
That is where cuts should be made to be able to invest, to
invest in jobs, in social housing, in social housing construction
projects. We have been given the same old song and dance about
social housing since the beginning by this Parliament. No
investment has been made in new social housing units. From one
year to the next, CMHC is allotted exactly the same $2 billion
budget to administer. A $100 million amount is earmarked over
two years for RRAP, the residential rehabilitation assistance
program for home buyers. We know our programs, Madam
Speaker. There is no need to tell us what we already know. We
know.
Our research services work very well. They are really very
efficient. All I have to say is that certain projects, some section
25 projets, these DEPs we all use in our committees-
An hon. member: Are you going to cut them?
Mrs. Guay: They intend to cut even the DEP program.
Liberal members will have nothing left to give their voters. Of
course, there are summer job programs, but that is not enough.
These programs do not create permanent jobs. Summer jobs are
only temporary.
Steady jobs must be created, high-tech jobs, in areas where
there are vacancies right now and no one to fill them. Above all,
we have to create these jobs through manpower training, our
own program, the one already in place in Quebec and that we are
fighting to keep.
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul): I hear my
hon. colleague opposite say that she is familiar with section 25
programs and with direct employment programs and that she
uses them. Well, I use them too and I am a Liberal. I am a French
Canadian and I use both of these initiatives, direct employment
programs and section 25 programs. Since I was elected, 38
permanent jobs have been created in two small and
medium-sized businesses in my riding. I would be curious to
know how many jobs the hon. member opposite has created in
her riding since taking office?
Mrs. Guay: I am not sure I understand the hon. member's
question, but I will say what is being done in my riding to boost
employment. Direct employment programs and section 25
programs are temporary measures. They are designed to help
certain unemployment insurance and welfare recipients get back
into the labour force.
In my view, which I believe is shared by several of my
colleagues, these programs do not create long-term jobs. They
were introduced to help people for a certain period of time,
perhaps six months. Some programs have lasted one year, but
there are no guarantees that the employer will ask an employee
to stay on.
People often benefit from a section 25 initiative and then go
back on unemployment for six months or a year. These are not
effective programs. They do exist and we do use them because
people need food to eat and a roof over their heads. Of course we
will use these programs for as long as they exist. After all, they
are paid for with our tax dollars, yours and mine.
[English]
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West): Madam Speaker, I am
not sure if it has been 10 minutes or 20 minutes that has been
allotted to me. If it is 20 minutes, I would like to split the time
and give the last 10 minutes to the member for Vancouver East.
It is a pleasure for me to speak this afternoon to the motion put
forward by the Bloc Quebecois on job creation. If we are to
listen to my colleagues in the Bloc, it would be our belief that
the opposition believes that this government has no plan for job
creation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The entire Liberal platform as outlined in the red book is
about job creation. I and every other Liberal member of
Parliament campaigned for 47 days about job creation with a
concrete plan of action. No government in Canadian history has
moved as quickly as this government has to create jobs. For over
two years the government has advocated a $6 billion cost shared
program to improve public infrastructure in Canada. Just two
months
2638
after the election the Prime Minister received the agreement of
10 premiers to implement this program.
(1620)
If the members of the opposition want to see a concrete plan to
create jobs, they should wait for a few more weeks until the
construction season starts. Canadians will then see real concrete
being poured across this country creating real jobs, and it will
not be only with picks and shovels.
In the next two years tens of thousands of jobs will be created
in the construction industry alone, building projects under the
infrastructure program. If that is not vision then I do not know
what is.
The government's job creation policies do not stop at the
infrastructure program. The budget paper called For Growing
Small Businesses provides a litany of government proposals and
initiatives to help small businesses grow and create jobs. The
decision of the government to reduce unemployment insurance
premiums next year will reduce payroll costs to businesses and
free up money to hire new employees.
This government is actually reducing taxes to create
employment. The Canada investment fund will provide capital
assistance to businesses. Capital funding is essential if new
technologies are to be properly developed and marketed. This
will directly lead to the creation of highly skilled jobs in all parts
of this country.
The government will sponsor the creation of business
networks. These networks will allow smaller companies to pool
their resources and realize some of the benefits that only large
companies now enjoy.
This government also realizes that such networks can only
work if they are controlled by the private sector. However, we
will be providing matching grants to make the networks as broad
ranging as possible. These networks will allow small businesses
to expand their operations and hire new employees.
The information highway will also help job creation. Most
experts believe that information industries will become
dominant in the coming years. With the advent of the
information highway companies in all parts of this country, in
towns large and small, will be able to access, process and sell
information. As telecommunications networks improve it will
not matter where you or your business is located. All you will
need basically is a computer and a telephone line and you can be
in business.
As we rebuild resource based industries like the fishery for
the small communities in my district, information based
companies may be the provider of jobs. The highway will reduce
communication costs for existing businesses and allow
information based businesses to set up shop almost anywhere in
the country, including my riding of St. John's West.
The restoration of the RRAP will also help low and middle
income families renovate their homes and live more
comfortably. On top of this, the money supplied by the federal
government for this program will be spent in small building
supply companies, many of which my riding consists of, and
will be used to hire skilled trades people like carpenters and
electricians. Restoring the RRAP will create jobs in
communities large and small across Newfoundland and Canada.
The apprenticeship program will help our young people learn
valuable work skills and increase their opportunities for
employment. We are all well aware that there are shortages of
skilled labour in some parts of Canada. The apprenticeship
program will train young people to perform some of these jobs,
thus providing employment to a generation faced with
staggering unemployment and a pessimistic outlook to the
future.
The apprenticeship program will also help break the vicious
cycle of no job without experience and no experience without a
job. When they graduate from their programs, young people will
have the skills and experience to fill the job.
For the Reform Party any investment by the federal
government to create jobs is too much. They would rather see
the government cut untold billions from the budget and set every
unemployed worker adrift. The Reform policy is a do nothing
policy. This government was elected with a strong mandate to do
something and that is what we intend to do.
For the Bloc, its main interest is to prove that the federal
government does not work and cannot do anything to solve the
problems of Quebecers or other Canadians. If the government
spent $100 billion in Quebec the Bloc would complain that there
is one worker in Montreal who does not have a job, and therefore
Canada does not work.
For those few Tories left in the country, they say that our
policies are exactly the same as theirs. This is not true. The
Tories put together half measures and hoped that the problems
would disappear. In the election we saw that the only thing that
disappeared was the Conservative Party. The truth is that we
have prepared a balanced approach to job creation.
(1625)
Government can no longer do it all when it comes to job
creation. There is not a bottomless pit of money to throw at the
problem. This government is using its scarce resources to
stimulate the economy and prod businesses to create jobs.
2639
No one person or group of persons has all the answers and we
do not claim to. However, this government is prepared to work
with business, labour and individuals to provide real job
creation opportunities.
With goodwill and a sense of determination from all parties
we will recover from the recession and provide lasting
employment to Canadians in all regions including
Newfoundland, including St. John's West.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the hon. member. I am from
Quebec and she is from another province. Being the Official
Opposition critic for natural resources, I get phone calls from
the Maritimes, especially from New Brunswick. People in
forestry, in farming say: ``You must help us''.
If the Liberal Party agenda was that good, I would probably
get a lot less phone calls. These people tell me and I quote:
``They cut back in social services, in programs, cut back in
unemployment insurance, cut back in health care and especially
in forestry and farming''. Very few things for small business.
Of course, what the hon. member is saying repeatedly, and
rightly so, is that there is nevertheless an effort made with
regard to the infrastructure and that must be recognized, and I
do. But we are saying and I cannot repeat it 20 times: this spring,
this summer or this fall, that program will work and I thank the
government for it, but after that, what will the future hold for
federal youth programs? What will the future hold for small
business? What will the future hold for farmers and people in
forestry? I put the question to the hon. member and I would like
her to answer me. What will the future hold for all these people?
[English]
Mrs. Payne: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I am not sure if the hon. member is aware of the fact
that I am from Newfoundland and not from New Brunswick. As
the hon. member realizes, in Newfoundland we have more of a
fisheries crisis than we do of anything else.
The problems that the hon. member spoke about in forestry
and in farming certainly to a lesser degree are experienced in
Newfoundland.
I want to say again to the hon. member that the infrastructure
program that was announced by this government was very
welcome in my riding. As I said in my remarks earlier we in St.
John's West cannot wait for that program to come into place. In
my riding we have a very high unemployment rate because of the
fisheries crisis and for other reasons.
We certainly look forward to these programs being put into
place in order to create even the short term employment which at
this point in time will be very welcome. However, this program
was not meant to create short term employment solely. It is also
a means to kick-start the economy so that other businesses will
in turn create long term jobs.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Madam Speaker, I
would like to start by quoting from the speech of my colleague.
She said: ``Government cannot do it all when it comes to job
creation''. This is very nicely put, and we agree with that.
However, we feel that the government should not be doing
nothing, which is precisely what it is doing right now.
The reliance on an infrastructure program takes us back to the
Trudeau era, and maybe even earlier than that. This recipe for
restructuring the economy dates back to the 1930s, at the time of
the great depression, when an infrastructure program was put in
place. I believe that times have changed. The economy has also
changed and I just hope that the Liberals have kept pace with
those changes.
(1630)
The way this infrastructure program will work is dreadful,
and I will give you an example. I do not know whether the people
in my riding have come to the same conclusion, but here it is. In
a small town of my riding, Repentigny, the council had to
borrow $6 million in order to get its share of money from the
infrastructure program. After it has borrowed the $6
million-and I am not talking about Montreal here, I am talking
about a town of 50,000 inhabitants-the town will receive the
same amount from the federal government. How much is this
going to cost in interest payments? How much more taxes will
the residents have to pay? And how long will the program last?
I regret, Madam Speaker, but I must say that it is disgrace for
the government to come up with such a program, claiming it is
going to create jobs, and nothing else.
[English]
Mrs. Payne: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the hon.
member asked a question. I think it was more a comment than a
question. However, I do understand the hon. member's problem
there. I suspect that there probably are some communities that
will not be able to take advantage of this infrastructure program.
However, I have talked to all of the municipal people from
every community in my riding over the past couple of weeks. We
have worked out a plan whereby almost every community will
be able to take advantage.
I do not say that there are not some exceptions. There
certainly are. However, I believe that with some ingenuity and
some imagination almost every community in my riding will be
able to take advantage of this program in one way or another.
2640
[Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Madam Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to rise in this House to participate in
this debate on job creation because I believe the government's
proposal is full of vision.
The Minister of Industry recently made at a G-7 meeting in
Detroit a speech in which he stressed the need to maintain a
stable economic environment to stimulate job creation.
The economic challenges facing Canadians are well known.
Unemployment is too high and budget deficits undermine
governments' capability to take remedial action.
All G-7 nations are facing similar problems. Within most
large economies, consumer confidence has generally remained
low, reflecting unemployment rates which are high and still
rising as well as continued uncertainty with regard to
employment. We cannot take a piecemeal approach to these
problems. A comprehensive approach is required.
The government recognizes that the task at hand is as simple
and at the same time as difficult as setting the economy back on
the road to growth, because the solution to our problems is just
that, growth.
[English]
The government has begun the work of implementing a long
term growth strategy for a durable recovery and job creation. It
has three elements. The first is reducing the deficit. Canada is
committed to reducing its deficit to GDP ratio 6.4 per cent in the
fiscal year 1993-94 to 3 per cent by 1996-97. This is a realistic
plan based on cutting $5 in expenditures for each $1 in new
revenue raised.
Second, it will reduce the impediments to growth by ensuring
the right framework for business expansion in the three areas of
trade, training and infrastructure. The signing of the GATT and
NAFTA agreements will be a major boost to our exports and will
lead to many jobs and opportunities in Canada. We are also
increasingly focusing on the Asia-Pacific region and was in
which Canadian companies can participate.
The Minister of Human Resources Development's initiatives
to ensure that Canada's labour force is ready to tackle the new
opportunities will be a major determinant of our success. Social
security reform will create jobs for Canadians.
Further, the government's infrastructure program is helping
the economy to get moving again. This is a short term job
creation program that recognizes the impact that smart
investments in infrastructure can have on long term job creation.
Third, the government will provide leadership for Canada's
transition to the new economy. Growing companies take risks
and use science and technology to the fullest. They are, in a
word, innovative. There is much that can be done to promote
innovation but this was perhaps the area of greatest neglect by
Canadian governments in the 1980s. It is the area of greatest
potential for restoring growth in the economy in the 1990s.
(1635)
[Translation]
To provide adequate leadership for transition to this new
economy, we must promote the development and use of new,
innovative technologies by the private sector; examine the
needs of small businesses and the opportunities coming their
way, particularly in the case of extremely innovative businesses;
co-operate with the private sector to put in place the
infrastructure required by the new economy.
[English]
The approach to job creation that the government is following
relies on the ability of technology, whether newly created
through R and D or adopted and more effectively diffused to a
greater number of companies to create jobs.
Technology and innovation are central to the solution of the
unemployment crisis. Higher productivity brought about
through the application of new technology and innovation leads
to higher income and to more and better jobs.
A recent study by the Department of Finance found that
technology intensive industries produced 47.7 per cent of the
new jobs created between 1984 and 1991. Industries that were
both high tech and high knowledge users contributed 46 per cent
of new jobs, although they accounted for only about one-third of
total employment.
In the recent budget we began the process of implementing a
new agenda through which technology plays a central role in our
approach to job creation.
[Translation]
Another driving force of our economic growth is small
business. Not only do the vast majority of existing businesses
fall into that category, but they are also our main source of job
creation. In fact, during the 1980s, 87 per cent of all new jobs
were created in that area. In 1991, 53 per cent of all Canadians in
the private sector were either self-employed or working for
businesses with fewer than 100 employees. Technology,
combined with horizontal management structures and
flexibility, can help small businesses adjust quickly to respond
to changing consumer needs.
According to a recent government study on the growth of
some 2,000 small businesses, companies that make use of
technology, develop their own innovative technologies or
concentrate on technology diffusion or adoption achieve better
results in terms of growth.
2641
[English]
Although small businesses create jobs they can face serious
impediments such as restricted access to capital, inadequate
management skills, a lack of skilled employees, limited
technological sophistication and underdeveloped marketing
abilities, especially abroad.
We must work on removing the impediments they face. We
must also encourage small businesses to become aggressive
innovators. Therefore, the government is committed to
improving the business environment for small business and
reshaping government policies and programs in support of small
business.
In summary, the government has outlined its agenda for small
business which underlines the government's determination to
work closely with all the stakeholders to ensure that this vital
sector continues to provide economic growth and create even
more jobs.
Another important hallmark of the new economy is the world
of telecommunications. In its plans for the future, the
government will focus on the development of the information
highway as a necessary infrastructure for the new economy. The
information highway links the major elements of the new
economy: users, content, technology and networks.
Well planned spending on this new type of infrastructure
offers the potential for immediate job creation in the short term,
while it is being built. As well, there will be a payoff in the
longer term through the support of higher levels of economic
activity when it is operational.
[Translation]
To conclude, the Government of Canada has carefully
examined the international situation with regard to growth and
job creation. While high unemployment and the increasing
number of low-paying jobs may have many causes, they are
basically due to the inability of economies to innovate and
adjust to technological progress as well as changes in the
international trade structure.
The Canadian program to promote innovation in all economic
sectors and invest in people is on track.
(1640)
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Madam
Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for
Vancouver East for her always very heartfelt, very moderate
remarks, and I would like to make two or three comments that
will take the form of questions. As you can appreciate, today's
opposition motion does not mean in any way that we believe
jobs can be created by waving a magic wand. It simply says that
this government does not offer us hope for the future, an overall
vision regarding job creation. On a more fundamental level,
beyond this lack of vision, we see structural obstacles in the
presence of two governments that have clearly not found a
balance in terms of job creation.
For us, the best government is not the one that intervenes the
least. The best thing that could happen to Quebecers is to have
one less government. So much for the general framework.
In the meantime, since we must continue to work within that
system, I would like to ask the hon. member for Vancouver East
this: Does she agree with me that, at the national level, the
sectors that will create jobs, where workers will be needed in
coming years, surprisingly enough and contrary to conventional
wisdom, are often sectors with strong community involvement?
I am thinking in particular of the whole issue of support services
for seniors. The hon. member knows that the number of senior
citizens will double in Quebec and Canada. That is something
we have in common.
As an eminent economist from the Université du Québec à
Montréal, Ruth Rose, pointed out, there is also the child-care
sector. We live in a society where people work split shifts. It is
not like in the old days when people got up at eight o'clock in the
morning and worked until five in the afternoon before going
home. People now work irregular hours and governments will
have to invest very heavily in a national network of child-care
centres.
In closing, I will talk about the recreation sector, especially
for handicapped people. We are fortunate to have in this House a
member such as the hon. member for Mercier, whose keen
intelligence and talent is well known and who has always said,
like most members of the Bloc Quebecois believe, that
economic growth and job development must go hand in hand
with community network development.
I therefore ask the hon. member if she believes we can, within
her government's job proposal, emphasize community
networks. Can we rely on her dynamism and her sense of
involvement; will she become her government's social
conscience if it ever decides to cut job-creation programs?
Mrs. Terrana: Do you want me to join the Bloc Quebecois?
Mr. Ménard: No, that is not necessary.
Mrs. Terrana: Thank you. I have a great social conscience
because I come from a riding that needs to have a social
conscience. I also see the need to find other sources.
I believe that we must redefine the question of work now.
Work is no longer what we knew. Now we talk about technology
and support. You are right. We also talked about child care, for
which, as you know, the Liberal Party and the government
promised to create 50,000 spaces when economic growth in
Canada allows.
2642
I believe that we must work together. For example, the private
sector should support us in all this, the other governments too, as
you said, and I believe that if all governments worked together,
it would be easier.
Finally, there are all the consultations to find out what we
really need. Of course I would like the situation to be otherwise
but I also know that it is not possible.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): Madam Speaker, first I would like
to apologize for missing my rotation and I am grateful for
having the opportunity to come back on. I would like to begin by
saying that I probably would agree with the intent of the motion
of the Bloc Quebecois although we are probably going to come
at it from a different angle.
(1645)
I come at it from the angle that government does not create
jobs. Every time I hear this term job creation by somebody in
government it is almost like running a fingernail down a
chalkboard as far as I am concerned. Government does not
create jobs. What government can do however is facilitate the
creation of jobs.
I have lived in the northwest of British Columbia for all my
life and for many years I was the partner in a construction
business in northwestern British Columbia. It was a successful
business. We started in 1981-82 with five employees and when
we sold the business in 1990 we were employing up to 200
people at various times of the year.
We did this without any government grants, any handouts, any
subsidies. As a matter of fact, and I say this with all sincerity, we
did it in spite of government, not with any government help.
I have also been involved in the business community in
Kitimat for many years with the Chamber of Commerce and
many of my good friends and acquaintances come from the
business community. Of course as a community we often
associate and we talk about the various problems we face in our
businesses and the various things that hinder or help us.
I can assure everyone that virtually all of the business
contacts I have do not look at government as being some kind of
boon to their existence. As a matter of fact they share the
feelings I have that if government would only get off their backs
and leave them alone they would have a lot better opportunity to
create jobs or expand their businesses, to be profitable, to grow
and to prosper.
I have some examples of the failure of government policies,
some anecdotal evidence, that maybe some of the members here
would be interested in.
Back in the early 1980s we contracted on the construction of a
road that the federal government had put out for tender. In the
contracting business when you submit a tender you are locked
in. Your price is fixed. If your price is accepted then you are
obligated to complete that job or project for the price you
tendered.
At the time we were bidding the job there was no federal sales
tax on explosives. Historically it had not been included. For
whatever reason it had never been a part of the federal sales tax
regime.
We bid the job. We got prices for explosives because it was a
major component of the job and subsequent to submitting our
tender and being awarded the job, but before we even got started
on the project, the finance minister of the day came along and
imposed a federal sales tax on explosives. We immediately went
back and said to the minister that we were working for him, the
government. We fixed the price to do this job, and after we fixed
our price he had come along and increased our costs by $50,000
and we thought we ought to be able to get that back.
Do you think the government would do it? This was a Liberal
government I might add. It was not the Conservative
government. We never had any success.
These are the kinds of problems businesses come up against.
Let me give you some more examples of government
intervention in the marketplace.
For many years there was a successful ready-mix business
operated in my community and that ready-mix business as part
of its operation had a small block plant. On rainy days when
there was nothing else to do the employees, rather than being
sent home, would manufacture masonry blocks.
There was a fellow in a neighbouring community who got the
bright idea that he should be in the block business. He secured a
$700,000 loan or a loan guarantee from the federal government
to put his business into operation, to create a huge block plant
that could not possibly ever sustain itself for the market area it
was trying to service. He drove the fellow in Kitimat out of
business. His block plant had to close down. The employees lost
the benefit of employment on rainy days when there was nothing
left to do. In the end the new business failed simply because it
was not a good business idea in the first place. If it had been a
good business idea I suggest that he would not have had the
problem in coming up with the funds.
Any time the government gets involved with funding these
kinds of operations it is generally because it is a bad business
idea. It is generally destined to fail. Not only are the taxpayers
hurt but usually the competitors of that business are hurt. They
are the ones that are contributing to the tax base. In effect their
tax dollars are being used to support these businesses that are
built up to compete against them.
2643
(1650)
These are the kinds of federal policies that we have had to live
with in the business community in the past. When I hear about
job creation it just does not ring true with me.
Let me give a most recent example. In the House today we
were talking about a subsidy on the part of the government for a
new aluminium smelter in South Africa, a $60 million U.S.
dollar or close to a $100 million Canadian export credit to a new
South African aluminium smelter. If the government is talking
about job creation they must be interested in creating jobs in
South Africa but certainly not here.
We have 10,000 people in Quebec who are employed directly
in the primary production of aluminium and 2,000 people
employed in British Columbia in my riding at Kitimat in one of
Alcan's largest smelters anywhere. These people are paying
their taxes and contributing to Canadian society and they see
their taxes being used to support the construction of a new
aluminium smelter in South Africa. How are we creating jobs in
Canada by that measure? Where is the consistency in
government? I just do not see it.
Some of the irritants and costly policies that government
follow are that small businesses in Canada are acting as the
agent of the government in collecting taxes, UIC premiums,
CPP premiums and personal employment data. As well as being
an unpaid job, the fact is they are liable for any mistakes they
might make. They are liable for doing the government's work
for them. In addition to acting as an agent they have to make
payroll deductions and remit that money on a regular basis. In
the case of my business it was on the 15th of each month. In the
past we had to have our cheques postmarked by the 15th of the
month so that we would avoid penalties and interest.
Now the government that talks about aiding small business
wants to have electronic transfers of those funds on the 15th of
the month. If you do not get your electronic transfer done in time
you are going to be faced with a 10 per cent penalty right off the
bat let alone the interest charges. Now I ask, how is that assisting
or helping small business?
This policy is tantamount to paying taxes in advance. When I
was in business we had to meet our payroll and pay our expenses
often long in advance of receiving the revenues that were
attached to those expenses. I do not think the government
fundamentally recognizes just how difficult it is.
It is one thing to talk about job creation and how we are going
to assist small business, but it is quite another thing to sit there
on a Thursday afternoon and try to make sure you are going to be
able to cover your payroll on Friday. That is something that
small business right across Canada has to face all the time and it
is something that we in government-and I include myself now
because I have become part of the guilty as it were-all too
often fail to recognize. It is an extremely difficult existence out
there for small business.
A small business person does not get a pension plan. They can
maybe make use of the registered retirement savings plan but
they do not have their own pension plan. They are not entitled to
unemployment insurance benefits if their business fails.
Oftentimes they are putting in 60, 70 or 80 hours a week and not
receiving benefits. Many people who are working in regular jobs
would be surprised. I think a lot of times people expect that
entrepreneurs in small and medium sized businesses are very
wealthy. The case is really that very few people actually become
fabulously wealthy and successful. Most people just make a
living at it and as a government we have to recognize that.
I have seen no evidence to this point that the government is
taking any steps to rectify the problems that business faces.
Taxation rules for example, are becoming more complex rather
than simpler. I recall that when I was in business I looked at the
tax act on a couple of occasions and neither myself, my
accountant or my lawyer could not figure out what it meant.
(1655)
How can we expect small business to be able to prosper when
it has to deal with ambiguous tax laws? When you are trying to
make a business decision on the best way to acquire a new asset
or to open a new business, you have to spend all your time trying
to figure out the best way to do it taxwise rather than getting on
with the job and letting your entrepreneurial talents run toward
creating the business and making it work. That is the kind of
thing that government can do for small businesses, make it
easier for them to exist.
Diversification funding, regional development funding and
all the things I talked about earlier are still very much alive and
it is still very much the attitude of members opposite that this is
the way we are going to help business and industry. It is not.
As long as government prevails with this attitude, we are
going to have a continual drain on tax dollars, we are going to
have continual failures in the individual areas where these
moneys are invested and it is going to hinder rather than help
small business. While the Bloc is talking about no vision for the
future, my vision is to get government out of these things and let
small business prosper on its own.
I am going to conclude my remarks by saying that there is an
opportunity right now for government to show leadership, to
change some of the policies it has been following, to recognize
that government does not create jobs, government does not
create wealth. It certainly has the ability to expropriate wealth
and it does that with remarkable ability.
2644
The only jobs that government ever creates are jobs that are
created as a result of the expropriation of somebody else's
wealth in the first place. We have to recognize that. When
government does recognize that-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member. It is almost five o'clock.
[Translation]
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve-Canada Labour Code; the hon.
member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead-Federal Deficit.
[English]
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Madam Speaker, in concluding my
remarks I was saying that there is an opportunity for government
to show some leadership, to change policies and develop a
vision for business and industry in Canada by being partners in
the sense that we get out of the way and allow small business the
opportunity to do what it can do very well if given the
opportunity.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Madam
Speaker, I really did appreciate the remarks of the hon. member
for Skeena, particularly the matter of direct grants to business.
A lot of us would agree that often this does not work very
effectively but I wish he would give credit to this budget where
credit is due. I point out to him that the government has
cancelled the $608 million KAON accelerator project which is a
classic example of the type of thing that he is talking about.
I would like him to comment on that and tell me whether he
agrees that the government was wise to cancel KAON.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his intervention.
I would remind him that KAON was not a regional
development initiative. It was a science initiative. Having said
that, the member asked to give credit where credit is due in the
budget.
We have subsequent to the new government being elected not
only development incentives and grants taking place within
Canada but it was only recently announced that the federal
government was going to provide a $100 million Canadian
export credit to a new aluminum smelter in South Africa. That
tells the whole story. The government has not yet accepted the
fact that you cannot do it that way.
(1700)
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member for Skeena talked about small business in a
way as though Liberals in the country had never heard of small
business. I can assure the gentleman that thousands of Liberals
are business people and that thousands of businesses support the
Liberal Party.
We know some of the problems faced by small business. If the
gentleman from Skeena would have read the budget a little more
closely, he would have noticed that small business plays a big
part in the budget. We are attempting to do many things to make
its life a little easier.
For example, we will be developing what we call a lending
code for banks, because small businesses have been
complaining vociferously for years about the way they are
treated by banks. We will be establishing a venture capital fund.
We are expanding information centres across the country
because we know how important information is to small
businesses that are not wealthy, as he pointed out, and do not
have the resources to get information on their own hook.
We will be expanding the technology network because
technology is important to small business. We will be expanding
the parameters of the Export Development Corporation because
exports are important to the country and important to small
business. Small business can do a lot more in the way of exports.
Right now only 8 per cent of our business community exports.
We have recognized some of the problems facing the small
business community. It is recognized in the budget. I think the
Reform Party does not do a service to this institution when it, it
appears, deliberately ignores what was stated in the budget.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Madam Speaker, I point out that we live
in a democracy. Those business people who support Liberals are
allowed to be wrong.
I touch on what the hon. member said about the expansion of
the Export Development Corporation. This is exactly what I am
talking about. The Export Development Corporation announced
the $100 million Canadian loan credit to build the new South
African aluminium smelter. If this is what the hon. member is
talking about, I rest my case.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, I
want to ask a very brief question. In his initial remarks, if I heard
them correctly, my colleague indicated that governments do not
make jobs. I think I understand what he was getting at. Normally
there are conditions under which businesses operate. If they do
well their profits create jobs for Canadians or wherever they
happen to be.
I would like my colleague's reaction to the following. While I
accept that-and I am assuming I have interpreted his comments
correctly-would he not agree that government involvement,
for example in student employment as will be occurring this
summer and as has occurred during the last few summers
particularly during periods of study, is a noble and supportive
enterprise on the part of government?
2645
Would my colleague agree, for example, that the program we
want to initiate, the youth corps, is a noble and worthy initiative
that should be supported by all parties?
What about the apprenticeship program the government wants
under way, particularly in areas of high tech and where jobs will
be required in future growth areas?
What about those kinds of initiatives? Is the Reform Party's
policy against those kinds of initiatives? I understand the basic
philosophy is that if we reduce taxes more jobs will be created.
However does that exclude those kinds of initiatives for youth,
the new apprenticeship programs and the like that I have
mentioned?
(1705 )
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Madam Speaker, in the area of
educational assistance such as apprenticeship programs,
provided there is a cost benefit and the benefit outweighs the
cost, certainly our party is in favour of it. We believe we have to
make a stronger effort to educate and train our people so that
they are ready to go into the workforce.
As far as the youth corps and the youth development program
are concerned and as far as I am personally concerned, we are
really looking at a handout. We are not looking at a hand up. We
are not looking at preparing people and getting people into
positions where they will be entering the workforce. What we
are really doing is handing out taxpayers' assistance to youth.
I am sure the hon. member disagrees with me, but that is the
way I see it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I believe you will find there is unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) concerning the replacement
programs for the Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery Program and the
Atlantic Ground Fish Adjustment Program, the House authorize the required
personnel of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to travel from
place to place for the purpose of preparing and holding video-teleconference
Committee sittings during the week of March 28-31, 1994, in the following
cities: Rimouski, Sydney, Yarmouth, Moncton and St. John's, Newfoundland.
(Motion moved and agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I would also propose the following motion:
That, at the conclusion of the time allotted for the consideration of government
business on Wednesday, March 23, 1994, the Speaker shall put all questions
necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-14, an act to provide
borrowing authority.
(Motion moved and agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Madam
Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): You have until 5.15 p.m.
Mr. Mercier: Madam Speaker, to emerge from its economic
doldrums, our country needs a large-scale collective project,
one which will generate our enthusiasm and mobilize us. Such a
project exists, but an act of government good will is needed to
get it off the ground. I am referring to the project to build a
high-speed train to service the Quebec
City-Montreal-Laval-Ottawa-Toronto-Windsor corridor.
Several studies have already concluded that this project would
be economically viable.
The minister is waiting for a new report to be released this
summer. However, based on the information he already has, he
should be able today to say, without jeopardizing the terms of
the venture: ``Yes, we will proceed with the high-speed rail
project''. If the minister were to make this statement now, he
would not be hurting the authors of the expected report in any
way.
This kind of statement would pleasantly surprise us and would
show that our government can at least boast of the three things
that my hon. colleague for Laurentides criticized it earlier for
not having, namely vision, vision and more vision to create
``jobs, jobs, jobs'', as promised in the red book.
(1710)
There are so many reasons to support what could become the
major project of this decade that I hardly know where to start, or
should I say, I hardly know what I should leave out, to finish my
speech on time. In any case, first of all, studies have shown that
the market is large enough to ensure the project's economic
viability. According to information released by Bombardier, the
2646
company's pre-feasibility study has shown that this railway
service would serve a population of eight million and attract
nearly 5,300,000 travellers annually, an increase of 3,700,000
over the current ridership.
We now have information that emphasizes the benefits of
HST connections for travellers in terms of security, travelling
time and cost. According to the study, travelling time from
station to station, calculated with a top operating speed of 300
kilometres per hour, would be 1 hour and 35 minutes between
Quebec City and Montreal, 1 hour and 5 minutes between
Montreal and Ottawa, and so forth. The time saved, even
compared with flying, is considerable.
Furthermore, as is the case in Lyon, the HST could provide a
very efficient way to solve the problem of transportation to and
from Mirabel and Dorval and could also provide a quick
connection between these airports by adding a loop where the
train would run only at certain times.
Another reason to support the HST is, of course, the
environment. Per passenger, the HST consumes half as much
energy as the automobile and one-quarter as much as a jet
aircraft.
If the line could be fully electrified, as is the case all over
Europe, there would be even less impact on the environment,
because there would be no emissions and the train would
consume energy that is abundant in Ontario as well as Quebec, a
province that is trying to export surplus energy.
I will now discuss job creation, since that is the purpose of
this debate. The HST would create a total of nearly 120,000 jobs
annually. This initiative would reduce government spending
under the Unemployment Insurance Program. I say this in
connection with the expected loss of hundreds of jobs as a result
of the merger between CN and CP. Ideally, the HST would
absorb these workers.
Without a plan for the future, Quebec's railway industry is
doomed. The HST would give VIA Rail a second lease on life
and a chance to finance railway lines operating at a loss, as the
SNCF does in France.
The cost, and I have not had much of time to discuss this
aspect, is evaluated at $7.5 billion, but there would be
revenues-
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), the proceedings on the
motion have expired.
Accordingly it is my duty to put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply now before the
House.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury
Board) moved:
That Supplementary Estimates (B), 1993-94, laid upon the table Tuesday,
March 8, 1994, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1715 )
Mr. Eggleton moved that the Bill C-19, an act for granting to
Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of
Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1994, be read the
first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)
Mr. Eggleton moved that the bill be read the second time and
referred to committee of the whole.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House
went into committee thereon, Mrs. Maheu in the chair.)
(Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.)
(Schedule agreed to.)
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
(Preamble agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): On a point of order,
Madam Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval on a
point of order.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Madam Speaker, since I am not
familiar with these proceedings, I was wondering whether the
President of the Treasury Board could give this House the
assurance that the content of the bill before us is presented in the
usual format.
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: Madam Chairman, this bill is in the same form
as passed in previous years.
(Bill reported.)
Mr. Eggleton moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): When shall the bill be
read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
2647
(1720 )
Mr. Eggleton moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
Some hon. members: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the
following division:
(Division No. 16)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-146
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Charest
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-92
2648
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Allmand
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dubé
Dumas
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
McGuire
Nunez
O'Brien
Parrish
Patry
St-Laurent
(1750 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: I came in late, Mr. Speaker, so I did not get
to vote. I just wanted to say that I would have voted along with
the representatives of the loyal opposition. If ever results were
to be applied in reverse, I would like to be counted in.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): moved:
That this House do concur in Interim Supply as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $13,753,845.366.08 being composed of:
(1) three-twelfths ($9,553,789,266.75) of the total of the amounts of the items set
forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995, which were
laid upon the Table on Thursday, Februry 24, 1994, and except for those items
below:
(2) eleven-twelfths of the total of the amount of Transport Vote 40 (Schedule A) of
the said Estimates, $2,725,250.00;
(3) nine-twelfths of the total of the amount of Treasury Board Vote 5 (Schedule B) of
the said Estimates, $337,500,000.00;
(4) eight-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Canadian Heritage Vote 100, and
Fisheries and Oceans Vote 10 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates, $59,154,666.67;
(5) seven-twelfths of the total of the amount of Human Resources Development
Vote 45 (Schedule D) of the said Estimates, $1,414,583.33;
(6) six-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade Vote 15, and Human Resources Development Vote 5, and Indian Affairs and
Northern Development Vote 10, and Industry Vote 45, and Justice Vote 5 (Schedule
E) of the said Estimates, $72,580,000.00;
(7) five-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Canadian Heritage Vote 80, and
Human Resources Development Vote 20, and Indian Affairs and Northern
Development Votes 15 and 45, and Industry Vote 40, and Transport Vote 1 (Schedule
F) of the said Estimates, $2,235,520,833.33;
(8) four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Canadian Heritage Votes 45, 50, 65,
75 and 95, and Citizenship and Immigration Vote 15, and Health Vote 10, and
Human Resources Development Vote 10, and Indian Affairs and Northern
Development Votes L25, 30 and 35, and Industry Vote 100, and Justice Votes 1, 10
and 30, and Parliament Vote 1, and Public Works and Government Services Votes
20, 25 and 30, and Solicitor General Vote 5 (Schedule G) of the said Estimates,
$1,491,160,766.00;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find
unanimous consent to apply the vote that we just took to the
division on all other questions necessary to dispose of the
business of supply and the bill based thereon.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:
(Division No. 17)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
2649
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-146
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Charest
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-93
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Allmand
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dubé
Dumas
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
McGuire
Nunez
O'Brien
Parrish
Patry
St-Laurent
Mr. Eggleton moved that Bill C-20, an act for granting to Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada
for the financial year ending March 31, 1995, be read the first
time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)
Mr. Eggleton moved that the bill be read the second time and
referred to committee of the whole.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:
(Division No. 18)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
2650
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-146
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Charest
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-93
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Allmand
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dubé
Dumas
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
McGuire
Nunez
O'Brien
Parrish
Patry
St-Laurent
(Bill deemed read the second time.)
(Bill deemed considered in committee.)
(Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.)
(Schedule A agreed to.)
(Schedule B agreed to.)
(Schedule C agreed to.)
(Schedule D agreed to.)
(Schedule E agreed to.)
(Schedule F agreed to.)
(Schedule G agreed to.)
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
(Preamble agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill deemed reported.)
Mr. Eggleton moved that the bill be concurred in.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:
(Division No. 19)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
2651
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-146
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Charest
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-93
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Allmand
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dubé
Dumas
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
McGuire
Nunez
O'Brien
Parrish
Patry
St-Laurent
Mr. Eggleton moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:
(Division No. 20)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
2652
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-146
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Charest
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-93
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Allmand
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dubé
Dumas
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
McGuire
Nunez
O'Brien
Parrish
Patry
St-Laurent
The Speaker: Order, please. My colleagues, I want you to
know that I was prepared to take all of these votes this afternoon.
I practised for two hours before coming in. Too bad we cannot
take all the votes. Until the next time.
It being 17.55 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
2652
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Madam
Speaker, there have been discussions among parties and I now
seek unanimous consent for the motion standing in my name,
motion M-172, presently in ninth place on the order of priority
of Private Members' Business, to be withdrawn. This motion is
no longer relevant in light of recent developments in the
business community.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
hon. member's request. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion withdrawn.)
[English]
Mr. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, seeing that under Private
Members' Business one of the bills on the order of priority has
been withdrawn and there normally are ten, I was wondering if I
could seek unanimous consent of the House to allow my bill to
take that spot on the priority list.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
request. Do we have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We do not have
unanimous consent.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Income
Tax Act so that child support payments are no longer considered taxable income
for their recipients.
2653
She said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the
House this evening to speak to the following motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Income
Tax Act so that child support payments are no longer considered taxable income
for their recipients.
This motion holds a great deal of interest throughout the
country.
In 1942 Canada introduced a taxation policy on child support
payments which allowed the payers to deduct the full amount of
the payment from their income while the recipients must include
the full amount in their income calculations. The policy has
been criticized as discriminatory to women because it places an
unfair tax burden on the custodial parent, usually the mother.
Evidence shows in theory and in practice that this criticism is
valid. This situation can be partially explained by historical
changes, more specifically in patterns of the lives of men and
women in Canada over the last 50 years.
When the policy was introduced in the 1940s it was designed
to provide relief to the taxpayer burdened with both a wartime
increase in taxes and the obligation of spousal and child support.
The father was typically the only income earner and therefore
the sole taxpayer in the separated family. It was logical at that
time that tax relief be awarded to him. It was assumed the
mother would still pay no tax.
Today, most single mothers have earned income and pay taxes
on this income whether or not they receive support. What are the
changes that have occurred in our society since this tax policy
was implemented in the 1940s? First there have been
demographic changes. The phenomenon of lone parenthood
affects many more people today than in the past. Due to divorce
and remarriage, lone parenthood is not always a lifetime,
permanent situation. Rather is a phase of life of varying duration
experienced by many parents. While lone parenthood itself may
not be a permanent situation, the consequences have a lasting
impact on women and children, particularly where the period of
lone parenthood is lengthy and income is subsequently
inadequate.
(1800)
As well, the practical support networks of extended family
and community which usually provided financial and other
forms of support have shrunk due to urban development and
increased mobility.
Second, there has been a number of social changes. Today
violence against women is being recognized as a societal
problem that takes many forms and influences many aspects of
women's daily life.
When negotiating a separation or divorce agreement many
women are left in a very vulnerable position. Often they simply
wish to get out of their relationship and to get on with their lives.
This often creates pressure to capitulate to inequitable
settlements in order to end confrontation and avoid long drawn
out custody battles. Returning to court later to seek a variance of
child support is usually economically prohibitive for women
and can carry many of the same dangers as the initial
negotiation.
The report by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women
in 1970 was the first study to examine the economic and social
disadvantage of women in Canada. Since then many other
studies have overwhelmingly identified and described the
feminization of poverty and its direct relationship to the unpaid
work involved in raising children and other tasks related to
human maintenance.
Third, policy changes over the years have had a significant
impact on the situation of women, families with children and in
particular lone parent families. There has been decreasing
support for families with children through the tax transfer
system over the past two decades. The value of deductions and
credits for children as a proportion of income has been steadily
reduced. The reduction of the number of tax brackets from 10 to
3 today has also had an impact on families and on the tax
treatment of child support.
Often after a divorce it is very difficult to find work with
adequate pay to meet the needs of the children in the household.
Therefore, mothers are forced to rely on social assistance.
Social assistance policies in Canada however are not designed to
take into consideration child support. Dollar for dollar of child
support payments are deducted from the mother's social
assistance cheques leaving her in a disadvantaged position of
having little money for her children.
Fourth, there have been a number of economic changes in our
society which impact on the taxation of child support. Perhaps
the most significant change is the steady increase in the number
of women, including those with children, participating in the
labour force. However, they are still paid at the lower end of the
pay scale.
After divorce family resources are often inadequate to
continue to meet children's needs, yet it is the single mother who
continues to be solely or primarily responsible for the financial
needs of children because of the extremely high rate of default
and child support awards.
The evidence is overwhelming. Given the number of changes
that have occurred over the last 50 years it is paramount that we
revisit the 1940s policy of the tax treatment of child support
payments. We must ask ourselves if this policy is still, or for that
matter, whether it has ever met its original goal of providing tax
relief to the tax burden and encourage the payment of child
support.
2654
The rationale that the deduction for child support payers
automatically requires inclusion as income by the recipient does
not hold water. While they were married the father's support of
the children was not income to the mother. While they were
married the father's support of the children was not deductible.
Likewise, now that they are divorced the custodial mother does
not get to deduct what she spends on the children. The parents
have now gone their separate ways. Why should the father's
support of his children now become taxable income to the
mother?
Child support payments were not income to the custodial
mother prior to the 1940s because they did not fit the income tax
concept of income. The Oxford Dictionary defines income as
money received during a certain period as wages or salary. Child
support in the custodial mother's hands is not new wealth from
the production of labour or capital. It is simply the father's
payment for his share of his children's expenses.
(1805 )
The most important rationale for the reduction-inclusion
treatment is that it will encourage higher support payments by
shifting income from a higher tax paying parent to a lower tax
paying parent. This is expected to cause a surplus tax saving
available to increase child support payments.
The policy expects that the father's tax savings will always be
greater than the mother's tax liability. Because of this the
non-custodial parent should be able to pay the custodial parent's
increased taxes through what is commonly referred to as a tax
gross-up added to the child support payment. Then the policy
assumes there will still be an additional surplus tax saving
which can also be used to increase child support.
However, as we all know, theory and reality do not always
produce the same end results and this is definitely the case with
the deduction-inclusion policy.
First, although the father's tax saving may be greater than the
mother's tax liability, neither the Income Tax Act or family law
legislation requires the father to pay the mother increased tax
liability. The report of the federal-provincial-territorial family
law committee of May 1992 entitled ``The Financial
Implications of Child Support Guidelines'' noted that while tax
consequences should be an element of every child support
determination, there is evidence to suggest that these
calculations are not routinely made. If the father does not use his
tax savings to pay the mother's tax liability, the consequences
are very serious.
Let us use another example. A support order has determined
that the father's fair share of the children's expense is $10,000
for the year. Under family law principles, this determination is
based on both parents sharing the cost of raising the children.
The mother is also independently contributing to the children's
support.
This $10,000 child support award should be grossed up by
about $2,600 to reflect the mother's increased federal and
provincial taxes. The grossed-up award then to the father should
be $12,600 for the year. The father can pay the extra $2,600
because he has a tax savings from the deduction. The custodial
mother needs the extra $2,600 to cover her tax increase from
having to include the support in her income.
Let us consider what will happen if the gross-up is not added
to the award. The mother still must pay the $2,600 in taxes. She
will now be left with only $7,400 from the father's support
payment. There will be a shortfall from the original $10,000 that
the judge has awarded her. The onus for this shortfall is on the
custodial mother and this causes hardship for the children. The
father, on the other hand, still gets the benefit of the full tax
savings.
A further flaw in the deduction-inclusion policy is the use of
tax bracket differentials to deliver overall tax savings. This
perspective is examined in great detail in a report entitled
``Child Support Policy: Income Tax Treatment and Child
Support Guidelines'' by Ellen Zweibel and Richard Shillington.
Zweibel and Shillington note that there is an overall tax
saving only when the non-custodial father's tax savings on
support exceed the custodial mother's liability on support. The
Zweibel and Shillington report found that a tax saving only
occurs in 51 per cent of the cases and no saving occurs in 49 per
cent. Furthermore, when a saving was realized, that saving was
minimal.
The study revealed another troubling effect of the
deduction-inclusion provisions. So far in this discussion we
have been assuming that the non-custodial parent's tax savings
will be greater than the custodial parent's tax liability thus
creating a surplus tax saving. What happens if this is not the
case?
If the mother's increased tax liability is greater than the
father's tax savings, the system works against the separated
family. The father can no longer pay the mother's increased tax
liability from his tax savings.
In the Zweibel and Shillington report, 20 per cent of the cases
fell into this category. Not only did the system fail to produce
the possibility of a higher award, the system actually worked
against them to decrease their already scarce resources.
The final rationale holds that the savings that occurs through
the deduction-inclusion gross-up policy is supposed to benefit
the children by generating further revenues for their support.
Again reality must step in. Even when the saving is realized, the
money sits in the hands of the father parent and there is nothing
to say that he will forward that money to his ex-wife for the
children.
This policy ignores that child support is a very contentious
issue and that non-custodial fathers seeking to minimize their
2655
payments may not readily agree to either a gross-up or to a
further sharing of any tax saving above the gross-up.
(1810 )
This is not just a tax issue but one of wider social injustice
which affects the well-being of Canada's children and
subsequently Canada's future. Article 2 of the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of the Child states:
The child shall enjoy special protection and shall be given opportunities and
facilities, by law and other means, to enable him or her to develop physically,
mentally, morally, spiritually, and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in
conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose the
best interest of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
It is our children who now bear the immediate consequences
because the current system is not providing the effects it was
intended to produce. If the current policy is not changed it is the
children who will go on paying the consequences every day, not
just in some cases and not by accident, but deliberately by our
failure to redesign an outdated tax mechanism.
The causes of child poverty have been linked to family
breakdown, at least in part, in many areas of the world including
Canada. Average family incomes for single parent families
headed by women are significantly lower than those of two
parent families. When parents separate the cause of maintaining
two households will mean that at least some members of the
family will suffer from reduced income.
Unfortunately the predominant pattern is that women, who
are the vast majority of custodial parents, and their children
experience a marked decrease in standard of living while men
who no longer live with their families experience an
improvement in their material circumstances.
The Divorce Act sets out to maintain a similar standard of
living for both parents after separation or divorce. Yet the
standard of living for custodial parents and their children tends
to decline as much as 73 per cent, whereas the non-custodial
parents rises as much as 42 per cent.
When a father makes a child support payment he is
transferring money he has earned toward the care and
maintenance of his children. There is no difference between a
parent living with their spouse and providing them with grocery
money, paying for piano lessons or shoe laces than there is for a
parent living separate from the their spouse or a parent of their
children and making the same financial contribution.
There is no similar tax exemption for married persons or
persons living common law whereby one or both of the spouses
provides financially for the family. If the children were living
with anyone other than the parent and those caretakers were
receiving financial support, they would not be obliged to claim
it as personal income and be taxed accordingly and that is
happening in this country all the time.
I have demonstrated to the House this evening the failings of
the Income Tax Act on child support payments. I will run
through six predominant areas.
First, I have demonstrated how Canadian society has changed
demographically, socially, politically and economically. The
deduction-inclusion policy on child support payments has been
in existence since 1942. It is time that it be revisited and
revamped to fit today's Canada.
Second, the taxation principle which holds that where a
deduction has been claimed there must be an inclusion is false,
absolutely false.
Third, tax subsidies from the deduction-inclusion principle
only exist in some cases and it is often very minimal.
Furthermore, there is no provision to ensure that where a savings
exists that money is forwarded to the children to improve their
standard of living.
Fourth, history has demonstrated that the availability of a tax
deduction for the non-custodial parent has not proven to be an
incentive for the support payer to make payments in full and on
time. I believe that was one of the reasons that they instituted
that in the first place.
Fifth, the standard of living for custodial parents and their
children tends to decline while the non-custodial parents tends
to rise. Taxing support payments works contrary to any efforts to
raise these households out of poverty.
Finally, child support payments should be seen for what they
are, a continuation of the non-custodial parent's obligation to
the raising of their children.
Canada's tax policy taxes child support payments, unlike
what we see in the United States, Australia, Britain, Sweden and
in many other countries. While the average child support order
covers less than half the minimum cost of raising a child, the
government deems it fair to take up to one-third or more of
support payments that are meant to feed and cloth children. It is
time that we as legislators in the House of Commons, in the
Parliament of Canada stood up and put a stop to this and bring
justice and fairness into our tax system, particularly as it relates
to the future of our children.
(1815)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Thank you, Madam
Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this motion
which I care about on the tax treatment of child support
payments.
2656
First, I must relate some important facts which justify my
speaking in this House and which I think are extremely
significant, on the economic situation of women who are single
parents.
In Canada, 10.7 per cent of all families are headed by a single
mother. A brief from the Canadian Advisory Council on the
Status of Women presented to the federal-provincial-territorial
committee on family law in December 1992 gives us the
following picture: 82 per cent of one-parent families are headed
by women; in 1986, 56 per cent of single mothers had an income
below the poverty line; the percentage of poor children raised in
single-parent families headed by women more than doubled
between 1979 and 1988, from 17.9 per cent to 39.1 per cent. That
is frightening! Seventeen per cent of children are poor; 35.5 per
cent of them live in single-parent families headed by a woman.
I am not telling you anything new when I say that in most
cases child custody is given to women and their income is less.
This issue of pay inequity has been and continues to be a subject
of debate. Clearly, the inequality of women in our society in
general is felt even more strongly by women who must raise
their children alone.
Studies on child support payments show that they do not cover
even half of the actual expenses incurred and that usually the
spouse with custody of the children must make up the
difference. We cannot close our eyes to such a situation and
therefore we must turn towards legal mechanisms to ensure the
viability of families.
The United Nations has declared 1994 the International Year
of the Family. Celebrating the family also means being aware of
changes in it and ensuring that every member of the family can
live in dignity if the family is separated or breaks up.
Family law has undergone major reforms over the years. This
is not pure coincidence. The family is evolving, it is changing
and rules of law must be adjusted to the new reality.
The Constitution splits legislative powers in these fields
between the federal and provincial governments. Divorce and
corollary measures such as custody and support are regulated by
the Divorce Act of 1985.
From a tax point of view, the Income Tax Act provides that, in
calculating his income for a taxation year, a taxpayer must
include any amount received during that year in the form of
allowance or support payments. Conversely, a taxpayer can
deduct any amount paid as allowance or support. This is the
deduction-inclusion rule.
Many requirements must be met before the amount can be
paid or received, and before it can be deductible or taxable. In
fact, there are six of them.
(1820)
The amount must be paid or received as support payment or
other type of allowance. It must be paid or received in
compliance with a decision from a court of competent
jurisdiction, or in compliance with a written agreement. It must
be paid or received to support the needs of the recipient, of the
children of the marriage, or both. The alimony or allowance
must be payable regularly; the spouses or former spouses must
be separated by virtue of a divorce, legal separation or written
separation agreement. The spouses must live separately at the
time the payment is made or received and also the rest of the
year.
As you can see, many requirements have to be met before a
payment can be made. Once all these conditions are fulfilled, the
deduction-inclusion rule comes into play. This tax policy is also
based on four principles which the Minister of Finance
explained in the report of the federal-provincial-territorial
committee on family law.
It is a tax principle that when a deduction is claimed by a
taxpayer regarding an expense, the recipient must pay tax on the
amount. Recipients of alimony payments must be taxed the
same as other taxpayers receiving the same income from other
sources. The tax deduction granted to the payer makes the idea
of providing support more palatable. Finally, this tax treatment
is a form of subsidy which benefits children, since it is an
incentive for the payer to provide more support.
Let us go back to each of these points. First, let us look at the
deduction-inclusion rule. One approach points to a variety of
approaches. For instance, Australia treats support payments as a
debt or a non-deductible obligation. In the United States,
however, a distinction is made between child support and
spousal support. The non-custodial parent pays income tax on
child support payments but spousal support is deductible.
These examples indicate the range of variations in terms of
tax policy. The deduction-inclusion principle benefits only
families where the support payer is in a higher tax bracket than
the recipient. Is tax policy fair when it is based on income
disparity? Should we not focus our support on low-income
single parent families?
Canadian society has changed tremendously since 1942, when
the first tax provisions on support payments were introduced.
The number of tax brackets has been considerably reduced, and
creditors and debtors may be subject to the same tax rates,
although one may have a higher income than the other. Finally,
if the non-custodial parent has a lower tax rate that the custodial
parent, the total amount of taxes paid will be higher.
The tax deduction granted the support payer, which was
thought to be an incentive for people to pay support payments,
did not have that effect. Support mechanisms had to be put into
place when women experienced problems collecting these pay-
2657
ments. In 1974, the Law Reform Commission estimated that in
as many as 75 per cent of all cases, people defaulted on their
payments.
It is obvious that single parent women-and I am aware my
time is running out-are particularly vulnerable economically,
and we can turn this situation around to some extent by
providing for a tax scheme that would meet their needs.
(1825)
The government could give this question serious thought and
do so quickly. It should revise concepts that are very damaging
to the economic security of women who are single parents.
The Bloc Quebecois is therefore in favour of amending the
Income Tax Act so that child support payments are no longer
considered taxable income for their recipients.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Madam Speaker, the
motion we are debating today, that in the opinion of the House
the government should amend the Income Tax Act so that child
support payments are no longer considered taxable income for
the recipients, serves one major and very useful purpose. It
draws attention to one of the major problems of single parents,
mainly women, and the high cost of raising children.
This issue should be discussed in the House and all its related
problems and solutions pointed out. This I will do further on in
my speech.
This motion implies that somehow the current income tax
laws on alimony and maintenance payments are unfair,
contribute to the problem and therefore should be amended. On
this point I disagree as do the majority of my colleagues in the
Reform Party.
The logic is that since the money is paid to a parent in support
of raising children, by taxing this income governments are
taxing our children.
This particular logic is fundamentally flawed and the
alternatives suggested by this motion may result in children
being even worse off.
Under the current Income Tax Act, section 60(b) and (c), the
supporting parent is permitted to receive a tax deduction for
alimony and maintenance payments while the receiving parent
is required, under section 56(1)(b) and (c), to include the receipt
of such payments as income if the amount was received under an
order or decree made by a competent tribunal in accordance with
the laws of a province.
Therefore we are assured that tax is being paid by one parent
and the income is not double taxed.
In addition, the receiving parent is given a child tax credit
similar to any other parent raising children.
Therefore the alternative in this motion, which suggests a
complete overhaul of sections 60 and 56 of the Income Tax Act,
may result in less moneys going to the recipient.
Revenue Canada argues that it gives tax breaks to parents who
make support payments to compensate them for the loss of
dependent deductions lost after a divorce.
In other words, the support recipient now receives the child
tax credit and the personal tax exemption which was being
deducted by the supporting parent.
This confirms an important accounting principle that is the
very basis of the Income Tax Act that where a taxpayer claims a
deduction in respect of an expense, the recipient should pay the
tax on it.
Herein lies the major problem to the motion before us today.
Who will pay the tax on the child support payment if it is no
longer considered taxable income for the recipient?
As alluded to before, it is logical to argue that if it were
non-taxable for the recipient then Revenue Canada would make
it non-taxable for the parent making the payment.
Then my question would be would this result in lower
maintenance payments by the supporting parent?
Would this motion, if adopted, generate less revenue to the
recipient than the status quo?
The rationale for the current system is simple and sensible.
First, the spouse who claims the child tax deduction should also
be the one responsible for claiming the income associated with
raising the child.
Second, if this money were not to be taxed at all it would
create a situation in which separated families are given
preferential treatment under the Income Tax Act to that granted
to complete families, especially if the receiving spouse is also
allowed the child tax credit.
Third, the tax deduction makes the payment of child support
more attractive and enticing for the supporting parent to make
despite the statistics mentioned by the former member of the
Bloc Quebecois. This is a major concession on the part of
Revenue Canada because there are no limits to the amount. All
that is needed is an agreement.
(1830)
Fourth, the current arrangement can have an income splitting
effect whereby between the two parties less tax is paid overall
and more money is available for the child.
Fifth, good, bad or indifferent, whatever the point of view, the
current system maximizes the support payment for
maintenance.
Having stated why the current system is probably as good as
can be expected, I would like to address some of the problems
that the motion tries to correct.
2658
First, the real problem is that support recipients spend the
money without paying taxes.
Second, as of March 1, 1992 approximately 75 per cent of
non-custodial divorced parents who had been ordered to make
child support payments were in arrears.
Third, this forces support recipients to turn to social
assistance, costing taxpayers money that otherwise should have
been paid by the non-custodial parent.
Fourth, insufficient funds either to pay the taxes or care for
the child creates stress and extra concern for the custodial
parent.
Fifth, in many instances supporting spouses leave the
province in order to avoid paying child support. Since it is a
provincial responsibility to administer the child support and
alimony system authorities are virtually helpless. The result is
an increase in welfare costs to the provinces.
What are some of the solutions? We argue against the motion
but what can we contribute in the House to help solve this very
important problem?
We could leave the current system in place and encourage the
courts to recognize better the financial needs of the recipients
and the high cost of raising children. We could change the
federal-provincial laws to allow interprovincial tracking of
non-payers. We could initiate a campaign of shame on those
parents who wilfully avoid payments to support their children
and reminders to support recipients to remit some taxes
periodically throughout the year to reduce the lump sum
requirement at tax time. We could lower the tax rate for
everyone by lowering government spending. That could be a
tough sell in the House.
Unless there is an agreement between the two parents the
non-custodial parent does not get the maintenance deduction.
Therefore both parties when in divorce court should be made
aware of the tax consequences before final agreement is
reached. The support recipient should seek more equity through
the support system itself and not through the tax system.
In the 1992 federal budget a new child tax benefit was created.
It was designed to aid in the fight against child poverty by
targeting federal moneys to those families in financial need. The
motion helps point out a problem in society but the Income Tax
Act did not cause the problem. It was caused by human error on
the part of parents for whatever reason. The solution lies in
public awareness and education for divorcing couples so that
they do not make deals at the kitchen table or, if they make deals
at the kitchen table, they are cognizant of the impact of their
decisions.
The reality is taxable support payments are better than no
support payments. Income tax is far too complicated and too
intrusive when involved in dictating through tax preferences our
social behaviour. Our entire taxation system should be
reviewed, reformed and simplified.
In conclusion, a flat tax for Canada would help solve our
social program funding with higher personal exemptions,
improve the tax system through simplification, and, for
members across the way, create more jobs because taxpayers
would have more disposable income.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on
this important motion. I would like to take the opportunity to
congratulate the hon. member for Nepean for bringing forward
this issue to the House of Commons.
(1835)
The motion before us addresses the changing social and
economic nature of Canadian society, namely the increasing
number of single parent families and the difficulty these parents
face in providing for their children. I support the motion because
I believe that by addressing the issue of child support payments
we are also addressing the broader fundamental problem of
child poverty.
Our government has made a commitment to invest in people
and to create opportunities for all Canadians. All our economic
and social policies have aimed to achieve this objective. I
believe the motion before us is consistent with that goal. It gives
us the opportunity to ensure that children of lone parent families
are provided with the resources necessary to live successful and
productive lives.
The level of child poverty in Canada is unacceptably high.
Recent statistics show us that 1.2 million children in our country
are living in poverty. Canada's poor children live extremely
disadvantaged lives. These children often live in poor housing
conditions. They have a greater likelihood of experiencing
unemployment in their families and have far less access to
quality child care.
Further, according to Campaign 2000 of the Child Poverty
Organization with which I met this morning, poor children can
expect to have a shorter life span, suffer from illness, require an
increasing amount of emergency food assistance and are more
likely to drop out of school.
The rate of child poverty in single parent families in 1991 was
about 61 per cent. In other words, three of every five children
living in a single parent family lived in poverty. On average poor
single parent families need an extra $9,000 a year just to reach
the poverty line. These figures are particularly true for female
custodial parents. After divorce, custodial mothers experience a
dramatic increase in the economic burdens and income earning
limitations linked to child rearing responsibilities.
2659
Close to about 60 per cent of all female lone parents live in
poverty. Although this group represents only 3 per cent of all
Canadian households they bear 17 per cent of Canada's total
poverty burden. This problem must be addressed by all members
of the House.
In my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants there are
approximately 2,300 female lone parent households. I have had
the opportunity to speak with many of these parents. They have
raised many of the same arguments placed before the House
today. It has become increasingly difficult over time for single
parents to provide adequately for their children. For custodial
parents, a single portion of the support payment is lost to taxes.
As a result support payments often do not meet the needs of
children the payments are intended to assist.
In light of these statistics we must ensure that children of lone
parent families do not suffer the consequences of inadequate
levels of child support. Unless we address the problem the same
children will continue to suffer the consequences of a system
that is not providing the effects it was designed to produce.
When the inclusion-exclusion tax policy was developed in
1942 its purpose was to ensure that as much money as possible
was going to children of single parent families. By taxing the
custodial parent who is generally in a lower tax bracket rather
than the child support payer, more money was left over in those
times to meet the needs of the children.
However much has changed since 1942. We must ensure that
our laws reflect these new social and economic realities. There
are more single parent families now than we had in the past. The
majority of these single parents are women who after divorce
suffer a decline in their standard of living.
(1840 )
Presently there are only three tax brackets as opposed to ten in
1942 as we heard earlier. There is a greater likelihood therefore
that both parents earn the same tax bracket. This negates any tax
savings that would have been generated in the earlier years.
Upon divorce, family resources are often inadequate to
continue to meet the needs of the children or the two households
that must be maintained. Therefore by taxing already low child
support payments we are in effect taking money away from the
families and the children who need it the most.
As the motion indicates child support payments should not be
taxed. Instead these payments should be seen simply as a
continuation of the obligation of support payers toward their
children. By adopting the motion we could help ensure that
single parents and their children are not unfairly targeted by a
system that is no longer working as it should.
In 1989 an all-party resolution was unanimously adopted
calling for the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000.
While many faces in the House may have changed since then we
must continue to support this commitment. I believe the motion
offers all members of the House an opportunity to renew our
fight against child poverty.
In closing the motion alone will not bring an end to child
poverty, but I believe that by supporting the proposed change we
can take concrete steps to ensure more money is being directed
to those children who need it the most.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Madam Speaker, I will be
brief and to the point. First of all, I would like to congratulate
the hon. member for Nepean for her marvellous initiative. This
issue has been talked about for a number of years by heads of
single parent families but today, finally, a motion is introduced
in this House. I hope it will lead to a rapid solution to this
problem.
I was already familiar with this issue, but the hon. member for
Nepean brought us facts and findings which have made me even
more aware of the perverse impact of the taxation of alimony
payments for the custodial parent.
I believe that the materials she quoted and the facts she
presented, which clearly demonstrated that indeed children in
the present situation have less than they had previously, will
convince our colleagues in the Reform Party to revise their
position and adopt a frame of mind more in tune with the 1990s
and shortly the year 2000.
I will conclude by congratulating again the hon. member for
Nepean and hoping that this House will strongly endorse the
motion and that the government will act upon it without delay.
[English]
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Madam Speaker,
for many Canadians the taxation of child support payments
remains the great divide between their responsibilities as
caregivers and their capacity to meet these obligations.
[Translation]
As members of the House of Commons, we will have to face
this inequality and to bring in fairness.
[English]
Current tax laws state that child support payments paid by the
non-custodial parent are considered as tax deductible, while the
payments received by the custodial parent are lumped into his or
her taxable income. On the face of it this law runs against the
grain of decades of Liberal policies designed to support families
and children.
2660
Let me offer the House some of the history that fosters the
current state of injustice. Present tax laws concerning child
support payments were enacted in the 1940s. Society and
government have been radically altered since then, but tax laws
have not been altered. There is no question that the time has
come to bring these laws up to speed with the modern era. We as
a government must take action to modify these laws not only to
bring about greater fairness but to reflect the needs of custodial
parents today and in the coming years.
(1845)
It is no exaggeration to say that the unfairness of the federal
income tax system is driving custodial parents into bankruptcy
and depriving their children of thousands of dollars in support
payments.
The Income Tax Act actively discriminates against custodial
parents by forcing them to pay tax on the support they receive
from estranged spouses.
Across Canada there are almost one million single custodial
parents. Of this number more than 750,000 are women. This
issue like too many others involves the continuing suffering of
disadvantaged women and children. We cannot remain unmoved
by the adversity imposed on these Canadians by our tax regime.
[Translation]
The Income Tax Act much be changed to reflect the needs of
women heading single parent families in this country.
[English]
Nations the world over have decided to make absent parents
more responsible for their children. Foreign governments have
taken the initiative to change their child support tax laws so that
the parent who has left the home has a greater financial
responsibility to the custodial parent and child.
When we look at our neighbours to the south we do not see the
inequities encountered in Canada. In fact, the taxation laws
concerning child support payments in the United States are the
reverse of our own.
In the United States child support payments are deemed to be
non-taxable income for both the payers and the recipients. If I
may say so, this seems to be a more logical and equitable way to
handle the issue.
In Britain the child support tax laws have only recently been
changed and the government intervention has only recently
moved to lessen the plight of single mothers. Nearly all absent
parents have been tracked down in England and forced to pay an
amount derived from an originally applied formula. This
formula makes child support a top financial priority, placing
great emphasis on the parent's income and the cost of raising the
children while sanctioning few excuses for delinquency.
The British system emulates that of the United States by not
taxing child support payments. Britain's approach to this issue
has emerged as one the world's toughest. This government must
join the worldwide march toward tougher child support laws and
take immediate action.
In 1991 Statistics Canada revealed that there had been a 34 per
cent increase in lone parent families in the previous ten years.
By comparison, the number of two parent families with children
rose by just 6 per cent over the same period. The end result is
that lone parents accounted for 20 per cent of all families in the
year 1991, up from 17 per cent in 1981.
One child in five resides in a single parent household.
Moreover, these statistics clearly show that children are hit the
hardest by the obsolescence of tax laws concerning child
support.
The facts are plain and simple. Female lone parents remain
consistently less likely than other parents to be employed and
there have been sharp drops in employment levels of lone parent
women during the recessions in the early 1980s and the 1990s.
Lone parent families have lower incomes than two parent
families. In 1990 the average income of female headed lone
parent families at $22,000 was just 38 per cent of the $57,000
earned by dual parent families with children.
These numbers demand action by this government. When we
are struck by the appalling state of the current child tax laws we
must ask ourselves why this issue has not been dealt with before.
It is clear that the current tax laws have created inequities
between the payers and the recipients of child support. The tax
treatment of child support payments makes a very complicated
issue out of one that should be as straightforward and simple as
possible. No other country treats the taxation of child support
the way Canada does.
We know who the victims of the current state of child support
tax laws are. It is a statistically proven fact that single women
and their children are being financially devastated and socially
marginalized.
(1850 )
They are the ones who bear the economic consequences of
divorce and separation. If the current policy is not changed it is
the children of single parent families who will go on paying, not
just in some cases and not just by misfortune, but by our
deliberate failure to recognize the problems with our existing
tax laws.
Modernizing our primitive treatment of child support
payments is an issue that must be remedied through the tax
system. Better child support guidelines and enforcement
mechanisms are essential and must be addressed within the
justice system.
2661
[Translation]
We must acknowledge the problems of current legislation and
pass the measures necessary to improve the situation.
[English]
Let me now introduce some of the proposed improvements to
the current tax law. We should remember that the combined
impact of income tax and child support policies must be
measured by its impact on the standard of living of the affected
family.
There are a number of changes that could be affected through
federal legislation and policy measures. The avenues this
government needs to explore are several. The Income Tax Act
could develop child support guidelines that reflect the cost of
raising children and that are compatible with revamped tax
treatments of child support payments.
This act would support the efforts of lone parent families in
Canada, specifically the single mother. We could follow the lead
of the American tax system and not include child support
payments in the calculation of our taxable income. This would
treat child support costs in the same manner for tax purposes for
custodial and non-custodial parents. This would also result in
equal treatment of child support costs in families in which
parents live together and in those in which parents are separated
or divorced.
As insurmountable as these problems may appear, we must
attempt to reform the existing tax on child support payments
which, quite frankly, is the government's punishment to those
women who, for whatever, reason have separated from their
spouses.
The current law is extremely limited as a means of
distributing tax relief for the benefit of children and in most
cases it is detrimental. Women and children are its victims. I
hope all members will join the women and men in this House
who hope to right this injustice.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We have about a minute
left.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Madam Speaker,
I too am delighted to rise in support of the motion of my Liberal
colleague, the member for Nepean.
The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Income
Tax Act so that child support payments are no longer considered taxable income
for their recipients.
We heard a lot of presentations earlier and I agree that the
motion raises the issue of fairness. Is it fair to tax support
payments earmarked for children? In that question is inherent as
well the question are we committed to the children of our
country, the children who are the future resource that will help
build our nation even stronger, the children who cannot vote but
nevertheless who need our help? We have a duty and an
obligation to support them.
As well, this motion is a commitment to single parents and our
commitment to eliminate poverty in this nation as this House did
on November 24, 1989, unanimously adopted. In conclusion, I
would like to state that we have an obligation to our nation's
children, to support them and make child support payments no
longer taxable in the hands of the recipients.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
2661
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1855)
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Madam
Speaker, I understand that you are giving me the floor regarding
a question I asked the Deputy Prime Minister, on February 18,
about the POWA Program.
I will remind the House that, on February 18, I asked the
Deputy Prime Minister what her intentions were regarding the
support program for workers affected by collective lay-offs.
The POWA Program is a joint federal-provincial program 70 per
cent of the cost of which is covered by Ottawa and the remaining
30 per cent is paid by the provinces. At that time, the Deputy
Prime Minister was, unknowingly I believe, in the wrong when
she said that this program was in some way connected with the
Canada Labour Code, which is totally false, of course.
I rise today to point out that the POWA Program, which
replaces the Workers Assistance Program created in 1988,
discriminates against workers in the Montreal area. Everybody
knows that, under the terms of this program, for workers to be
eligible for benefits, which are half-way between
unemployment insurance and social assistance, there must be a
certain number of workers laid off. In the Montreal area, with a
workforce of over 500 000 people, the administrative agreement
says that at least 100 workers must be laid off for them to be
eligible for benefits.
However, with its clothing and textile sectors, the industrial
fabric of Montreal is such that most businesses that would apply
for the POWA Program have a workforce of between 20 and 30
people. It is so true, so disturbing and alarming, that 83 per cent
of all applications made by Montreal companies under the
POWA program, the Program for Older Worker Adjustment
2662
which is, let me remind you, a joint federal-provincial program,
have been rejected.
This goes to show, Madam Speaker, that this is a very
discriminatory program. I would like to remind the House that
the members for Saint-Léonard and Saint-Henri-Westmount
have tabled petitions on that subject. They decided to represent
the workers so that the government, Tory in those days, would
remedy the situation.
There is an enormous consensus in Montreal. The mayor,
unions, employers, and naturally workers, all pray that a
much-wanted and almost urgent modification be implemented
very soon. At the end of my speech, the minister suggested I
table a private member's bill. You all know how much I always
make it my duty to please the Deputy Prime Minister so I am
happy to announce that I will indeed be tabling a private
member's bill. As concerns the respect for workers, the
challenge is now to find out if the government majority will be
consistent, will stand by the Bloc Quebecois, will support that
bill and make sure it is votable so that we can put an end to that
unacceptable discrimination as the various sectors of the
Montreal community have requested.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member stated that the program for older
worker adjustment, known as POWA, discriminates against
Montreal.
I would like to make a very strong case that it is not the case at
all.
The program for older worker adjustment is a program
designed to help older workers who have been involved in major
permanent layoffs and who have little chance of finding
re-employment.
Major layoffs are defined according to the size of the
community. In larger communities such as those of over 500,000
inhabitants a major layoff would involve at least 100 workers. In
smaller communities such as those with a population of under
10,000 a major layoff would involve at least 20 workers.
POWA does not discriminate against Montreal compared with
other cities. The same guidelines are applied across the country.
The POWA eligibility criteria were negotiated with the
government of Quebec and are contained in the Canada/Quebec
POWA framework agreement. Similar POWA eligibility criteria
are contained in the other federal-provincial agreements.
POWA criteria were developed to take into account the
economic significance of the layoffs for the local community
and to reflect the fact that older workers who are laid off in
smaller communities have fewer re-employment opportunities
than workers in the larger labour market.
Under POWA 441 major layoffs have been designated in the
province of Quebec. Annuities have been purchased for 3,842
eligible older workers. The federal and Quebec governments
have spent $160 million to purchase these annuities.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 7.03 p.m. the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.03 p.m.)