TABLE OF CONTENTS
Friday, October 7, 1994
Consideration resumed of motion 6699
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6699
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6705
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6708
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6710
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6711
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6711
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6711
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6712
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6712
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6712
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6713
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6713
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6713
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6713
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6714
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6714
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6714
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6714
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6715
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6715
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6715
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6715
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 6715
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6715
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6716
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6716
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6716
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6716
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 6716
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 6717
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6717
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6717
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 6717
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6717
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 6719
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 6719
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 6721
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 6722
Bill C-54. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 6722
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6722
Bill C-55. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 6722
Bill C-283. Motion for introduction and first readingagreed to. 6722
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 6722
Motion for concurrence 6722
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6723
Consideration resumed of motion 6725
Mr. Jackson 6730Mr.
Ménard 6730
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6733
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6734
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 6737
Bill C-240. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 6739
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6740
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6742
6699
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 7, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 6 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wish to
inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) the
parliamentary secretary will be speaking for the regular allotted
time of 20 minutes. All other government speakers today and for
the remainder of the debate will be sharing the time in
10-minute sections.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We finished off
yesterday by announcing that under Standing Order 43(2) we
would be splitting our time. We had the last speaker last night.
The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest had 10 minutes and 5
minutes. I believe we should be up first today to continue our
allotted time, finishing from yesterday.
(1005 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today to the social policy review, the discussion
paper, the Liberal plan tabled by the Minister for Human
Resources Development.
The credibility of the political process right now in Canada
remains very low. People are looking to politicians to be
specific, to demonstrate that they at least know where we are
going, but what a lackluster performance; a discussion paper
which makes a vague attempt to shape a social system which is
collapsing.
The minister acknowledges the obvious, a desperate need for
change, but how do we get there? We diverge substantially. I
would like to see a plan that recommends some courageous and
creative changes but the minister obviously prefers to consult,
discuss, review and study for another year before he institutes
any changes at all.
Adding to the confusion of the Liberals' plan for social
reform is the damage created by the leaked details to the press
regarding the $7 billion cut to support programs. The Liberal
agreement has now been reduced to merely an issue over money.
There are no numbers in the plan to support any defence the
government may put forward to stem this challenge to its
credibility.
How can the minister in all good conscience continue with his
consultation process until all of the questions have been
answered with hard numbers to validate his approach to social
reform?
This government continues to spend taxpayers' dollars,
giving the appearance of action, but it continues to be the
Liberal version of action, continued overspending while doing
nothing to reduce Canada's deficit and debt load.
The Reform Party has always supported the idea of listening
to the voice of the people, what we call the grassroots of Canada.
We listen to what they have to say and we have tried to do for
them what they have asked.
Canadians are being quite clear. They want leadership and
they are challenging government to produce real legislation to
reform a shockingly wasteful and battered social safety net. We
cannot afford to wait. Canada's debt and deficit are lodestones
around the necks of Canadian taxpayers.
The government spends $110 million a day more than it earns
on programs that are antiquated, misguided and that Canadians
no longer believe in or support. Given this mindset the
government now has an excellent opportunity to begin to
overhaul the system and to redirect funds to individuals who
need it.
The Reform Party believes that the people of Canada are this
country's most valuable resource and that the nurture and
development of human knowledge, skills and relationships are
the keys to full participation in the 21st century.
We affirm the value and dignity of the individual person and
the importance of strengthening and protecting the family unit
as essential to the well-being of individuals and society.
Page 9 of the discussion paper states: ``As too many older
workers and young families have been squeezed out of the
middle class our society increasingly has begun to be polarized
between well educated, highly skilled Canadians in demand by
employers, today's economic elite, and less well educated
people without specialized up to date job skills who have been
losing ground. Thus the key to dealing with social insecurity
6700
can be summed up in the single phrase, helping people get and
keep jobs''.
How specifically are the Liberals going to ensure people get
back to work? It is evident in Canada that the median family
standard of living is falling even with two wage earner families.
The number of people living in poverty is growing and within
that group the number of those who work full time but are still
poverty stricken is growing even faster.
The number of unemployed, even counting the part timers as
fully employed and not counting the 100,000 who are too
discouraged to seek work, is at a shocking 1.1 million
Canadians. It is time to get to the root of the problem facing
Canadian families and their children.
This problem is ultimately the state of the nation's finances.
The reason so many children are reported to be living in poverty
is that many are the children of parents who are unemployed.
Unemployment still remains above 10 per cent in this country.
Even though the Liberals have been throwing billions of dollars
into the so-called infrastructure program the unemployment
rate has only dropped two-tenths of a point.
Why is the infrastructure program not working? The
government is giving billions of dollars to infrastructure
projects. Yet here we are one year after the election, billions of
dollars poorer and the unemployment rate has barely moved.
We are experiencing an economic polarization that affects
everyone.
(1010 )
Canadian taxpayers are less able to buy the products that big
industry produces. Industry consequently has fewer
opportunities for further expansion. The rich consequently have
fewer opportunities for investment. Workers consequently have
fewer job opportunities. Less money now flows into normal
projects and investment cycles. Wages are affected and further
restrained and the end result is reduced employment. Who
suffers? Our families.
The Liberals continue a status quo approach to Canada's
employment dilemma and divert attention from this problem by
calling it child poverty. The Liberals suggest that Canada's
children live in poverty. The Campaign 2000 group issued a
report that condemned the Canadian government and indirectly
the compassion and generosity of Canadians. It is alleged that
our child poverty rates are higher than all other countries in
comparison except for the United States. The statistics that are
tossed carelessly about would have us believe that fully 20 per
cent of all Canadian children live in poverty. This condemnation
leaves a very graphic image in the minds of all who hear it.
Children are seen to be living in a deplorable state:
malnourished, poorly clothed, poorly housed and under loved.
Such careless statements damage the image of Canada both
within the country and internationally. This repeated suggestion
that 20 per cent of children in Canada live in poverty is not
defined. What does this really mean?
The report of the standing committee on health and welfare,
social affairs, seniors and the status of women stated on page 5
of its report that the Statistics Canada measures are continually
and deliberately misused as poverty measures.
When the Liberals state that 20 per cent of Canadian children
live in poverty they are using a definition of poverty that does
not conform to what most people think it to mean. This is where
the confusion begins. This government is purposefully
perpetuating this confusion and is misleading the Canadian
public in terms of what the real problem is. Perhaps it has
become easier to create a problem that does not really exist than
to fix the real one.
Let me explain to the House how this interpretation has been
purposefully and carefully crafted. When the Liberals refer to
poverty they are referring to a financial state measured by
StatsCan low income cut-offs. Each year, StatsCan produces a
series of income cut-offs that marks the level of gross income
below which families must spend disproportionate amounts on
food, clothing and shelter. The cut-offs are commonly referred
to as poverty lines. They are adjusted for family size and size of
the community in order to reflect differences in basic
expenditures. StatsCan considers those whose incomes fall
below these lines to be living in straitened circumstances. A
poor child is one who is defined as one who lives in a family
whose total income is below the low income cut-off.
When StatsCan states that 20 per cent of children live in
poverty what it means is that 20 per cent of children live below
the low income cut-off point. This LICO is purely relative and
does not relate in any way to actual comparable standards of
living. Fully 18 per cent of Canada's LICO population own their
own homes mortgage free. This issue becomes a matter of
responsibility on the part of not only government but Canadians.
My party supports the legitimate role of government to do for
people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all-or
do as well for themselves-individually or through
non-government organizations.
The solution to Canada's dysfunctional social support system
is less government interference. Provide assistance in
meaningful ways. We need to offer incentives for parents in
determining the best choices for child care. Social engineering
policies that force parents to place their children into day care
are intrusive and discriminatory. Treat all families fairly and
remove the day care expense allowance.
6701
Support single parent families by allowing private collection
agencies to go after deadbeat parents delinquent on
maintenance payments.
Provide good jobs for Canadians and cut their tax burden,
creating a climate of initiative and investment. Stop
overspending, balance the budget and begin to pay down our
debt which now totals over $533 billion.
While I recognize the attempt that has been made to wrap
some protective arms around Canadians in the name of social
reform, the discussion paper is mere rhetorical flourish, long on
words, short on numbers and devoid of any plan.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech. I have
one very short question.
The hon. member's party has repeatedly criticized everything
that we have put forward so far, and the social reform is no
different. It has said, and I caution it is in Hansard, that it is
going to cut $15 billion. From where?
(1015 )
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I am going
to be quite blunt this morning in my response to the question
from the hon. member on the other side of the House.
All that happened yesterday during question period was an
attack on the opposition side by the Liberal side of the House.
Genuine questions were placed yesterday during question
period and all we saw was an attack.
I am going to give an answer this morning to the hon. member
and ask him to look at the big picture because this government
has failed Canadians financially, socially, economically and
constitutionally. Quite frankly, Canadians are fed up, like I am,
with this kind of approach to social reform. That is my answer.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister
of Human Resources Development and this government for
taking on a very important initiative. It is an initiative of
historical proportions and is extremely important for this
generation of Canadians as we deal with changing dynamics and
the changing configuration of the Canadian economy.
If there is one thing that is constant about our society, it is
change. If we look at the social, technological and economic
changes that have occurred over the past 30 years, it would
follow logically that our social programs which were initiated
many years ago need to be altered to better deal with the present
reality.
Our social programs touch every single individual who
resides in this country. It is about the people in this Chamber. It
is about our neighbours. It is about our friends. It is about this
country's children. It is about the young people who today are
struggling to get that very first important job, to reach that
milestone of getting the type of training they require.
Underneath this change and new configuration there is a very
simple notion, a simple premise which ties all the issues
together. The best form of security for Canadians comes from
having a job. That premise underlies every part of this
discussion paper.
Canadians want to work not only for economic security but
for the sense of purpose and dignity that work provides. The
Catholic Children's Aid Society in Toronto expressed this point
very well in its submission to the parliamentary standing
committee earlier this year. It said that people receive meaning
and a sense of who they are from their work. Their well-being,
social involvement and contributions are defined by their work.
That is what social security reform is all about.
If the best form of security is a job, then our social programs
should help people get jobs. Unemployment insurance should
really be employment insurance, a springboard to launch people
back into the workforce. Employment programs should be
measured by one simple criterion: Do they help people get jobs?
Social assistance should help people find jobs, not hinder
them. It should provide support where it is needed, but focus on
helping people gain independence. That is not the way the
system works now. For too many people it does just the
opposite, making it harder for people to gain that independence,
to access training. For too many people the system gets things
backward.
(1020 )
This debate is about addressing the real challenges and real
problems of real people throughout this country.
In a letter to the Minister of Human Resources Development a
divorced mother of two writes about how she tried to get off
welfare and how the system abandoned her as a result. She says:
``It is very backward that I had to quit my job to provide better
for my family''.
A young man writes about his pride in staying off UI by taking
short term jobs in his desire to improve his job prospects
through training, training that he cannot afford unless he quits
work and gets UI benefits. He comments: ``The price of values is
extremely high under the present system''. How in heaven's
name can we motivate youth with things as they are?
An unemployed worker writes about the bureaucratic red tape
that has delayed the training he needs while his UI benefits run
out and his life savings are depleted.
A young woman who lost her job writes about programs that
seem irrelevant and ineffective. After a year in the system she
finds herself no closer to finding a job than the day she started.
6702
A disabled athlete writes with enthusiasm about his plans to
get off welfare and start his own business. He expresses his
frustration with the welfare rules that stop him from raising the
capital he needs to get the business started.
Is the status quo working for these people? Is the system
working for these people? Or is the system that is supposed to
help these people actually denying them their rightful
opportunity to bring about positive change to their lives?
We could have chosen to do what past governments have done
and shy away from this very difficult debate. However we asked
Canadians and members in this House to take on the challenge of
changing people's lives and their children's lives by providing
them with a better tool kit.
Everywhere I go, in every city and town, on every street and
avenue, citizens of this great country are looking for change. It
is our responsibility to bring about that change. It is our
responsibility to give our young people a green light, not a pink
slip. It is our responsibility to get people off the welfare rolls
and on to the payrolls of our businesses. That is what this debate
is all about.
It is clear that things are not working. We can sit idly by and
not answer to the changes which are occurring all around us, or
we can take some tough decisions and engage Canadians in a
meaningful debate about the type of social security system they
want.
I would like to look specifically at the options proposed in this
debate. Let us look at increasing investment in our people
through better employment programs, refocusing
unemployment insurance to help people get jobs, and helping
parents to balance work and family responsibilities through
such measures as funding for better child care.
(1025 )
Let us bring children into the fold and give them
opportunities. Let us get started the right way. Let us give young
people, our children the support they need. Start them off on the
right foot so they can look to the future with confidence because
they have been given the tools, the nurturing and the love so
many of them require. Let us support a welfare system that
opens up opportunity and hope instead of locking people into
dependence and keeping too many of our children in poverty.
I hear the hon. member from the Reform Party heckling. I
think the Reform Party should come clean with Canadians. The
only thing it has offered in this debate is that the way to erase
poverty in this country is by lowering the level at which we
define poverty. That is a simpleton's approach to a very
important problem.
The federal government spends more than $3 billion on
employment programs and services like job counselling,
training and labour market information. It is or should be a good
investment. It should help people get off UI or welfare and back
into paid work. However, far too many people end up in
programs that have little to do with opportunities or their needs.
Many get training for jobs that do not exist locally. Many are
shunted from one training program to the next when all they
really need is some basic counselling and advice on what jobs
are available.
The key is to build a flexible system. Social programs should
serve people, not the other way around. People should not be
made to fit into programs. Programs should be made so that
people can have access to training. There should be flexibility so
that people can go from one program to another to obtain the tool
kit they require to participate fully in our economy.
For example only 10 per cent of all UI claimants receive
counselling. We have to change that. We have to provide
Canadians with wider opportunities, a bigger menu. Sometimes
we put people in training programs when what they really
require is some counselling and a personal action plan. Give
them better labour market information. Tell them where the jobs
are and what they should be training for. Tell them what the
opportunities are in the present market and give them the
required tools so they can get back into the labour force.
The action plan we are talking about would have to be
supported by more flexible programs. As I said earlier, people
need good information about the job market, more accessible
training programs, different kinds of training, classroom
training, on the job training, computer based training and
distance learning to ensure they get what works best for their
situation in their community.
Let us talk about incentives for hiring unemployed workers.
In some cases government could pay part of the wages for those
unemployed workers who need experience and on the job
training. This would make it easier for employers to hire people
with employment problems. Funding could also pay wages for
unemployed workers to do useful work in their communities or
to help unemployed individuals start their own businesses using
the available tools. We have to pay more attention to getting
results, to making sure that people get the help they need to get
jobs. This means less attention to rigid rules and procedures set
in Ottawa, more flexibility in letting communities manage their
own programs. Businesses, workers, and others in the
community can often decide what kind of programs work best at
the local level. Let us put the words empowerment for
communities, empowerment for the individual, a reality. It is by
far the best way to deal with the issues ahead.
(1030)
Let us look at better ways to deal in a co-operative manner
with the provinces. Let us talk about a single window approach.
People should not have to go to 7, 8, 9, 10 different offices to
find out who is going to help them during these difficult times of
unemployment and restructuring in our society.
6703
Let us establish single windows in co-operation with the
provinces, with local communities. Let us reach out at the
community level and use what we have at our disposal to make
sure that people are provided with better services, with better
assistance, with a more efficient system that can help them deal
with the challenges they face.
In addition, discussions with the provinces should look at
improving the federal vocational rehabilitation of disabled
persons. This exercise is about maximizing human potential. It
is about giving our country the best possible, best skilled
workforce available so that people, so that businesses, will be
attracted to our nation. They will invest and we will create the
type of vibrant community business environment that will speak
to generating wealth for our nation.
Better employment programs will depend in part on designing
a better UI program. The UI program works well for people who
require short-term support while looking for a job but it does not
work well for those who need help adjusting to the changes in
the job market.
Canadians who find themselves repeatedly out of work need
better support to get and keep jobs. The program often
discourages adjustment. For some unemployed people there is
no incentive to learn new skills that are in demand by employers.
The program is easily abused. Some workers and employers
plan their work schedules around the UI program, alternating
employment with UI benefits as a way of life. Many working
Canadians, such as people in part time jobs or the
self-employed, are not covered at all by the existing program.
What does that say about a society that on the one hand speaks
about self-employment, promoting business, but then does not
provide the support mechanism that is required for business to
prosper?
The discussion paper outlines two basic proposals for
unemployment insurance. One would work more or less the
same way it does now but what is really the key is the adjustment
component. Forty per cent of all UI claimants in the past five
years have had at least three claims. That tells us that there is a
dysfunctional relationship between that individual and the
marketplace. So what do we do. We have to provide people with
a tool kit that can reintegrate them into the workforce. These are
new problems. We are not dealing with cyclical unemployment,
we are dealing with structural unemployment. We cannot have
the old form of unemployment insurance dealing with the new
reality, the new economy. We need to change it, and this is
proposed in the discussion paper.
(1035)
There are many options to explore in this approach. For
example, we need to decide how long claimants can draw
adjustment benefits, and how much they should get. Two of the
hardest questions would be the following.
Should benefits be income tested so that the amount a person
receives depends on what other family income is available? That
is one question we have to openly debate.
Is it fair that an individual who makes $40,000 or $50,000,
working eight months of the year, receives UI benefits? Is it fair
that somebody somewhere making $18,000 or $20,000 a year,
working 12 months of the year, actually subsidizes that other
individual? Is that fair?
An hon. member: Not fair, no.
Mr. Bevilacqua: Is it worth debating?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Bevilacqua: It is worth debating, and that is why the
government has placed it in the discussion paper.
The second approach to UI reform does not distinguish
between occasional and frequent users. It adjusts the eligibility
requirements or the benefits available to all claimants. This
involves increasing the time a person must work to get benefits,
reducing the length of time that people can draw UI benefits, or
lowering the amount a claimant receives.
This approach could save money which might be re-invested
in employment services. However, I feel it does not in itself
address the real problems of people who have trouble getting
and keeping work. Under either approach we should consider the
needs of workers in non-standard employment.
More people today work in part time or temporary jobs, or
have more than one job. Also there are more self-employed
people. Many are not fully covered by unemployment insurance.
Some are excluded entirely from UI. If the current trends
continue many of these kinds of employment will not be
non-standard for long, they will set new standards. If the UI
program is going to stay in touch with the needs of Canadians we
will have to start thinking about where the new kinds of jobs can
fit in.
The discussion paper talks about child care. It talks about
restructuring and modernizing Canada's social security system.
Many questions need to be answered. I ask Canadians, members
of Parliament who will be holding town hall meetings,
Canadians whom I think should be sitting around their kitchen
tables discussing these key issues, to participate in this historic
debate so that we can bring about positive change to the lives of
our people.
6704
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Human Resources Development. There was much
that was well-intentioned, but instead of all these words, I
would have liked to hear figures and specific proposals.
I would have liked the parliamentary secretary to tell us how
much will be cut from employment programs, student assistance
programs and income security programs for the neediest in our
society. I would have appreciated some figures.
When the Minister of Finance brought down his budget, the
figures mentioned were in the billions of dollars. I would have
like the parliamentary secretary to show us the courtesy of
explaining how this applies to the government's proposals, or in
any case, the proposals mentioned in the paper. If that means
three or four or five billion dollars less invested by governments
in social programs, it would have been nice if he had said so. I
think that is the least we could expect.
(1040)
I also wish he had elaborated somewhat on the implications of
the minister's proposals for provincial jurisdictions. We are
getting into a big federal-provincial squabble here. Of course,
as a sovereignist Quebecer, I do not really mind because I see the
federal government and the State of Quebec as having entirely
different objectives, and I think they should each have their own
policies. When I see the federal government massively invading
provincial jurisdictions, it merely confirms my arguments in
favour of Quebec's sovereignty. I should be pleased, but in a
way I am not because, once again, the neediest in our society, in
Canada and Quebec, will have to wait and listen to all these
discussions, and meanwhile, there will be no solutions on the
horizon.
In other words, I would have liked to see some clearcut
proposals at last. Basically, the minister is inviting us to
participate in a big dialogue. It is like being invited to Parler
pour parler, on TV. For six months, Canadians and Quebecers
will discuss the minister's proposals but there will be no
solutions on the table. I would have like to hear this: ``We, as a
government, propose to deal with unemployment this way; we
propose to deal with unemployment in another way; and we
propose to invest certain amounts in income security''. Nothing
is being proposed. We are invited to talk about it, to discuss it
amongst ourselves. That was the comment I wanted to make.
I also have a question for the parliamentary secretary. So far, I
can see no proposals in this document concerning employment.
However, the parliamentary secretary did say that some jobs in
Canada were not being filled because Canadians lack training. I
wish he would tell us which newspaper today, in English Canada
or in Quebec, has pages and pages of want ads with jobs that will
not be filled because people lack skills. We do not find that in
the papers. The papers tell us that the unemployment rate is
between 10 and 12 per cent. The papers tell us that people want
training but are not getting it.
We have a society that tells us: ``We are going to help you find
a job'', but as far as anyone can see, there are not that many jobs
to go around.
So I wish the parliamentary secretary would help me in this
respect. Where should my constituents in Jonquière look to find
all these job offers in Canada?
[English]
Mr. Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to what
the hon. member said. I have a bit of a problem with some of the
comments he made vis-à-vis federal-provincial relations.
If the hon. member takes some time to read the program as
outlined by the federal government, he will see that we have a
very caring federal government which is reaching out to the
provinces in a number of ways.
We have a federal proposal dealing with the management and
planning of the labour market, a single window approach which
I am sure the hon. member would like to support in the province
of Quebec, to make our system more efficient and to avoid the
waste and duplication that occur in various programs we deal
with as federal and provincial governments.
On the issue of fiscal parameters, the hon. member should
read that section once again. It is in the green paper. It is quite
clear. We spoke about it in the last budget. The hon. member
knows about the $2.4 billion that we cut from UI. That is in here.
The government was elected on a commitment to reach 3 per
cent of the GDP deficit reduction target. That is in this book.
(1045)
We are being extremely upfront with Canadians. In reference
to job creation, I find it quite ironic that we have created over
275,000 jobs. Nothing illustrates more the success of the
government than what we have been able to do in the riding of
the official opposition critic of human resources development.
When she came into office in October the unemployment rate in
her riding was 12.3 per cent. I am happy to report to the House of
Commons that the unemployment rate in her riding is now 9.1
per cent. I do not hear members of the Bloc Quebecois
congratulating us on such initiatives, and may I add that
members on that side rise in the House day in and day out.
When we look at job growth the province of Quebec is number
two in Canada. That speaks to the type of programs the
government has initiated in bringing about what we refer to as
positive change in the lives of the people of Quebec.
6705
On the issue of the general philosophical thrust of the
government, when we look at legislation that has gone through
the House already; when we look at the fact that our Canada
student loans legislation, which was approved by the House,
has a section that deals with special opportunity grants for
disabled Canadians, for women who are pursuing doctoral
studies, for high need students, and for people who come from
lower incomes; and when we look at the whole notion of
deferred grants where students graduating with debt loads of
$22,000 are seeing them reduced by $6,000 by the federal
government, it speaks to the spirit in which we operate.
Let us also look at the unemployment insurance changes we
made in the last budget. Low income unemployed Canadians
with dependants are receiving the highest possible benefit rate
of 60 per cent; 27,000 people have benefited from that change.
For the life of me I do not know where the hon. member has
been in the past few months. We have moved very quickly since
the October 25 election when we received an overwhelming
mandate from the people of Canada on legislation that speaks to
improving the quality of life of Canadians from coast to coast to
coast, including those in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I was very
interested to hear the member mention in his speech that we may
have to take a look at the size of family incomes when we talk
about social services. I think that is a really great idea.
The biggest problem we face at the end of the process is that
most members in the House will not be permitted to vote freely
on whatever legislation the government decides to bring down.
They will end up having to toe the party line regardless of all the
consultation that took place in the ridings. As the House knows,
I am originally from New Zealand and I have seen what happens
when consultation goes on and on and on.
Is the member taking responsibility for letting his
constituents know that the whole area of social programs is
costing a phenomenal amount of money?
Mr. Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I engage in very extensive
consultation in my riding. I take great pride in representing the
views of my constituents.
Talking about free votes, I have not noticed too many people
voting against their own parties; everybody stands at the same
time. Let us put the rhetoric aside for a second and address the
reality of the fact that the Reform Party operates more or less
like any other traditional party.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to speak on this very important subject.
I recognize, as do many of my colleagues in the House, the
need to reform our social safety net. There are several
compelling reasons for that reform. We live in a world where
more and more skills are needed to meet the needs of more and
more jobs today. It is also a world of rapid technological change
and we have an aging labour force.
(1050)
We live in a society where unfortunately marital breakdown
has become more commonplace, leading to poverty. That is one
of the reasons I am a strong advocate of returning to traditional
family values and of polices which help families stay together.
We live in a society where those in need can rely less and less on
their families and communities for help.
Canada's current income security programs were set up at a
time when unemployment, regardless of skills, was a brief
condition between jobs; when the one-income two-parent
family was the rule; and when child poverty was hardly talked
about, let alone measured.
Canada has seen great change in the last decade alone. The
former government was working on reforms that would help
Canadians meet today's challenges, reforms that would reorient
passive income support programs to an active investment in
people; reforms that would remove barriers that prevent many
from becoming active members of the labour force; reforms that
would replace disjointed programs with a coherent system.
Social policy must be designed for people. More specifically
it should be designed for the people who need the most.
Canadians already pay enough taxes to have some of the most
generous social programs in the world. Our challenge is to use
the money already in the system to make programs as flexible as
possible so recipients can receive the benefits to meet their
needs and become self-reliant.
We must encourage individuals to break the cycle of
dependency and help them to help themselves. I realize, as many
Canadians realize, that if we do nothing the quality of these
programs will deteriorate. Social policy must be updated to fit
the realities of the nineties and the 21st century so that all
Canadians can participate and face the opportunities and
challenges ahead with confidence.
I will be listening to my constituents in the days, weeks and
months ahead and getting their input, but these are some of my
initial concerns with the green paper. I am not convinced the
government's discussion paper contains a coherent set of
proposals that will let us move in the direction which I have been
talking about.
I am deeply concerned about the time it has taken the
government to bring forward the discussion paper. It was a paper
that we were supposed to see in the spring. We should now,
according to the original timetable, be looking at legislation.
While we were waiting and as we continue to wait, thousands of
people and thousands of mothers and families wanted and want
to leave welfare but could not and cannot because they would
lose the dental and medical benefits their children need.
6706
As members of Parliament we are often called on to help
people in dire straits, people who are not worried about
constitutional niceties like a division of powers. For example,
I know a family with a severely disabled child. In the past the
family has been able to count on government support to help
meet the needs of their child, but no longer.
Families such as these look to the federal and provincial
governments to work together to rationalize programs so they
help those most in need. Some of the most worrisome parts of
the paper are the suggestions for changes in UI, worrisome
because in its two-tier proposal the government was unable to
offer a definition of frequent user.
In areas of Atlantic Canada we have people who can be
considered frequent users of UI. It is not because they are
abusing the system. Nor are their employers abusing the system.
It is because some parts of our economy are highly seasonal.
That is why Atlantic Canadians need a coherent system of
programs that will allow them to move with the changing times.
What they do not need are proposals that cut them off at the
knees.
Canada's strength has always been to combine a strong
economy with a commitment to a secure social safety net that
supports the needs of Canadians. Historically we have proven to
be practical people who see that we have to move forward and
adapt to changing conditions in order to keep our high quality of
life.
I am not convinced the government's proposals will let us do
that. This has been said in the past but let me repeat it because I
am a firm believer in it: Good economic policy goes hand in
hand with good social policy and vice versa.
We should all want to protect programs that work and change
the ones that do not. We should all want to see to it that our
workforce is trained to the highest standards. We should all want
to make sure that our educational system produces graduates
who can take full advantage of opportunities in a constantly
changing economy. We want those graduates to have long term,
high paying jobs. We want an educational system that
encourages lifelong learning.
(1055)
I do not believe Canadians will be well served by an approach
to social policy that wants governments to borrow billions of
dollars or impose more taxes on Canadians to retain a false and
unrealistic sense of security. Nor will they be well served by an
approach that will simply rip apart the social fabric. We need a
reasonable approach with the watchwords of fairness,
efficiency, self-sufficiency and dignity.
I will support proposals that advocate that approach and make
the system more proactive. Hopefully before it is too late the
government can offer such suggestions because I fear the
discussion paper released yesterday does not. In fact in the
words of a wise man, ``never has a government taken so long to
say so little''.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, I remind the hon. member across the way that this is a
discussion paper. Some of the things I have heard over the last
day have really concerned me; I heard a lot of partisan politics.
We were elected this time to do the very best we could. We
should offer strong, viable solutions rather than rhetoric,
niggling and sniping. I have heard very little concrete
suggestions or very little from members about what they will
actually do for input into the government before this is made
government policy.
I am really looking for some concrete suggestions. What will
the member who has just spoken with such heartfelt feelings
about some of the suggestions in the paper do to ensure that
there is good input into this paper?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have time to
answer the question after question period.
It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
6706
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, October
has been proclaimed National Lupus Awareness Month. Lupus
is an autoimmune disease that affects thousands of Canadians,
mostly women during child bearing years.
The cause of Lupus is yet unknown. As one of its priorities the
government has issues relevant to women's health. Here we
have an example of an illness that affects women for which
treatment is limited and about which medical science has yet
much to learn.
I encourage all members of the House to support the many
volunteer groups at work all year round to help and support the
individuals affected by the disease.
Please join me in extending best wishes to Lupus Canada for a
successful awareness month.
6707
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker, today I address an
annoying action being taken regularly by some hon. members
opposite. Each day they list the current amount of national debt,
down to the last penny.
What they fail to do is list the assets balancing the debt. I have
no doubt that if they were asked to list their personal net worth
they would declare their property mortgage, car loan, credit card
balance and maybe even the balance owing to their tailors for the
suits they are wearing. I have no doubt hon. members would then
list their property, cars, et cetera, as assets, pointing out the
equity they had in the items.
In the interest of fairness, if they persist in these statements I
will at every opportunity list the assets of our country from each
plane, train and ship, down to the last public toilet, bus and
buffalo.
We could start with the building in which we stand. I trust it is
paid for by this time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, to our great surprise, the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, the Liberal Party's
specialist on statements under S.O. 31, has dissociated himself
from his party's caucus and expressed reservations about the
proposed reform of social programs. He said: ``I have some
reservations about occupational training, etc.''
To show his dissent and to distance himself from his party, the
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine joined a
strategic friend in his party, the member for York
South-Weston, who said: ``For the ten years we were the
Official Opposition, we accused the Conservatives of reducing
the deficit on the backs of the poor and we are doing exactly the
same thing''.
I therefore call on the Liberal Party's No. 31 to pay attention
to his fine career, because breaking the party line is unlikely to
please his Prime Minister or many other people, for that matter.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker,
Monday night the Reform Party heard the views of thousands of
Canadians during an historic nationwide electronic townhall
meeting.
Unlike the Prime Minister, these Canadians are willing to
look at new methods of solving the problem. Ninety-three per
cent of the more than 10,000 callers want to see an end to the
national unity issue. Fifty-seven per cent believe the best course
of action is to change the system for all of Canada, with 92 per
cent saying that change should come from the people.
While the Prime Minister has stated that he finds referenda
revolting, he might want to pay attention to these results. The
Prime Minister has also said that Reform wants to discuss this
issue because we are a failure with other issues.
Failure is defined in the dictionary as a falling short of what is
wanted or expected, in not doing, neglecting. Based on these
definitions, it would appear that the word failure is best used to
describe Liberal policies when they have them.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, the fall
season is upon us and in St. Catharines fall means Oktoberfest.
This year Oktoberfest will be held from October 15 to 23. It
features special events at local clubs, pubs, city hall, the St.
Catharines centennial library and much more. The festival
means music, food and the occasional beer, a nine-day
celebration of Bavarian fun.
As Canada's oldest Oktoberfest, St. Catharines is very proud
on this its 34th annual festival.
Special thanks and congratulations to the St. Catharines
Oktoberfest-Pumpkinfest committee and to the many
volunteers who will make this event great.
I encourage everyone to visit St. Catharines next week. As
president Stephen Ruf and CHSC Morning Mayor John
Larocque say, come for the friendship, come for the music,
come for the food and come for the fun.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, look
around the House. Many persons are wearing red ribbons.
The red ribbon has become the symbol for AIDS, the
commitment to end this tragic disease and a memorial to the
men, women and children who have died in its lethal grip.
Last Sunday I attended the 8th annual walk for AIDS in
Vancouver. Thousands of men and women, seniors and families
walked to raise badly needed funds for community services and
to increase public awareness of this tragic disease; walking in
solidarity against a virus that wreaks global devastation but also
walking in triumph of life over death, of compassion over
prejudice.
6708
Sadly some still remain ignorant of the origins of the HIV
virus. They stigmatize and stand in judgment of those who are
sick and dying from AIDS. Therefore in this week of AIDS
awareness, I implore all Canadians to fight ignorance and
prejudice, to wear the red ribbon in celebration of the courage
of those who live with AIDS, in respect of those who have died
of AIDS and in hope of the day when AIDS will be banished
from our world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, after the
referendum episode, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
is still up to his tricks, with a skill and subtlety that no one
expected.
This time, the incorrigible minister is telling us what he
thinks about labour force training: he is offering the provinces
half a loaf and suggesting that the other half will be negotiated
later. He might as well have added that the federal government
will take the best part and leave the crumbs for the provinces.
However, the minister should understand that Quebecers were
not born to accept crumbs.
His intention not to transfer full responsibility for labour
force training to Quebec, on the pretext of national standards, is
the cavalier response of the federal government to the broad
consensus expressed by Quebecers.
Drawing on the famous cartoon character Gaston Lagaffe, I
say to the minister: ``Keep it up and thanks!''
* * *
(1105 )
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to challenge the medical community to assume a more
aggressive approach to breast cancer research.
Women are asking why it is taking so long to answer questions
about breast cancer. No one even really knows what causes it.
The cancer establishment continues to focus on basic
research, treatment and diagnosis. We should be exploring
further than that: toxins in the environment and their effects, the
relationship between smoking and breast cancer.
I know what it is to feel the abject terror of a potential breast
malignancy. There is nothing lonelier or more fearful and there
is not anyone who can remove that fear.
We need to consider this statistic: one in nine women will get
breast cancer. Look around this Chamber, that means six of us
here.
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It is time to
refocus our energies and find a cure.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow marks the 23rd anniversary of a visionary policy that
recognizes the cultural diversity of Canada and ensures the
cultural freedom of all Canadians.
Former Prime Minister Trudeau said in this House: ``There
cannot be one cultural policy for Canadians of British and
French origin, another for the original peoples and yet a third for
all others''.
Designed to integrate and not assimilate all Canadians in
every facet of Canadian life, the policy of multiculturalism has
become the envy of countries around the world struggling to
integrate minorities into the mainstream of their societies.
Today multiculturalism continues to contribute to a shared
sense of Canadian identity and societal cohesion.
Let us reaffirm through this policy our commitment to
managing the diversity within our society to the benefit of
Canada as a whole, that it may remain a united, strong and
prosperous country.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to bring to the attention of Canadians the importance
of business development corporations. At the same moment that
we are looking at a wide ranging revision of our programming
through human resources development it is important that we
recognize programs that work well.
Since 1981 over 200 BDCs have been providing loans to small
businesses. In Ontario 55 BDCs have granted over $115 million
in loans to almost 5,000 businesses. Companies exist today
which otherwise would not.
The job creation impact has been impressive. In Ontario the
program has created 10,926 jobs at an average cost of only
$6,200. Even more impressive is the realization that the
corporations make loans which have been turned down by
traditional lenders and that in 93 per cent of the cases the
advances are repaid in an orderly fashion.
BDCs are a success story of small business support and job
creation. They deserve continued support.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, AIDS is now an unavoidable reality in Quebec and
Canadian society. It is more than ten years since the first AIDS
case was diagnosed in Montreal. The AIDS epidemic is far from
abating
6709
and it is now reaching population groups that so far were
thought to be safe from it.
Unfortunately, no effective remedy to relieve the people
affected exists yet. Only prevention can stop the virus from
spreading. A public inquiry revealed that less than a third of
high school students said that they used a condom the first time
they had sex. These facts clearly show that governments must
support community organizations which, better than anyone
else, reach people where they live. In closing, I want to thank all
the community organizations for the support that they give
affected people.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in
the House the Minister of Human Resources Development gave
a speech on social programs. In that speech he outlined the type
of attitude he felt would be needed in examining Canada's social
programs, the need for co-operation, earnest debate, the free
exchange of ideas and, most important, the need to refrain from
deliberate, partisan cheap shots.
No sooner did he get those words out of his mouth than he
proceeded to deliver a cheap shot of his own by repeating the
ludicrous charge that the Reform Party would cut $15 billion out
of social programs. This is rubbish, old style politics and he
knows it. It is the Liberal government that is facing $15 billion
in cuts out of total program spending if it is to meet its meagre
deficit targets.
Canadians deserve better than this type of irresponsible scare
mongering. Preying on the fears of the needy is no way to garner
the respect of the people of this country.
When it comes to partisan cheap shots the do as I say, not as I
do attitude is totally unacceptable. The minister should reread
his speech and follow his own advice.
* * *
(1110)
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle): Mr.
Speaker, on October 2, the Montreal daily
La Presse published
an article entitled ``Le Bloc lance ses troupes à la chasse au vote
souverainiste sans attendre'' (the Bloc decides to go after
sovereignist vote now).
In it, we learn that the official opposition whip is exhorting
the separatists to infiltrate local community service centres,
school boards, municipal governments and any other
organization or body controlled by so-called federalists.
The message is clear-the Bloc cares not a whit about the
administration of government and the quality of services
delivered to the public. The Bloc is now pushing an out-and-out
sovereignist propaganda campaign. This will rapidly turn into a
exercise in demagoguery that can only destroy the country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough): Mr. Speaker, I stand
today to commend the Minister of Human Resources
Development on his discussion paper on social policy reform.
We made a promise last fall that there would be a different
way of doing things in Ottawa. This week we proved that. The
road to social policy reform will be navigated by the entire
country, not just by politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa. This
government, unlike the previous one, is not interested in
fighting the deficit on the backs of the poor and the unemployed.
Nor are we interested in the system collapsing and serving
nobody. By working with all Canadians we can deliver what we
promised, a vibrant and prosperous economy in a country in
which the need for social programs will decline.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, as of
September 28 the government's infrastructure program claims
to have created 71,000 jobs. Even if that were true, these jobs are
only short term. By its own admission with the total expenditure
of $4.5 billion just 10 per cent of these jobs are permanent. It
comes as no surprise on this side of the House that some
provinces have received no long term jobs at all.
B.C., Prince Edward Island, Yukon and First Nations people
have none. Saskatchewan, though, has six long term jobs and,
hurray, Manitoba gets three. The most obvious fact is even less
of a surprise; the lion's share, 73 per cent of the long term jobs,
has been created in one province alone. Which province could
that be? Of course, that province is the minister's own.
The infrastructure score is Ontario, 5,140; British Columbia,
zero. The taxpayer, as usual, loses the entire political shell game
by $4.5 billion.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister of Canada will soon undertake an important
trade mission to Asia with his provincial counterparts to try to
find new markets for Canadian services and products.
6710
[Translation]
The objective is to find new markets. In line with the decision
taken last December, the Prime Minister was to go to Asia with
his provincial and territorial counterparts. Until recently, all the
premiers were to accompany him with one exception: the
premier of Quebec is still refusing to be a part of Team Canada.
Contrary to the explanations of the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois that Mr. Parizeau has more pressing obligations, we
have just learned that the Quebec premier will in fact be taking a
holiday at that time. Instead of representing Quebec on Team
Canada, he will apparently be on vacation. Imagine! This is
shameful!
* * *
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
this past Monday the town of St. Andrews, New Brunswick
launched its daffodil project by planting several thousand bulbs.
This project is being carried out for two major reasons: for the
beautification of the town and to complement the already
thriving tourist industry in that area.
These are the types of initiatives that assist in moving our
tourism industries forward. I would like to congratulate the
town of St. Andrews and its citizens on this worthy project. Not
only did the community participate in its own program, but the
town was also kind enough to provide daffodil bulbs for planting
here on Parliament Hill.
I am sure that next April when they bloom we will all recall
this donation from St. Andrews by the Sea.
_____________________________________________
6710
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1115)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The centralizing offensive being mounted by Ottawa with its
reform of social programs has already caused a general outcry,
and not just in Quebec. Yesterday, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs categorically rejected, for the first
time moreover, the complete transfer to Quebec of federal
responsibilities in the area of manpower training.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm
the statement by his colleague the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs that Ottawa is announcing that the
federal government will refuse to transfer full responsibility for
manpower training to Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, last spring we proposed a new
three year agreement on manpower training to all the provinces.
As I said yesterday in the House, it included a transfer of
responsibility for institutional training and training that is
purchased in community colleges and CEGEPs.
We indicated our willingness to invite the provinces to plan
priorities for federal resource investments in each province. In
the case of Quebec where we spend about $800 million, that
takes in an envelope of almost $500 million. We indicated our
willingness to work with them on a system of guichet unique, of
single window deliveries. We also indicated that if the provinces
would be willing we would look at transferring responsibility
for some of the programs which are more clearly in the
educational field, such as stay in school programs and others.
Several provinces have responded positively and quite
constructively. We are in the process of negotiating with them.
We have not heard officially from the new Government of
Quebec as to what its response to that agreement would be.
Let me make one important point. These are our proposed
three year agreements. There is no point in having longer term
agreements until we know what the new structure of our
programs will be. There is no point in reassembling or
reallocating programs that may not exist or that may be changed
or altered. Therefore, the three year interim agreement is a very
good demonstration of how we are prepared to be flexible. We
are prepared to assign more responsibility to the provinces in
areas of their competence. We want to work in co-operation
with the provinces.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has perhaps not heard back from Quebec,
but former premier Johnson, a Liberal and a federalist as well,
said during the recent election campaign in Quebec that he was
not interested in this sort of half-measure from the federal
government.
I come back to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
who said that what they were proposing did not run counter to
Quebec's demands, that they were meeting Quebec halfway.
What they are saying is ``Take half the loaf now and we'll
negotiate the other half later''.
6711
Does the government realize that in stubbornly refusing to
give Quebec the whole loaf in the areas of training and
manpower, it is perpetuating the duplication and waste that are
costing Quebec over $250 million, at the expense of those
people who would like to return to work?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The federal
government is showing a great deal of interest in working with
provinces to redesign how we can better deliver services and
programs.
We already have agreements in place with a number of
provinces. We just signed one with Ontario four weeks ago to
establish a new Ontario training board where the federal and
provincial governments would co-operate with business and
labour to deliver services. We are certainly interested in doing
that with other provinces as well.
The study referred to by the hon. member, frankly, was a study
not based on sound analysis. The hon. member took analysis
done by the OECD covering 15 countries. He took an artificial
figure and applied it across Quebec. He did not take the actual
numbers. Therefore, any judgments being made are really
subject to serious reconsideration. We have already submitted to
the province of Quebec a reassessment of those numbers. I think
you will see the duplication that is there is primarily because in
many cases it is not on the federal side. We would like to see
single window deliveries, and I think that is the key to it.
(1120)
[Translation]
We need single window capability. All partners, the
community groups, labour, the business community, the
provinces and the federal government would share the work and
collaborate on the review of services to serve every member of
the public better.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, when he questions the $250-million figure, the
minister is actually questioning Robert Bourassa, Daniel
Johnson and former minister Bourbeau, all of whom happen to
be Liberals as well as federalists. In fact, they should have said
so during this past election campaign, but they chose not to for
quite understandable reasons. It did not make much difference
anyway.
When the minister talks about co-operation, does he realize
that, for two or three years now, there has been a consensus in
Quebec amongst unions, business circles, the co-operative
movement, the academic community and even the Liberal Party
of Quebec that all powers concerning manpower should be
repatriated in Quebec?
How can the minister contend that his government is
committed to discussing, or even co-operating, with the
provinces, while it rejects from the outset one of Quebec's
fundamental demands which enjoys widespread support among
all the socioeconomic stakeholders in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, as I said in my first answer, we
have already made an offer to all the provinces to transfer
training responsibility to them. The member does not seem to
have understood the importance of that particular statement in
his scripted lines. It seems to me that would be a good
demonstration at this time of how we can share.
One thing not on the table is the unemployment insurance
program. It is a national program. It is clearly in the
Constitution. It is one program by which we can ensure that this
country's resources are shared from one region to another to
help those most in need. By the way, the hon. member well
knows that Quebec has benefited mightily under that sharing
over the past many years.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Not only does the reform herald an unprecedented
centralization effort, but one of its objectives is to reduce
substantially the federal contribution to social assistance
funding. This will leave the province no choice but to either
increase their tax rates to compensate for the withdrawal of the
federal government or cut back welfare benefits.
How does the minister want us to take seriously his
government's stated objective to do more for children living in
poverty, when Ottawa is cutting its transfer payments to the
provinces for social assistance? How can it be taken seriously?
How contradictory, Mr. Speaker!
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon.
member was last February or where he has been since, but that
was clearly announced in the federal budget last February. I am
glad that after nine months he is finally able to catch up with the
figures.
There was a clear declaration in the budget that we were going
to hold transfer payments under these programs at the 1993-94
level. As a result we have started to work with the provinces to
find ways of more efficiently dealing with the problems of
social assistance. We have already worked with provinces to
find collaborative ways of enabling people on social assistance
to get back to work, to begin to change the rules.
6712
That is one of the things which is part and parcel of the green
book. We are prepared to immediately work with the provinces
to change the rules under the Canada assistance plan to enable
almost 50 per cent of those who are on social assistance and
want to get back into the workforce to do so without being
prohibitively discriminated against by losing income. The best
way to handle the social assistance problem is to get people a
job.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, the minister wishes to know where I was in February. I
would like to tell him through you that, if he was to the left of the
Liberal Party in the past, he is moving far to the right with this
reform.
How can he claim that he wants to help disadvantaged
children, when the main consequence of his reform would be to
impoverish the parents? How can he claim that he wants to help
disadvantaged children?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member has
not talked to the people who are on social assistance. They want
to have self-sufficiency. They want to have independence. They
want to be able to earn an income for their families. They do not
want to stay on dependency.
(1125)
That is what this green paper is all about. It is about giving
people real hope that they do not have to be dependent on a
program and cheque, but once again can go to work.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the government claims to be concerned about education and job
skills for Canadians but the social policy discussion paper
tabled yesterday calls for the virtual elimination of federal
transfers in support of higher education.
At the same time the government continues to spend billions
of dollars on subsidies to businesses, interest groups and crown
corporations. The minister must have had some set of spending
priorities in preparing this paper. I ask the Minister of Human
Resources Development, where does the funding of
post-secondary education come in the government spending
priorities?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, it clearly comes very high
because we are committed to an expenditure of over $8 billion to
help the provinces in the area of higher education. It seems to me
that we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is,
unlike the hon. leader of the Reform Party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
slashing $1.5 billion from transfers to higher education hardly
seems like an indication of high priority.
In developing our approach on this issue, Reformers have said
that the federal government ought to maintain as its highest
spending priorities transfers in support of health care and
education. We have advocated cutting virtually everything else
in order to sustain those spending priorities.
I ask the minister, why does the government not preserve
federal funding for post-secondary education at current levels
and get more bang for the buck by transferring that funding
directly to students through educational vouchers rather than to
the provinces and the institutions?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the question posed by the hon.
leader of the Reform Party shows one thing clearly: He has not
read the green book. If he had read it, he would have learned a
couple of important facts.
He likes to deal in facts. I am going to give him some facts.
Number one is that present transfer arrangements under the
existing EPF means the provinces are getting a substantial
increase in revenue by the tax points we transfer to them.
Therefore the revenue to provinces is going up for education
through the tax points, but as a result of the existing formula the
cash transfer declines over a period of time on a proper ratio.
If the hon. leader of the Reform Party would understand that
fact, he would not be using the kind of nonsensical statement
that we are slashing programs. In fact the revenue is growing.
We are saying that rather than having the cash disappear over a
10 year period, let us use that money in order to lever an
additional $3 billion back into higher education to assist all
kinds of Canadians in going back to school. That is what is
called creative government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
students know the difference between a repayable loan and a
non-repayable voucher. I was endeavouring to get the minister
to consider this more innovative way of transferring funding for
higher education by paying directly to the students through
non-repayable vouchers rather than through either tax points or
transfers directly to the provinces.
Hundreds of thousands of students are worried that the federal
government's withdrawal from federal support of higher
education will damage the quality of their education. Students
worry that the minister's scheme will end up loading themselves
with a higher and higher debt load. Is the minister in his vaunted
consultation process intending to travel and talk to university
and college students to explain his position to them? I am certain
he will get a warm welcome if he does.
6713
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the whole point of having an
open consultation process which has been opposed by the
members of the Reform Party is to allow a forum in which new
ideas can come about.
They say they did not do it. They have changed their minds
since yesterday because five members of the Reform Party,
including the leader of the party, got up yesterday and said: ``Do
not have consultation. Do not have open participation. Do not
consult the people. Do something now''. We do not believe in
that philosophy. I say to the leader of the Reform Party that if he
has a better way of proposing aid for students: ``Put it forward.
Come to the committee. Here is the chairman right here. Suggest
it to the committee. That is why we have an open process''.
(1130)
I also say to the leader of the Reform Party: ``That is called
democracy''.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The social program reform proposes establishing two classes
of unemployed workers: occasional UI claimants and frequent
UI claimants, that is, 40 per cent of recipients, notably seasonal
workers. We know that the Government of New Brunswick is
particularly critical of the reform on this point.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development realize
that the UI reform he proposes will heavily penalize the
economy of the regions, which is very dependent on seasonal
activities like fishing, forestry and tourism?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the hon.
member asked that question, because just about 45 minutes ago I
had the privilege of being with the premier of New Brunswick in
a public session wherein he said very explicitly that he supports
the philosophy and direction of our reform paper.
Furthermore he said that he appreciates the efforts we are
making in the announcements we made last Monday in terms of
a new employment enhancement program for seasonal workers,
a new program of earning supplements and the experiments we
are trying on UI eligibility requirements in the Atlantic
provinces, particularly in Prince Edward Island, as a way of
providing real support to make that transition.
If the hon. member is at all interested I invite him to sit down
with us. We would be prepared to go through with him, as we
have done with the premier of New Brunswick, about how we
can use this important time to have a real serious examination of
the interest and concerns of industries with seasonal workers.
That has not really been examined in the country for a long time;
we have simply let things happen.
Under this kind of review process we can seriously begin to
look at the conditions and concerns of seasonal workers to make
sure we build a new social security system that meets their
needs.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I am not surprised that Mr. McKenna was admonished
by his federal big brother. Will the Minister admit, as his
colleague of Intergovernmental Affairs did, that the reform he is
proposing is not a miracle cure, that it will hit seasonal workers
very hard, and particularly those in forestry who cannot work
twelve months a year?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate when
members of the Bloc run out of any substantial argument that
they turn to personal insult. The fact that they would have that
kind of attitude toward one of the most distinguished public
servants in Canada simply does not deserve a response.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
my question is unexpectedly for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Yesterday the minister promised that he would make available
technical papers containing estimates of the costs and savings of
the reform alternatives he has set out in the green book. These
estimates are demanded by everyone taking the reform
proposals seriously. They are absolutely essential for the
upcoming budget consultations by the House finance
committee.
Will the minister assure Canadians that these technical papers
will contain estimates of costs and savings and give us a precise
date for their publication?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give the assurance that
we will give the economic scenarios that are required. We will
work as quickly as we can to have all the papers.
6714
As the member can understand, they are quite copious and
we were busy printing the report. We will make them available
as soon as possible, certainly for use by members of the
committee when they begin the consultations.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately time is of the essence. Budget consultations will
have to be completed in seven weeks.
Yesterday the Conference Board of Canada and a number of
business economists predicted that this year's budget plan
would not be met and that more spending cuts were needed to
prevent a financial crisis for the country. All these experts say
that cuts in social programs are needed.
(1135)
Could the minister tell these financial experts and anxious
Canadians that his reforms will lower social program
expenditures in the next budget?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Finance have regularly told the House and the country that we
will meet our targets.
During the consultation process we will welcome suggestions
from the opposition and from our own members on how these
targets can be met effectively for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, my question is also
for the Minister of Human Resources Development. On page 63
of the document he tabled yesterday, it is said that, and I quote:
``It is true that replacing federal cash transfers would put
upward pressure on tuition fees. This may be a necessary price
to pay to put in place a permanent system for ensuring
accessibility to post-secondary education''.
How can the Minister pretend, as he did yesterday, that his
reform will not limit accessibility to post-secondary education
for thousands of young people when the proposed reduction in
transfer payments will result in an increase in tuition fees?
According to a Treasury Board memorandum which will not be
released by the government, these fees could even double.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, as we have pointed out in the
House, tuition fees have doubled over the past four or five years.
They have already gone up that amount under the existing
system. At the same time I point out that enrolment has
substantially increased in that period.
We have been providing through our student aid program, the
student loan program, very successful forms of resources, but
more is needed.
In the document we have said that the decision on tuition
increases is not ours to make; it is up to provincial governments
to make them. If the provincial governments are prepared to use
the additional revenue they will be receiving through the EPF
transfer of tax points to keep tuition rates down, it is their
decision to make.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, the minister also
says in his document that students could use their RRSPs to
repay their debts.
Is the minister really serious when he suggests that students
use their RRSPs? Does he really think that students have the
means to invest in RRSPs while having to borrow even more to
study?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, we did not say that students
could use their RRSPs. We said RRSPs could be used to help
people get an education.
That means parents who presently hold RRSPs could decide to
use them to help their kids with an education. We want to
develop other financial vehicles by which people could begin to
invest in their children's future at an early age. We want to
provide investment vehicles so that parents, grandparents and
other relatives can begin to put money aside with some form of
incentive from the government to save for education and
training, not just for income security.
I find it incredible that the Bloc Quebecois and others would
somehow say it is wrong for the Government of Canada to
encourage parents to invest in their children's future.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development has claimed
repeatedly that he wants to consult widely with Canadians. I
think he used the c word about a dozen times yesterday in
question period.
Perhaps the minister could tell the House why his department
was actively promoting special interest group funding programs
related to his discussion paper weeks ago, long before ordinary
Canadians even knew what was in his discussion paper.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, when I announced last January
that we were to undertake a process of reform I indicated we
would be prepared to help groups that wanted to make
presentations and consult their membership, particularly
women's groups. We have provided funding at this point for 19
different organizations in the name of equity. There are
organizations and groups that have substantial resources.
Business organizations, labour organizations and the Reform
Party have all kinds of money they get from private donations
which they can use to make their case.
6715
(1140)
There are many groups, particularly anti-poverty groups,
women's groups and aboriginal groups, that do not have access
to the same resources. In order to ensure there was full access
and full participation we wanted these groups to be able to work
with their membership and do the proper research so that we
could have proper dialogue and debate in the country.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting how the minister interprets equal access by funding
special interest groups. I am pleased he has admitted that is
happening because I was prepared to table a letter in the House
showing that it was indeed the case.
I would like the minister to tell the House again why he feels it
is necessary to give special interest groups priority over
individual Canadians. Where is the evidence that ordinary
Canadians will have even the slightest influence on this social
policy reform?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I realize the hon. member is new
to the House, but it would seem to me that one of the first
responsibilities of a member of Parliament is to ensure that
individual Canadians in his or her constituency have their voices
and points reflected.
The hon. member has a break next week. We have sent him all
the information. I would encourage him to get back to his riding
as fast as he can and start talking to his people.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Initial reaction to the discussion paper on social programs was
unanimous in denouncing both the approach and the content of
government proposals. Some critics even come from Liberals. A
colleague of the minister said out loud what many secretly think
when he stated that ``the minister has taken a baseball bat to go
after the poorest ones''.
How can the minister hope to convince Canadians of the
validity of his reform when he cannot even convince his own
colleagues?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I would like to read part of an
article written by Mr. Alain Dubuc in La Presse, a highly
respected newspaper in Quebec.
-first, we must commend the Liberal government and minister Axworthy.
They are the first ones to tackle head-on the interrelated problems of economic
slump and social assistance.
This article shows how independent observers, not partisan
ones, support our government's efforts to develop a new
approach towards poverty, unemployment and the problems of
the poor in our country.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, would it not be
simpler for the minister to admit that this discussion paper fully
contradicts the principles which he supported when he was in
opposition?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I came into elected politics over
20 years ago with a couple of basic ambitions in mind: first, to
make sure that people were treated fairly throughout the
country; second, to make sure that people who had
disadvantages were given opportunities; and, third, to make sure
that we had a strong, effective country that could maintain its
independence and integrity.
Those values and purposes still exist. The green paper is
reflective of how we can get those values and purposes to work
better in today's world.
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
As the House knows, the social reform program is of crucial
importance to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. We are the
poorest of the poor. We see it as an opportunity to address the
unacceptably high level of poverty among our young people.
Our children face this prospect.
(1145 )
What assurances can the minister give to the House that the
aboriginal people will be heard in this important and pressing
review?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question.
First I can indicate to the House that I have asked my
colleague, the secretary of state for training, to undertake a
special process of consultation and work with First Nations
people. Because of their special problems and because of the
very important initiatives by my colleague, the minister of
Indian affairs, to move toward self-government, there is a need
for a particular track of consultation and discussion.
We have provided to this point close to $600,000 worth of
support for a wide variety of aboriginal groups across the
country to consult with their membership, to work with them
and to begin to develop an ability to work in those very poor
communities across the country to make sure there is a
grassroots feeling of how they can participate.
6716
I am very pleased to see that in the last day or two we have
had major support from some of the national aboriginal
organizations, like the National Metis Council, who say they
too, like many other Canadians, want to co-operate and
participate in finding a new and better way to help their people.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development spoke
repeatedly about the need to co-operate with and consult with
the provinces. In fact I can recall one quote where he said: ``We
have to really rely on wholesale co-operation by all levels of
government''.
He will know that since the paper has been tabled, there has
been severe criticism of it by several provincial governments,
including Ontario and Quebec. Yesterday his response to the
premier of Ontario's concern was to take partisan and political
cheap shots at the premier.
Is this an example of how he intends to gather provincial
co-operation?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a curious and
interesting piece of political acrobatics. We now have a member
of the Reform Party defending Bob Rae. I am sure the folks at
home in Calgary will be very pleased to know what the member
has now committed to do.
The fact to remember is that we are open to co-operation, but
we ask the provincial premiers, as we have, to also reciprocate
and show that they are prepared to participate in the national
interest.
The time has come to stop simply defending in an isolationist
way their own interests province by province. It is time for
Canadians to join together, as the premier of New Brunswick did
this morning, and say this is something that is bigger than all of
us. We must work together in a co-operative fashion. That is the
kind of spirit and co-operation I would like to see from all the
premiers.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, the
House will note that the minister responded to concerns about
partisan attacks on the premier of Ontario by taking more
partisan attacks on the premier of Ontario and on the Reform
Party.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. Does
the minister intend to adopt the domineering and centralizing
attitude of past Liberal governments, or will he recognize that
his proposals have an impact on areas of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I understand now why the hon.
member from the Reform Party is supporting Bob Rae and the
NDP. They are both at 10 per cent in the polls. They have
something in common at this time.
The hon. member once again professes that he wants to
express himself in the spirit of co-operation. If he had read the
green paper-I would suggest he now has a whole week to go
home and look at it carefully-he would see that we have
indicated very clearly various options under which we are
proposing decentralization, not centralization.
We talk about a new block funding arrangement on social
assistance with the provinces. We talk about evolving many
areas of training. We talk about how we can work to disentangle
from education. Then the provinces would have clear authority
over their educational institutions. These are the kinds of things
that we want to propose.
It is time for all governments to begin to think about how they
can decentralize their bureaucracies, whether they are federal or
provincial, and put more power in the hands of people and
communities because that is where the real decisions should be
made.
* * *
(1150)
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): Mr.
Speaker, it may surprise you that my question is not directed to
the Minister of Human Resources Development. In fact, it is my
privilege to direct my question to the Minister of Justice.
At a recent international gathering of gynaecologists and
obstetricians, Dr. Patricia Baird, formerly chairman of the
Royal Commission of Inquiry on New Reproductive
Technologies, once again emphasized the need for Canada to
regulate this field.
When does the Minister of Justice intend to table in the House
a bill to regulate practices connected with new reproductive
technologies?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted with the question. I thought members had
forgotten me. As far as new reproductive technologies are
concerned, we are now working on a regulatory framework.
I may add that we will have to work together with the
provinces and other groups to deal with all the problems in this
area. There are jurisdictional problems, and as members of the
Bloc Quebecois are well aware, it is always important to talk to
the provinces in order to avoid encroaching on their
jurisdictions. So we are doing our job.
6717
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I realize that because of the party-like atmosphere in
the House for the past two days, everyone in this cabinet feels
like getting up. I must point out to the Minister of Health that
my question was directed to the Minister of Justice. I will put
my second question to him, as I imagine he still remembers the
first one and should be able to respond.
Would the Minister of Justice agree that, as pointed out by Dr.
Baird, action is urgently needed to prohibit the marketing of
human embryos and thus preclude the possibility of research
activities that are not ethically sound?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as I
am the minister responsible for that particular file, I am
answering. Perhaps the member across the way does not realize
that.
We are working with other jurisdictions to regulate where we
can and to bring forward a report on the whole issue of new
reproductive technology as quickly as we possibly can.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are beginning to suspect that the government is using
consultation as an excuse for inaction. It says it is consulting on
the GST, on immigration, on agriculture, yet when it does not
get the answers it wants from Canadians it ignores them.
Why does the Minister of Human Resources Development
keep talking about wanting to hear from Canadians when it is
clear he only listens to the people he wants to hear?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party
should begin to take the same line. Consistency has not been a
virtue they have honoured very often, but I think it is about time.
On the one hand we have a member this morning asking:
``Why don't you have more consultations? Why don't you
broaden it up, make it genuine, give people a chance.'' Now we
have the hon. member for Calgary North saying not to have
consultations at all. They cannot have it both ways, but they
seem to want to have it both ways.
I want to point out one important point. The primary
consultation will be by a standing committee of the House of
Commons which has representatives from all parties. If they
bring an open mind to the issue and have a meeting of minds,
then we can have a very genuine consultation.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, as we
saw yesterday, the minister seems determined to attack
proposals Reform did not make instead of defending proposals
he did not make. When we talk about consultation, we talk about
honest consultation, giving Canadians the truth and information
including real costs, not rigged consultations and rigged
government funded special interest groups.
(1155)
How will this process be different? How will ordinary
Canadians be heard?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, we heard yesterday from the
leader of the Reform Party about how they have been consulting
for a year on social programs.
The only result of that year long process was a statement by
the hon. member for Calgary North that the Reform Party wants
to cut $15 billion from social programs. He would not detail
where, how or what. Reform members are now beginning to
preach to us about putting the facts out. Where are their facts?
Where is their study? Where is the result of their year long
consultations?
I have one simple piece of advice for the hon. member. Join
the standing committee on human resources. Go back to your
constituency and talk to the people. As parliamentarians we
have provided the best place for Canadians to be heard, in this
Parliament and through its committees.
[Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Since the Liberals came to power, employment has gone up
significantly. We saw that 339,000 jobs were created, most of
them full-time jobs. More than 97,000 jobs were created in the
Atlantic provinces alone. Which policies helped to bring about
this remarkable turnaround?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, that is an important question.
Unlike the negativism we have been hearing, we can now
explain to Canadians the positive news. Since this government
was elected there have been 330,000 new jobs, 90 per cent of
which are full time jobs.
6718
One of the most important elements is that Canadians have
confidence and trust in the government. Therefore they know
we will have a good economic future and they are prepared to
invest.
Second, the infrastructure program has had a stimulating
effect on the economy as have the employment programs we
announced last year for young people; the youth services corps,
the apprenticeship intern programs. The initiatives we have
been taking recently like reducing UI premiums are now having
a real impact.
We are able to prove to Canadians that with a Liberal
government we know where the jobs are and it is shown by the
evidence we have today.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-22 has once again been rejected and sent to committee by
the other place.
Will the Minister of Transport admit that this bill is not going
to go away and that he has absolutely no plan as to how to deal
with this ill-conceived legislation?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the bill has not been rejected. As
the rules allow it has been sent to committee. The committee
will report again and the decision will be made by the other
place.
Let me remind the hon. member that before the election the
Prime Minister made it very clear that we would review the deal.
However the maker of the deal decided to sign and went ahead
despite the warnings. After we took office the Prime Minister
reviewed the deal, found that it was not in the interests of
Canadians and it was cancelled.
Why does the Reform Party want to have Canadian taxpayers
pay the $440 million? I thought they were for deficit reduction.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice, if the Hon. Minister of
Health allows it. We were amazed to learn this week that the
judges of the Supreme Court now admit extreme drunkenness as
a legitimate defence for sexual assault. This attitude suggests
that people can commit serious crimes with impunity if they
have consumed enough alcohol or other drugs.
(1200)
My question is this: Does such a judgement mean that
someone with a .30 blood alcohol level could be acquitted by a
court while someone with a .09 level would be convicted? It
does not make any sense.
Does the Minister of Justice agree that it makes no sense?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, without agreeing to the
interpretation put on that judgment by the hon. member I can tell
him and the House that I am concerned about the implications of
the judgment. I share some of the concerns that have been
expressed during the week in the wake of its release.
The whole general part of the Criminal Code has been under
study for some decades actually. However in the coming weeks
we are going to be releasing a discussion paper with respect to it.
It includes the question of defences, including
self-intoxication. We are going to make proposals for public
discussion including the possibility that we can avoid this
controversy by creating a criminal offence of criminal
intoxication leading to misconduct.
That approach which was discussed by the Law Reform
Commission as long as eight years ago has its merits. It has
disadvantages as well. We will hear during the discussion period
how people feel about that approach and we will learn from it.
In any event, I want to tell the hon. member that we are aware
of the concerns arising from the judgment last week. We are
examining alternative ways to ensure public safety.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
I have been informed by the department that it is presently
working on pension reform legislation that will greatly fast
track veterans applications and I appreciate that. However does
the minister recognize that additional changes must be made to
Bill C-84? If so, will these changes be put on the legislative
agenda? Time is running out for the merchant navy veterans.
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we
are looking at ways to speed up the processing of veterans
claims. For too long veterans have found they have had to wait
two or three years before particular decisions are adjudicated.
We are looking at making structural and legislative changes.
The hon. member and the House will be advised in due course as
to when we will bring forward those changes.
6719
6719
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and an undertaking I made last
Monday in the House, I would like to table in both official
languages a document entitled: ``Executive Floor Refit''.
* * *
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity
to table a document entitled: ``The Canadian Companies in
South Africa''. It describes the code of conduct and the practices
of Canadian companies for the period July 1991-94 and I
present it in both official languages.
* * *
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, I would like to report on my visit to
Eritrea, Ethiopia and Egypt in September. My participation
there preceded the Cairo Population and Development
Conference.
Eritrea and Ethiopia are countries in which Canada directly,
and indirectly through our non-government organizations, has a
long and important involvement most recently through periods
of drought and conflict. Egypt as you well know is a crucial
country in the politics of the Middle East.
Let me begin my comments with reflections on Eritrea and
Ethiopia. These two countries were cut from Canada's bilateral
assistance program by the previous government. By failing to
emphasize that humanitarian assistance was exempt from the
cut, Canada appeared to be abandoning Eritrea and Ethiopia just
when peace was finally being realized after 30 years of civil war.
(1205)
My visit provided an opportunity to convey several important
messages, the first being that Canada remains committed to
maintaining bilateral relationships, if not assistance programs,
with both countries. The second message was that while future
bilateral assistance and partnership programs will await the
outcome of the foreign policy review and be a function of our
overall budgetary position, we will continue to contribute to the
efforts of these countries to rebuild.
By rebuild, we mean two things. The first is to help them
make the shift from relief to recovery. The second is to help
them begin building structures and institutions such as the
constitution by which they will govern themselves more
democratically and we hope more peacefully.
Within the February budgetary allocations we have been able
to provide $18 million in food security to Ethiopia and $7
million to Eritrea this year. In addition we have provided
$400,000 in assistance to Eritrean refugees returning from the
Sudan. We have established a $500,000 fund for democratic
development activities in each country.
While there I applauded the efforts of the Ethiopians and
Eritreans to promote regional peace and stability, certainly not
an easy task. Both countries have been prominent in the Sudan
peace talks which Canada is supporting. My meetings with the
secretary general of the OAU, Salim Salim, the president of
Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, and Eritrea's minister of foreign
affairs, Petros Solomon, touched on this issue.
I want to inform my colleagues that much more attention will
be needed by western countries to support Africa's own efforts
to bring peace to the horn of Africa. Within our budgetary and
human resources limitations, Canada will continue to seek ways
to facilitate this peace process as well as to help refugees in the
region.
Now for Egypt, a country with one foot in Africa and another
in Asia. Over the past decade Egypt has taken on the role of
bridge builder in middle eastern affairs. Its place on the
frontlines has drawn it into many conflicts and the government
is currently struggling to liberalize the economy while dealing
with sporadic acts of terrorism. Rural Egypt where I also had the
opportunity to travel is close to Africa in its poverty and in the
severity of its ecological crisis.
Canada is helping the Egyptians deal with their most precious
resource, the River Nile. I journeyed to Qanater to see the
strategic research unit on the second cataract of the Nile north of
Cairo. This is only one project in which Canada is involved
bilaterally but from conversations with senior Egyptian
officials, one that is very much appreciated.
In keeping with a longstanding commitment to help women in
Egypt, Canada sponsors a range of projects. A creative effort is
being undertaken in the Qena region in southern Egypt by the
Foundation for International Training. It is trying to open the
banking system of the country to women who are small scale
entrepreneurs. In tiny workshops, in back rooms of houses and
even in courtyards women have started small enterprises with
backing from CIDA through the Foundation for International
Training. The results to date not surprisingly for those of us
familiar with the Grameen Bank, are a very high repayment
record and a rapidly growing clientele.
6720
It was in these crowded homes and workshops that the hidden
tragedy of rural Africa was revealed: the number of young girls
who are not in school. UNICEF statistics tell us that 80 per cent
of girl children in Egypt reach at least grade 5 in primary
school. For Ethiopia the figure is only 10 per cent.
On my last day in Egypt I announced on behalf of the Minister
of Foreign Affairs that Canada is contributing $14.9 million to
support primary education for girls in 15 African countries, to
be channelled through UNICEF. I believe the education of
young girls in Africa is the touchstone in a brighter future for the
whole population. There is growing consensus that donor
dollars spent on education of young girls has a positive impact
not only on their lives, but on their families and on their
communities. It was my privilege to be the bearer of this
message of support to Africa.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, I would
first of all like to thank the Secretary of State for Latin America
and Africa for the report she just gave us on her recent trip to
Eritrea, Ethiopia and Egypt and on Canada's aid initiatives in
those countries.
In the first place, let me point out the respect which the
Secretary of State has for the work of the joint committee that is
reviewing Canada's foreign policy. I would like to thank her for
this. Her colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, shows little
respect for the committee's work, which he himself initiated,
need I remind you, and which is not yet finished; he is making
choices and setting foreign policies that take for granted the
results of a major review which is not yet complete. At least the
Secretary of State has the decency to tell us that she intends to
wait for the committee's findings before developing new
bilateral aid and partnership programs.
(1210)
That being said, I think that Canada's efforts and initiatives,
of which the Secretary of State has just informed us, should be
well received. Canada must provide continuing tangible support
for the colossal efforts that the Africans are making to establish
peace and democracy in the Horn of Africa.
I would like to take a moment to talk about Eritrea. As you
know, Eritrea became a sovereign state following the April 1993
referendum, in which Eritreans answered a very clear question:
``Do you want Eritrea to become a sovereign and independent
state?'' The result was dazzling. Over 90 per cent of the vote was
for sovereignty.
Canada was one of the first countries to recognize the
achievement of independence in Eritrea and we should be proud
of this. Canada must make a clear commitment to recognize
such democratic decisions when these are made in a context that
meets criteria that appear to comply with the rules of
democracy.
This being said, we think that the government of Canada
should feel a special duty to Eritrea, in that it represents a
promise of peace and stability in the Horn of Africa region. In
our view, this would warrant the allocation of special assistance
to a long-term development and recovery program. Indeed,
Canada should undertake to grant substantial assistance to this
sustainable development and recovery program.
I listened to the hon. Secretary of State as she told us about the
strategic research unit in Qanater, north of Cairo, one of the
projects in which Canada is involved. I sincerely feel this is a
step in the right direction. In fact, sustainable development must
be an objective that transcends Canadian foreign policy. I would
even go as far as to say it should be the basic objective of
Canadian official development assistance.
We welcome the Canadian government commitment to help
Ethiopia and Eritrea make the transition from humanitarian
assistance to economic recovery. One of the main goals of our
international assistance must indeed be to promote the
development of self-reliance in assisted countries. We have to
help these countries set up structures and institutions, including
a constitution which will allow them to govern themselves more
democratically and peacefully. The Secretary of State
recognizes this essential condition.
Finally, we must absolutely, through dialogue and
co-operation programs, seek to reinforce respect for human
rights, democratic development and good government. The
promotion of sustainable human development and human rights
must be at the centre of our policies. The Bloc Quebecois insists
on that aspect. We feel that these factors are the key elements of
any Canadian foreign policy.
The commitment made by the Secretary of State towards
Egyptian women and the announcement of a $14.9 million
contribution to primary education for girls in 15 African
countries, through UNICEF, is a step in that direction and we
applaud that initiative.
In conclusion, we believe that the government must
nevertheless make other concrete commitments, including the
promotion, through existing Canadian and UN programs, of the
development of Erytrean NGOs and the use of local expertise in
reconstruction and rehabilitation initiatives. These efforts must
be pursued.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, we
welcome the secretary of state back from her overseas trip. We
are glad she has arrived safely.
6721
From our perspective the secretary of state speaks on several
positive developments. On behalf of the government she has
spoken supportive words for the most needy people of the
world.
We are glad the government has committed some more funds
to Eritrea and Ethiopia, which have been areas of such heart
rending famine and war in recent years. We need to help rebuild
their shattered economies and make peace between
neighbouring countries in that region. We applaud the
government in its efforts.
The secretary of state seems also to imply that the government
may or will restore bilateral assistance to these countries. We
are certainly not opposed to that as long as the governments in
those countries do not siphon off our aid for military or other
purposes.
(1215 )
Because of my association with the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs, I do receive regular news bulletins about, for
instance, the government of Ethiopia. There are encouraging
signs of a trend toward democracy and stable, market oriented
businesses in those newsletters.
I do hope that these reports accurately reflect a growing
reality.
I wish to contrast her words with the current direction of the
foreign affairs standing committee which at this moment is
drafting its final report to the minister. Although I do not know
what the final report will look like, and these matters are all a
matter of negotiation, I am very concerned that the committee
may fall to the lowest common denominator in order to try to
please everybody and offer very few concrete recommendations
in its report.
I am concerned, for instance, that there may not be a
legislative mandate for CIDA and that the committee will not
recommend that our shrinking aid dollars go to the most needy
people of the world. Examples of what she has brought to our
attention today is the direction we need to head in the future.
I am sure that someone in the minister's office, as well as the
parliamentary secretary, is listening to this speech. I trust that
whoever is listening will take note, especially in the office of the
Minister of Foreign Affairs. I believe we need a very strong
report, one that will reflect the secretary of state's words in
support of the impoverished masses in places like Eritrea,
Ethiopia and Egypt.
Ministers, including this minister and the foreign affairs
minister, need to speak to their Liberal counterparts on the
foreign affairs committee and encourage them not to be
tentative in their recommendations but to be firm in their
support of the poorest people of the world.
With regard to Egypt, there is no comment about the
minister's participation in the population conference in Cairo.
No doubt this is because of the contentious issues that were
raised there. I just want to say a word about that conference. It is
a well documented fact that the best determiners of population
growth are the industrialization of a country and the health and
education of its citizens.
The best thing we can do therefore is to concentrate a good
portion of our foreign aid on basic health and education in the
third world. CIDA spends $120 million a year on Third World
higher education degrees like masters degrees and doctorates. I
believe we are developing, maybe wisely, but we are putting an
increasing emphasis on the ruling classes in those countries
where there are just a very few well educated people but the
masses are ignorant and unhealthy.
I note that CIDA also gave no less than $28 million this year to
the International Planned Parenthood Federation. I trust that
most of those dollars will go to the basic health and education in
the Third World rather than to coercive population control
measures and abortion which proved to be such divisive issues
last month in Cairo.
The way to avoid these negative practices is simple: educate
the needy and upgrade basic health services for the general
population.
That is why we applaud the minister's travelling in rural
Egypt, going to where the problems are the worst. We appreciate
the programs she described to educate girls and we are very
supportive of those as long as we do not also forget that boys
also need basic education.
We do not approve of every trip that this government takes,
far from it, but in this case we think that this particular trip was
very worth while in affirming Canada's support for the most
needy people in the world. No doubt the minister's heart was
touched with compassion by the poverty that she saw and no
doubt her heart was also filled with satisfaction in seeing the
difference that Canada can make even if it is in little ways.
I can only hope that the minister will communicate the things
that are in her heart to her Liberal colleagues on the foreign
affairs standing committee and that she will use her influence to
strengthen the committee's recommendations in these areas.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, the Report of
the Canadian Section of the International Assembly of
French-Speaking Parliamentarians on the second Jeux de la
Francophonie, held in Paris, from July 5 to 13, 1994.
6722
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 39th Report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the list of
associate and permanent members of committees. With leave of
the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later
this day.
[English]
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report
of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development regarding Bill C-36, an act respecting Split Lake
Cree First Nations and the settlement of matters arising from an
agreement relating to the flooding of land, without amendment.
* * *
(1220 )
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-54, an act
to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan,
the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment
Insurance act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-55, an act to
establish a board having jurisdiction concerning disputes
respecting surface rights in respect of land in the Yukon
Territory and to amend other acts in relation thereto.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-283, an Act to amend the Official
Languages Act (review of the Act).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and
friend from Nickel Belt for supporting this bill. This bill amends
the Official Languages Act and provides that the
governor-in-council, on the recommendation of the Prime
Minister of Canada, must appoint a person responsible for
reviewing this act and the consequences of its implementation. I
stress the word ``implementation''. The person appointed must
submit to the Prime Minister a report on the review's findings in
the year following the beginning of his or her mandate, while the
Prime Minister must table the said report for consideration in
both the House of Commons and the Senate.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
move that the 39th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs presented to this House earlier this
day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
move that the date for the final report of the special committee
reviewing Canada's foreign policy be extended to November 15,
1994 and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their
honours thereof.
TCC (Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons) Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 I
move:
That a subcommittee of the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans be
authorized to travel to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest
Territories during the month of October 1994 to undertake a study of the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and that the necessary staff accompany
the subcommittee.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1225 )
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to
present this petition on behalf of the people in my riding and
from Alberta who call upon the government to support the
ethanol industry over the long term, in light of the fact that the
U.S. is already planning 49 new major ethanol plants and
Canada now imports most of its ethanol, creating American jobs
and helping American farmers.
6723
I support my constituents in urging our government to get
its act together and get moving before the world passes us by
on this renewable, sustainable industry.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition here whereby the men and women who have signed it
point out that violence and abuse in radio and on television have
become real concerns in Canadian society.
These petitioners want the CRTC to regulate and if possible
control all forms of abuse in radio and on television. Obviously,
they would like it to cease if at all possible.
They request the government ensure that the CRTC does this.
Parents point out that very often abuse in radio and on television
counteracts the efforts that they are undertaking to raise their
families in safe, healthy environments.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition concerning seniors.
[English]
Seniors want us to remember as parliamentarians that they
have contributed and continue to contribute significantly to the
quality of life that we enjoy in this country. They point out that
they are growing in numbers and I guess all of us will eventually,
perhaps too quickly sometimes, get there. They point out that
programs such as pensions and health will experience additional
growing demand. These seniors need comfortable housing,
social and community involvement, and they want to make sure
that they have the medical care that they require.
They simply ask government that whenever it undertakes
either budgetary or legislative or program changes, we
remember the contributions they have made and the
contributions they continue to make. I support them totally.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I have
the privilege of presenting three separate petitions today that all
touch on the same subject. Altogether another 262 of my
constituents have taken the time to sign petitions stating that the
majority of Canadians believe that privileges extended to
heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex
relationship couples.
Petitioners also ask that the Canadian human rights code
should not be amended to include the undefined phrase sexual
orientation.
I concur with these sentiments.
(1230 )
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour and privilege to table a petition today signed
by the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex pursuant to
Standing Order 36 and duly certified by the clerk of petitions.
The petitioners call on Parliament to maintain the present
exemption on the excise portion of ethanol for a decade,
allowing for a strong and self-sufficient ethanol industry in
Canada, an industry which would provide an environmentally
friendly fuel from renewable resources and provide definite
stability for Canadian agriculture and the Canadian economy in
general.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition from Cindy
Silver and 98 others where the petitioners pray and request that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present
petitions on behalf of my constituents and others to request
Parliament to enact legislation against permanent appointments
of justices.
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, I stand
before the House to present a petition signed by residents of
northern Ontario.
The heading of the petition reads: ``The majority of
Canadians believe that physicians in Canada should be working
to save lives, not to end them''.
Therefore the petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament
make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
I would like to thank and congratulate the petitioners for their
efforts in making their views known to me and to the House. I
concur with and support their efforts.
6724
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions. Very briefly I present one
petition on behalf of constituents who wish the Criminal Code to
be amended to prohibit abortion.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, I present a second petition on behalf of my constituents
who do not wish sidearms to be banned.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, I present a third petition on behalf of my constituents
who express the desire that the present Criminal Code
provisions against doctor assisted suicide be strictly enforced
and that Parliament not change the law.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table 7,012 signatures in petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petitioners call on
Parliament to ban the product known as the serial killer board
game.
These signatures are in addition to the 111,638 tabled already
for a grand total of 118,640.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I note that the
parliamentary secretary has asked that all questions be
permitted to stand. I know that is the standard procedure. We
also have an understanding in the House, in fact an order, that
says that responses are to be made within 45 days.
I am sorry to take some time but I wish to point out an
experience I had recently. Just last week some questions were
reported from me.
As you are probably aware, Mr. Speaker, compound questions
no longer seem to be permitted. If we have a question that has
three or four elements, we have to use up the four spaces in our
question quota all at once. Then we sit and fidget for 45 days,
hoping that eventually the paper will clear and we can ask more
questions. Last week I was faced with having to wait 135 days,
which means that I am effectively muzzled for three times as
long as I ought to be.
(1235 )
To add insult to injury three of those questions elicited the
response that the department, the ministry and the agencies did
not have the data to provide answers. Why did I have to wait 135
days for the department to know it had no answers?
I urge the parliamentary secretary and the government to
respond much more promptly, particularly where they have no
answer, because they are effectively treading very close to the
privileges of members' rights to information in this Chamber.
By their slowness they have effectively kept me from looking
for answers to further questions for almost 100 extra days
beyond what should have been my right as a parliamentarian.
I am not raising this as a question of privilege at this time, but
I ask that the parliamentary secretary urge the departments to be
much more prompt and forthcoming in their responses and if
they do not have answers to let us know immediately.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the hon.
member in the predicament that he has outlined. I know the
government makes every effort to respond promptly to
questions.
Sometimes questions are very lengthy in that they involve
extensive consultation with numerous departments in the
government. That often takes some time. In the case of the
particular questions that the hon. member put on the Order
Paper, I may say that the answers we received initially were sent
back, because we were unhappy with the responses.
I understand his unhappiness with the responses, but the
agencies in question were not prepared to disclose, or were not
able to disclose, or did not have the figures. We could not
imagine that was possible. The questions were sent back to those
agencies to make sure the answers were correct. That was part of
the reason for the lengthy delay. Of course, the House was not
sitting during the summer, which adds to it as well.
I sympathize with him. I hope he will put more questions on
the Order Paper. We will do our very best to answer them as we
do for all hon. members.
Mr. Althouse: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member
raised the problem of eliciting information from the agency
involved, which was the Grain Transportation Agency under the
WGTA, from whom a joint committee of agriculture and
transport last May 6 found similar problems in getting
information.
They have urged the Minister of Transport to immediately
appoint another person to take over from the WGTA the
administration and control of the allocation of the grain car fleet
in order to ensure that an adequate supply of rolling stock will be
provided to producers for the efficient, reliable and effective
movement of grain.
Their response to my questions, which indicated they had no
idea how many cars they had in the system or where they were,
adds fuel to that. This was the finding of the joint committee as
well. I think-
6725
The Deputy Speaker: We will let it go at that. Shall all
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that
because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be
extended by 14 minutes pursuant to Standing Order 33(2).
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker I move the following motion. I believe you will find
there is unanimous consent, after consultation with whips across
the way. It is the following:
That, the hour of adjournment be extended a further 30 minutes and that during
the said extension, notwithstanding any standing order, the Chair will not
entertain any dilatory motions or quorum calls.
The reason this motion is put forward is to hopefully enable
the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing to be able to make
a speech that he wanted very much to be able to deliver to the
House today. Hopefully the extension of hours by a further half
hour will permit that with the usual allocation of time.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
6725
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John has
the floor. She has the right to reply to the question that was put
from the other side of the House.
(1240)
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member stated that she felt we should not be playing politics,
that we should all deal with the social reform policies in a very
responsible way. I agree with her on that.
However I have to say that the starting point for social policy
reform has to come from the provinces. If the Liberal
government and the Minister of Human Resources Development
do not have suggestions from the provinces, then in my opinion
they do not have the solutions.
The federal and provincial governments need to rationalize
the programs they have to make sure there is no overlap, and
eliminate the duplication and overlap.
Also, the hon. member mentioned meeting with one's
constituents and getting back. It is my intention to meet with my
constituents. I hope the Minister of Human Resource
Development will take the suggestions of the people of my
constituency under consideration, a little better perhaps than the
Minister of Transport did when it came to transportation.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in debate on the discussion paper tabled by
the Minister of Human Resources Development entitled
``Improving Social Security in Canada''.
Over the course of this debate, a few basic themes keep
returning over and over. One of the most important is that any
government program reflects the realities of the time in which it
was created. That is certainly true of the status quo of social
programs.
They were designed at a time when most people needed
relatively few skills to get and keep work. What they picked up
in school and on the job was usually enough to build a lifetime of
earnings. People needed financial help between jobs. Others
needed support if they could work at all, due to disability or
family commitments.
The old system was based on a stable world with stable skills
and stable jobs for the vast majority of working people. Is there a
person who believes that holds true now? Too many people have
learned the hard way that the programs and services we have are
designed more to keep people where they are than to help them
to get where they could be.
We have a system that gives people barely enough money to
live but not enough opportunity to thrive, a system that at times
rewards those who can manipulate the rules better than those
who simply want to make something of themselves.
People see that. People know there is an activity that fits the
letter of the law while offending the spirit. For example, I have a
letter from a man in Ontario who points out how larger
employers use the UI system to encourage workers to take early
retirement. It may not be literally against the rules but it is
hardly consistent with UI as a source of income for people who
are genuinely between jobs.
Another person wrote about watching an economy develop in
a small B.C. town around the unemployment insurance. He sees
young people learning from their parents that it is all right to
leave school relatively unskilled, work for only enough weeks to
qualify for benefits and then collect UI benefits for the rest of
the year.
Is there a member who has not heard these concerns? What do
we say to people who raise these issues? It happens too often to
say simply: ``It is just an isolated case''. It shows us that the
status quo no longer works well enough and is in real danger of
losing the support of Canadians. It goes a long way to show why
6726
78 per cent of Canadians believe our social programs are
essential but 85 per cent believe they must be reformed.
The polls say it. Our mail says it. Canadians are not satisfied
with the status quo. They know that a more effective and a more
cost effective social safety net is not just possible, it is
necessary.
(1245 )
The value of the discussion paper on social security reform is
that it lays out facts, ideas and real choices. It is helping
Canadians to translate their feelings and experiences into useful
advice to their government about social programs.
Canadians want to work. They want their fellow citizens to
work. But between those goals and the reality of creating jobs
and getting people into them lie a series of challenges. Some
lack basic information on the labour market. Others are
illiterate. Some have jobs but get little training to improve their
skills. Other people face the issue of the lack of high quality,
affordable child care. People with disabilities can list the
barriers they face each and every day. The challenge is to set
priorities based on needs and the probability of results given the
real fiscal constraints that exist.
One of the central ideas in the section of the discussion paper
on working is the value of community involvement. In setting
priorities the federal government fully recognizes there can
never be enough money to meet every possible need. That is why
the discussion paper suggests that some mechanism which
allowed communities to set priorities and to act on them would
be appropriate.
What might our unemployment programs look like in the
wake of real reform to social security? To begin with we might
see communities with a centre of social program delivery. Some
mechanism that allowed people to come together to determine
local labour market needs and priorities would be a start. Using
the best and most up to date information on what works in
training, they might invest in a mix of employer based training
and wage subsidies for the long term unemployed and for young
people, and other forms of training from many different sources.
A partnership between governments in that community might
lead to the creation of one location for all unemployment and
income support services. Picture a person looking for income
support who could be referred for counselling and assistance in
developing good job search skills. Picture the sole support
mother getting help with child care, housing and literacy
training in the same place.
The agreement between the federal government and the
province of Ontario to set up local labour force development
boards offers a sign of things to come. These governments have
agreed to work together with communities across the province.
Local boards with people from unions, businesses, education
and many other segments of society will have the ability to
determine and set priorities for government labour market
spending. They will decide what training is needed and what
employment development should be emphasized. This will be a
case of people who know the regions and who care about
building a better future having control of the tools to help realize
those visions.
This kind of co-operation could lead to governments and
communities working together to break the vicious cycle of UI
dependence. Efforts to give people real skills, create real jobs
and enable a real economy to flourish could all come together.
The paper looks at the issue of how unemployment insurance
could better help people find and keep jobs. We are asking
Canadians if we need two approaches within our insurance
system, one that would provide a straightforward insurance
coverage and another aimed at people who face regular
unemployment and may need more assistance. We are asking
them if tightening the current program is a better option or
whether we should take both approaches at the same time. We
want to know how they would deal with the needs of part time
workers, self-employed contract workers and other people who
get no help now.
These are real choices. Canadians deserve the right to
determine their own priorities. We believe and they agree that
giving people the skills and incentives to work is appropriate.
We want to go a step further to explore what makes sense with
the money we have.
How to balance the social and economic priorities of
Canadians is not a simple task. We recognize that to meet our
social program goals and to meet our fiscal obligations to
Canadians will require some hard choices. Our citizens are
capable of those choices however.
(1250 )
It is obvious that no one wants us to create some new scheme
and impose it on Canadians. They want us to listen to them, not
just to special interests, not just to the experts, but to the people
who may need these programs and who will pay for them. This
government is committed to doing just that.
With the release of this discussion paper we are saying we can
get people back to work. We can build a society with skills that
attract investment. We can help individuals meet the challenges
of life in a society and an economy that face constant change. We
can take steps to ensure that more people are better off in the
long term, thanks to our actions in this House. The status quo
will not be satisfactory. The time has come to act.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. I
am glad someone on the Liberal side recognizes there is a danger
6727
of losing broad public support and confidence in our social
safety net and the ability of government to deliver services on
behalf of all of us. I am saying that confidence has already
evaporated.
I am also encouraged to hear the member admitting that
change is inevitable, that the current situation cannot be
sustained. It would not matter what political party was in power,
we would have to move toward the reform of our basic social
safety nets.
I am also encouraged to hear that the member is looking at the
priority of needs, focusing on social spending. In fact, a lot of
what I heard from the hon. member today sounds like it could
have come from a Reform member of Parliament. I detect
somewhat of a divergence however in the encouragement and
hopefulness he has and what his minister is saying. I hope he
will do what he can from his side of the House to encourage his
minister to truly live up to the optimism the hon. member has.
I am not so encouraged by this hon. member's optimism that
the government's plan is actually going to be delivered by the
minister. Certainly there are hard choices to be made. He is
suggesting there will be ongoing consultation to let the people
speak. He certainly gives lip service or acknowledgement to a
philosophy I agree with. However, I hope there is real substance.
You might ask: ``Where's the beef?'' Well where is the real
substance in what the minister delivered? I hope his optimism is
not lacking in the long run.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate there is going
to be a lot of smoke and mirrors based on the partisanship in the
House. Unfortunately, Canadians from time to time are going to
wonder if what members are saying is clear to all concerned.
The Minister of Human Resources Development tabled a
discussion paper. Yet time after time when I hear opposition
members address the discussion paper, they criticize it as if it
were a piece of legislation. As the member has just said, they
ask: ``Where's the beef?'' Well, if it were a piece of legislation it
would have each and every single step and program the
government was proposing to address the problems, but this is
not a piece of legislation. This is a discussion paper for all
Canadians.
The government has said very clearly that we can no longer
simply tinker with social programs. It is necessary for us to
make some major changes in the way and the kinds of programs
we deliver to Canadians. That is why we have this discussion
paper. That is why Canadians are being given the opportunity
through their members of Parliament to express their views to
make absolutely sure that all hon. members understand the
needs, the desires and what we can afford to deliver to all
Canadians.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to highlight for members of
the House a number of initiatives in Atlantic Canada that
reinforce the need for social reform and place a stronger
emphasis on the federal-provincial co-operation and
consultation.
(1255 )
At the forefront of the social reform process is a discussion
paper tabled by the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Throughout the discussion paper and at the core of social
security reform is a vigorous emphasis on the need for continued
and effective consultation. That means talking with Canadians,
hearing their views and responding to their needs. However,
consultation with Canadians is not enough.
Every section of the discussion paper produced by the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, be it
on learning, working or security, stresses that successful social
reform is contingent upon a strong co-operative working
relationship with the provincial and territorial governments.
The key to developing that relationship and intrinsic to the
social reform process is the strategic initiative program
approved by the cabinet last May.
This program provides a unique mechanism for both levels of
government to take actions in the high priority areas of
employment, learning, education, income security and social
services. Approved projects are funded on a 50:50 basis with the
province or territory. Not only will this initiative promote an
open dialogue with the provinces and territories, co-operation
of this nature will also help us to eliminate waste, inefficient
allocation of moneys and duplication in the existing systems.
There are many reasons why a strategic initiatives program is
a critical component of the social security reform and there are
many reasons why it is working. First and foremost, it gets
Canadians back to work. It helps Canadians to help themselves.
We have made tremendous progress already, particularly in
the Atlantic provinces. The initiatives that have been launched
in co-operation with Atlantic Canada governments will touch
the lives of over 10,000 Canadians currently at risk of becoming
dependent on social assistance.
In New Brunswick over 1,000 Canadians will take their place
in the ranks of the New Brunswick job corps. This program will
give volunteers between the ages of 50 and 65 the opportunity to
put their talents and expertise to work in their communities.
In Prince Edward Island the ready to learn and adult peer
literacy tutoring project will make it easier for young adults who
have found it difficult to gain access to traditional education
facilities. The project will provide literacy training, life skills,
academic upgrading and skills training to unemployment
insurance and social assistance recipients. It is hoped that the
ready to
6728
learn project will remove the barriers to education that many
Islanders have historically encountered.
In Newfoundland more than 5,000 Canadians will benefit
from the transitions initiative. This three pronged program
targets the young people, candidates for post-secondary
education, recent university and college graduates, and working
age adults.
In Nova Scotia 3,000 Canadians will benefit from four new
programs designed to provide training and employment
opportunities to working age adults currently out of work. The
compass initiative targets those who need it the most, those at
risk of long term dependency on social assistance: unemployed
youth, single parents, and laid off fishers.
Each of these initiatives will not only help get Canadians back
to work, they will return a sense of dignity and pride.
Unfortunately, these things are often forgotten when one
becomes lost in the maze of the current system. But these efforts
are just the beginning.
Just this week the minister announced a new initiative in
Charlottetown. Choices and opportunities will reinforce and
strengthen social assistance for mentally challenged
individuals. In St. John's, Newfoundland we have launched a
pilot project centred around an earnings supplement initiative.
(1300)
The spirit of co-operation that now exists between the federal
and provincial governments indicates the importance of the
federal-provincial collaboration and is indeed welcome. It is
exciting to know that our provincial colleagues, Premiers
McKenna and Wells, have announced their support and
enthusiasm for the discussion paper, for this government's
approach to social security reform in Canada, and for the
initiatives that have already had an effect on their constituents.
To date, the Atlantic provinces have been most involved in the
consultation process and in the implementation of the strategic
initiatives program. But this is only the beginning; there is much
more to be done.
Many workers in the Atlantic region are seasonal workers.
The contributions of seasonal workers and seasonal industries
are significant to our economic future. Tourism, fisheries,
agriculture, forestry and construction are all extremely
important industries and will remain so well into the future.
For this reason I feel the government must make a
commitment to ensure these people receive help in adjusting to
the changes that are adopted, whatever they might be.
As the Minister of Human Resources Development has
indicated, this is a consultative process. I consider it very
important to my constituents. That is why I have arranged for
public forums next week and in November, in my constituency
of Carleton-Charlotte, to provide the opportunity for direct
input by my constituents.
We cannot rebuild our social security system overnight.
Successful and effective reform tailored to the needs of this and
coming generations require a strong foundation. We must build
our future system one day at a time. Together with all provinces
and territories we must work with Canadians to create an
improved social security system. We will mould it to meet the
requirements of Canadians. We look forward to a stronger and
more cohesive working relationship with our provincial and
territorial counterparts.
Together we can forge a social security system that will lead
Canada into the 21st century.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. colleague used the word consultation many
times in his speech. Consultations must be based on real
information. If the public is to decide or to give broad support to
the hard choices to be made, it must be told the truth about the
numbers and the real tradeoffs. The discussion paper is a
reflection of the concerns the Liberals can no longer deny or
avoid.
Will the member return to his riding and outline in cold, hard
terms the choices to be made with the dollar value and the direct
community result, not just for the few items in the green paper
but for the whole social safety net package?
Mr. Culbert: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicated, it is
my plan to go through the consultative stage with my
constituents and offer them every opportunity to bring forward
their ideas and their suggestions.
One of the early things I did, in conjunction with this paper
the minister brought forward, was to have the minister confirm
to me the exact opportunity he has put forward for the
consultation. I wanted to be assured that it was true and factual
that the consultation was going to be listened to and we would
have an opportunity to make change.
The minister has assured me of that. I am very confident my
constituents will have suggestions and ideas that can be brought
back to the standing committee, the minister and the
department. This is helpful in the process of coming up with a
plan and a program that will be beneficial to all Canadians for
the 21st century.
(1305)
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to
tell the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), the
following period of debate allotted to our party will be divided
in two.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak about the reform of the Canadian social
security system. Earlier I heard the hon. member say: ``We have
difficult choices to make''. It seems to me that the choices are
not so difficult.
6729
I also often heard the other side ask us to propose something. I
have a proposal for you. I realize how difficult it is for the other
side to make choices. When a bill aimed at changing the rules of
political party financing was introduced 15 days ago, some
members on the other side voted with us but most voted against
us because their very wealthy friends put money in their coffers.
It is easy to understand how subsequent choices can be
extremely difficult to make.
True, there are two choices. But why did we have to choose?
In Mr. Trudeau's time, the government got this country into debt
by going on a spending spree that continued under the
Conservatives. It was not the fault of the opposition parties, not
the Reform Party's, not ours and not the NDP's. They were not in
power. Who got Canada into debt during the past 30 years? The
two parties that were in power. We have a debt of $530 billion,
with $40 billion worth of interest payments, and as a result there
are some choices we must make.
Which option do we choose? Are we going to take money
from the haves or are we going to empty the pockets of the
have-nots? We say get it where it is to be found. Let us do it, let
us raise billions of dollars from family trusts, people who do not
pay income tax and the multinationals in this country. That is
where we should get those billions of dollars. Not the pennies in
the pockets of the poor.
That is what I would do. And now, a look at the other side.
Last week, the Canadian Council on Social Development again
sounded the alarm when it noted the distressing fact that more
than one million children do not get enough to eat. One million
children! In the schools where I taught, many children went
without lunch. Fortunately, there were some Good Samaritans
who paid for their meals. Why did these children go without
food?
Their parents were in debt. They had three or four children,
and they bought a car, chain saw and boat on credit, and when
school started, they also had to buy books and exercise books.
They had to pay the student association membership. There was
no money left for food. I am convinced that the purpose of social
security reform in this country should be to fight poverty, not the
poor. So far, the trend has been to take money away from the
poorest in our society, and that is how I see this reform.
(1310)
The objective should be,in this supposedly great and beautiful
country, to create more social justice, not to come down harder
on the neediest, the disenfranchised and the weakest members of
our society. The objective should be to ensure a better
distribution of wealth, which is not the case today. The rich are
getting richer, while the poor have for years and years been
getting poorer.
I am not convinced that this is what the minister responsible
had in mind, and I am not convinced that what he had in mind is
right for this government. The unstated objective of this reform,
as I see it, is solely and entirely to reduce government spending
by penalizing more and more the disadvantaged, those who
cannot speak for themselves.
Conservative policies of this sort have the effect of causing a
dramatic rise in unemployment and poverty levels in this
country. Conservative policies are directly responsible for the
systematic impoverishment of the middle class and
lower-income taxpayers.
This government acts like a producer who would stop feeding
his cattle. Do you think that is the way to increase production?
Do you think he would achieve better results by cutting rations?
Do you think he would get a better yield if he stopped cultivating
his land? To get results, investments must be made in the right
places and cuts must also be made in the right places.
Cutting in postsecondary education will make it impossible
for a large number of people to get adequate training. Because,
as I have pointed out repeatedly, there are still no general and
vocational colleges in my region-there is one in Matane- and
no universities-you have to go to Rimouski, Quebec, Laval,
Montreal- cuts in postsecondary education will mean that
hundreds of students will not be able to further their education.
If the costs double or triple, we will no longer be able to afford
sending our young people to university. The university in
Rimouski is great, except that it does not offer all programs.
That is why we have to go to Laval or some other university.
Cutting in postsecondary education certainly is not a good way
to help the labour force adjust to the present conditions of the
future labour market.
Literally crushing seasonal workers and the poorest of the
poor by creating two categories of UI recipients certainly is not
the best way to restore hope in our society. In our region,
forestry workers have work for only four or five months each
year; those who get to work five months are considered
extremely lucky. During this period, because it is a very short
period, they start work very early in the morning and finish very
late at night. Many totally wreck their health in the process. If
they undergo any more conditioning, this will increase their
stress load.
(1315)
A few years ago, a family man had to keep chopping down
trees even if he was very sick because he had to collect enough
stamps, not because he did not want to work. Quebecers,
especially the people in my riding, want to work. The
unemployment rate in my riding is among the highest. The
people want to work. They want the jobs that were promised by
the Prime Minister during the election campaign. That is all we
heard during the election campaign: jobs, jobs and more jobs.
6730
The lack of jobs makes these people feel insecure and
helpless. They appear to be almost ashamed, even when they
are working.
This government has waited much too long, even if it has been
a year-just as previous governments waited too long-to find
decent jobs for the people in the regions, especially rural
regions. If this government wants respect, it should start by
respecting the poor. Only then will it command our respect.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker I thank
the member for his dissertation. I found it extremely interesting.
He is right in a lot of respects. Poor people have to be fed. When
they are young it is very important that they are fed and oriented
properly in order for us to prosper as a society.
A very perplexing thing has happened to me since I came to
the House. I understand that over the years we perpetuate things.
Members of the opposition, and perhaps members on all sides of
the House, get into political discussions and dissertations about
how the pie should be cut. They want to keep the existing
structures and situations because it is politically expedient to do
so.
At the turn of the century we changed from steam power to
electricity. Right now we are at the advent of the information
era. We know what has happened to Bill Gates. It is a good
example of what happens by using resources and
entrepreneurship and getting into new technology. If some of us
had embraced that approach it would have helped us out of the
economic recession which started in the sixties and is being
perpetuated now.
The objective of the whole exercise of social reform is: What
do we do from here? How can we get people more prepared?
How can we use resources better? How can we make sure that
debt does not climb?
I ask the member opposite to give us some ideas,
notwithstanding the concerns. We all know about those
concerns. The whole object of the exercise is to make the
process better. How can we make it better, not complain about
how many pieces of pie we can keep or whether we belong to one
region or another?
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a very
good question and I am very proud of him. Of course, there are
ways to make it better. I will give you at least one example. The
money we could spend on forestry, say, is not a subsidy but an
investment. Mr. De Bané himself said when he was a minister a
few years ago-he is now a senator, unfortunately-that it is an
investment. Replanting forests no longer replenished by nature
is an investment. There are so many other examples I could give
you. We could hire twice as many forestry workers since lumber
is now in great demand. They are reluctant to do that.
(1320)
In my region, they have the Eastern Plan, which my colleague
from Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is very familiar
with. We fervently hope that it will be renewed as it can put
people to work. Let me give you just one example in forestry.
Most farm owners tell me that they only have two people
working on their farms when there is often enough work for five
people. These small farmers cannot afford to pay decent wages
to their employees. Something could be done. We could create
hundreds of jobs that would be extremely valuable to the whole
community and would in turn benefit both the federal and the
provincial governments.
I could of course give you other examples but I will limit
myself to these two just to show you that it is possible to create
jobs.
The federal government is very wary whenever we offer
solutions.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor. It is always a
pleasure to speak when you occupy the Speaker's Chair.
I want to say right away that I am pleased to speak in a debate
like this because I represent a riding in east-end Montreal which
of course went through some very bad times in the last two
recessions, in the 1980s and the 1990s.
On listening to my colleagues, I said to myself that I am not a
supporter of the status quo. I want to say that at the outset of this
debate so that I can perhaps discuss it later in answer to a
question that our colleague might raise.
I think that the minister did something laudable in proposing
social programs, but there is a paradox. The minister proposes-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Ménard: I am grateful for the kind of co-operation from
my friend, the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
However, there is a paradox because social programs are
basically tools that now belong to the provinces. That is how it
should be, with one exception: unemployment insurance is the
only program where the federal government has any legitimacy
at all to act. Let us remember the context. When the federal
government announced the unemployment insurance plan, it
was the first amendment to the 1867 constitution and it came in
the wake of the Rowell-Sirois report. We know what things were
like at that time: it was a time of trouble and war, which gave rise
to heated discussions.
6731
What a paradox! Imagine the 33 Fathers of Confederation-I
apologize for the fact that there were no women-including
Cartier, Langevin, Galt, Baldwin and others, coming back here
to see the central government of a federation want to interfere
in social programs, when neither those 33 Fathers nor their
successors gave that government any authority to do that. That,
in my opinion, is the problem with the Canadian federation.
The problem is that when you are in Ottawa, you think that
there is a single labour market. However, this is not possible, it
is not true and it would not be good in a continental country like
Canada. The fact is that there are fewer and fewer continental
countries with a federal regime like Canada. And that does not
make me sorry.
The problem for any federal government, regardless of its
good intentions-and I am prepared to admit that the minister
does have good intentions-is that there are several labour
markets. Canada is a continental country in which the job
market in Rimouski and the Gaspe peninsula obviously does not
reflect the same reality as in Calgary, for example. This is why
social programs administered by Ottawa, because of their
structure, are of course very inadequate.
Many economists-and I hope we have an opportunity to
discuss this issue during the referendum debate-see a rather
direct link between the growth of the Canadian debt since 1970
which, as the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane mentioned
earlier, is around $540 billion, and the government's will to
interfere in the social program sector through various schemes.
What we are saying, and I think this is a reasonable suggestion
which deserves to be looked at, is that the federal government
has money.
(1325)
The first part of the document, which includes an inventory of
the federal initiatives as well as an overview of labour market
patterns, is well done. However, things deteriorate in the second
part. In the first part, we are told that federal contributions
amount to $38 billion. How do you explain the fact that a
government which has nothing to do with social programs would
invest an almost unprecedented $38 billion?
I was looking at the study released by the OECD during the
last summit attended by the Minister of Industry. With its
$38-billion contribution, the Canadian government is among
the top investors; yet, because this money is badly invested,
because it is not allocated where users could be the primary
beneficiaries, the official unemployment rate in our country is
still at 10 or 12 per cent.
These are complex issues and we must be careful not to view
them in an overly simplistic way. However, I am convinced that
all of us, wherever we are, must work towards the
implementation of a full employment policy. It is quite a
paradox to see that the expression full employment is not used
even once in this document.
The minister's objective is to look after the jobless. This is a
noble goal but it is not enough. We would have expected this
debate to start with a policy on job creation, because the idea is
not to manage the unemployed but indeed to integrate those
trying to enter the labour market.
When you look, as the hon. member for Mercier and other
members of this House have, at the conditions under which a
country, regardless of its political structures, can achieve full
employment, you note a rather obvious correlation between the
size of the communities or countries-the smaller the
better-and the level of success achieved in that respect. This is
understandable. To achieve full employment, you must first get
the national partners to sit at an employment table so that,
together, with their legitimacy, they can set economic
objectives.
We will never be able to have a national table to discuss full
employment in Canada because the Atlantic fishermen, the
people of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec all have
employment structures that differ radically one from the other.
This is the first impediment, one that I consider to constitute a
systemic barrier, therefore confirming to the federal
government the fact that the greatest favour he can do the public
as a public administration is to decentralize funding towards the
authorities who are in the best position to achieve full
employment, that is to say, in the first place, the provinces.
Municipalities could even be made choice partners in this
process. Why not? This government however yearns for
visibility and it will soon, as soon as possible, have to face the
Quebec electorate who will make a constitutional decision. I can
understand the difficulty for a government like this one to
readily accept to withdraw from this kind of visibility. However,
that is the price to be paid if you want to put people back to work,
in my humble opinion.
In addition to the debt and other barriers to full employment,
there is something else that is very disturbing. It is the fact that
from 1990 onward, and especially the jobs are created in the
year 2000-we both expect to live that long, Mr. Speaker-that
those jobs will require 16 years of schooling. Sixteen years
means a CEGEP technical diploma, that is what it means.
However, and the minister said so in his paper, more than
100,000 students drop out of our educational institutions every
year.
The obvious challenge for those who want to put people to
work is to make the connection between training, education and
the jobs available. In Quebec, we say that education is a priority
and vital to our identity, and that is of course the choice we
made.
6732
(1330)
This is different from the 19th century, when the job market
was linked to immigration and to means of transportation, which
is understandable from a historical perspective as they had to
build a very sparsely populated country where immigrants'
contribution had a major impact on labour policies. No wonder
we talk about employment and immigration centres. That is no
longer the case. The three components of labour force access are
education, which is a provincial jurisdiction, as well as-I think
the minister was right to mention it in his paper, although it is
outside his mandate-all family support services.
Things have changed since the typical family included a
breadwinner working outside the home, a homemaker and
children from a first marriage. This is no longer the Canadian
reality.
In conclusion, that is why we believe that the minister must
tackle social program reform. But he must be generous, sensible
and compassionate enough to recognize that the best thing he
can do is to decentralize this money and allow the provinces,
especially Quebec which has considerable experience dealing
with the issue of full employment-A national forum on
employment was held in 1985, and I must say that one of the first
things the Parizeau government did was to make plans for
creating a ministry of state mandated to consult on employment.
The best thing this government can do to put Canadians and
Quebecers to work is to decentralize this money and recognize
that it is not the government best able to put Canadians to work.
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, I recently listened to the two members of the Bloc. One
thing we can all agree on is that the buzzword is choices. That is
the operative word.
By talking about choices it assumes that we cannot have it all.
The country is broke and we are still spending like a drunken
sailor. The steering wheel of the ship of state is not being tended.
We are talking about cutbacks today because we cannot afford
the current situation. I think the members have highlighted the
kind of thinking that has got us into the present mess. Fight
poverty and need with deficit financed assistance rather than
appropriately building an economy of opportunity that will then
be capable of adequately providing for those who are
disadvantaged.
The present result is one of failure and his reasoning,
continuing on the present course of continuing to deficit
finance, will continue to bring us to where we are today where
we cannot adequately meet requirements.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon.
member for taking part in the debate. I think that what
distinguishes us-and I say this up front-is that as a political
party we are convinced that the best way to help the
disadvantaged is not just to let market forces prevail. We admit
that our society never had as many poor people as it does today.
That is true for Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto and many regions
of the country.
The difference is that we think what makes the government
ineffective in fighting poverty is the political structure. Take the
very concrete example of a man without work who comes to our
riding office. Right away we see that various options are
available if he is on welfare; they are not the same if he is on
unemployment. Why? Because two levels of government
administer these programs.
Nevertheless, the need is the same; he needs training so that
he can re-enter the work force. I am convinced that things would
be much simpler if we had the government that is closer to the
people, namely the provincial government, the Government of
Quebec to take the example that I know; I think that the results
would be much more satisfactory if funds could be concentrated
in the hands of one single manager and if all the available
options and programs were offered in one and the same
structure.
Sometimes people try to make a distinction between the
constitutional structure and the labour market, but that is wrong.
We must admit that the two are closely connected. If I were
convinced that the central government is the best one to put
people to work, I would not be a sovereignist.
(1335)
I am not a sovereignist because I love the sound of that word. I
am a sovereignist because I think that we should have only one
government. When someone-who knows, it might be the
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine-proves me
wrong, I will be pleased to review my position, but for now I am
not convinced.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has demonstrated that
the Canadian fiscal position has constitutional connections. In
view of this fact, is the slow, stop-and-go approach the
government is planning to take in this reform not paradoxical?
One gets the impression that it is trying to put things off until
after a certain event has taken place in Quebec. I would like my
hon. colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to comment on
this.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Admittedly, the
work plan presented to us a few weeks ago was supposed, as the
minister stated repeatedly, to lead to the establishment of a
much more precise schedule than the one before us at this time.
Like my hon. colleague, I note and share the opinion that,
having nothing to offer in terms of job creation and knowing the
disastrous results the referendum will have from its point of
view, this government has decided to buy time and defer the
objectives it had set for itself.
6733
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to develop a little on the topic that was raised by my
colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby.
Here we are 12 months downstream from the election with our
total debt around about $45 billion higher than it was a year ago
and with our entire social safety net in danger of collapse. In the
time that it takes me to give this short speech our debt will have
gone up by about $1 million. By the time this government
actually gets around to doing anything we probably will have
added another $10 billion to the debt. We will be that much
closer to a total economic collapse.
Governments always seem to take too long to take care of
fiscal problems. This House knows that I am originally from
New Zealand and that I am very familiar with the fiscal crisis
that hit New Zealand in 1984. Dependence on social programs in
New Zealand was in the end reduced not by consultation and not
by long delays and green books. Instead it ended up being
slashed to the bone because the country went bankrupt.
A New Zealand style debt crisis is not the most pleasant way
to reform social services.
I think perhaps it is worth reviewing some of the things that
happened in New Zealand. This may help some of our
government members understand the seriousness of our debt
and deficit situation and the threat that the debt holds for the
very survival of our social programs.
Getting control of government spending is a tough job and we
know that. New Zealand's debt doubled from $22 billion in 1984
to $46 billion in 1994 by the time the first surplus occurred.
These numbers are small compared to the numbers for Canada,
but the fact is that the total debt doubled before expenditures
came under control in the New Zealand situation.
When New Zealand hit the wall, the annual deficit could not
be reduced to zero overnight. Emergency IMF funding
permitted continued deficits while the economy restructured. It
was these deficits over the 10 year period that caused the debt to
double.
Think about what would happen to Canada in a similar crisis.
We all know that the only way to balance the budget overnight
would be to virtually eliminate every existing social
program-welfare, UI, pensions, you name it-in order to save
the necessary $40 billion.
In practice this could not be done because of the social
consequences. The IMF would allow Canada to continue to
incur decreasing deficits as social programs were abandoned
and the population adapted to the changes. Just as in the case of
New Zealand, this could easily result in the doubling of
Canada's debt by the year 2004.
In other words, if we hit the wall tomorrow it is quite likely
that our debt would balloon to a trillion dollars or more before
we began showing surpluses.
(1340 )
By then, even if we have stable interest rates, the interest
payments on the debt will be over $100 billion a year. Growth in
the economy would help reduce the relative size of that interest
payment but it is virtually equal to 100 per cent of today's tax
receipts.
This is a very serious situation and just like New Zealand, it
will not be solved with green books and discussion papers.
Every single month that we delay the decision to make
significant cuts, we add another $3.5 billion to our debt load and
we simply cannot go on this way.
New Zealand was forced to take drastic action but a phoenix
has risen from the ashes. New Zealand had a $600 million
surplus this year and is forecasting $2 billion for next year. The
government has promised tax reductions beginning in 1996 but a
key to this is that New Zealanders must refrain from demanding
any expansion of government programs or services.
This is very important. Canadians too must learn to refrain
from demanding any expansion of government services and
programs. In fact they must demand less. In 1984 immediately
after the debt crisis the New Zealand dollar dropped about 20 per
cent to be worth 62 cents Canadian. It held there until about
1992 by which time the reorganization of the economy had taken
place.
Since August 1993, it has gained 17 per cent against the
Canadian dollar and now stands at 84 cents. In the same time, it
gained 8 per cent against the U.S. dollar, a significant measure
of the strength of the New Zealand economy.
New Zealand introduced business style performance
standards for public servants. The equivalents of deputy
ministers were renamed chief executives, hired on fixed term
contracts and made personally responsible for delivering
measurable results.
Like business executives, they had the power to hire and fire
and to buy any equipment they needed but they had to perform. I
wonder how long some of the government's deputy ministers
would last if they had to deliver measurable results.
Along with requiring results of its civil service, the New
Zealand government passed a law requiring any surpluses to be
used to pay down the debt and thankfully it is now into that
cycle.
New Zealand's youth now have a future of reducing debt
burden to look forward to while Canada's youth still have a
future of increasing debt burden. The enforced social program
reform in New Zealand extended to farming and corporate
welfare as well.
6734
Almost overnight came the complete removal of subsidies
for farmers. Bankruptcy for farmers and the loss of food
production was widely predicted but in fact there are more
farmers farming today in New Zealand and making more money
per farmer than they did before the government subsidies were
taken away. They now grow what the world needs instead of
what the government was paying them to grow.
There is a lesson there. When one pays people so much that it
is more attractive to sit at home than to work, when one
subsidizes farmers to grow crops that the world does not need,
when one gives out grants to business and special interest groups
one produces a dependency that kills jobs, kills initiative and
kills individual responsibility.
When I left New Zealand in 1979 to emigrate to Canada, I left
a socialist country very close to bankruptcy. The writing was on
the wall there just as it is here in Canada today. However New
Zealand today is a free enterprise country, very different to the
one I left.
I am absolutely convinced that by studying the New Zealand
experience we will be far better equipped to handle our own debt
and deficit situation. If there was one MP travel junket that
would actually be in the interests of Canadian taxpayers, it
would be an all expenses paid trip to New Zealand for the
Minister of Human Resources Development. He needs to see
what is coming and he needs to see it soon.
There is no doubt that we need social service reform but it is
highly unlikely that the 89 pages of fluff in the minister's green
book will make any significant contribution.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some
interest to the comments made by the hon. member.
We often hear this New Zealand example being given either
by the opposition members or certain doomsayers of all kinds. If
I am not mistaken, the population of New Zealand is three
million and the active economy is not any larger than that of
Alberta. I understand the process in what it had to go through in
restructuring its economy and what not. If we look at the
industrial and economic profile of New Zealand in comparison
to Canada there is very little to compare except the debt figures
that the hon. member would probably like to bring to our
attention.
(1345)
I would like him to give us a better description of what the
realities were at the time in New Zealand versus Canada. Canada
has a population ten times that of New Zealand with an economy
which is closely linked to that of the United States and other
western powers. We are a G-7 nation and we have a lot of things
going for us than New Zealand had at the time.
Mr. White (North Vancouver)): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for paying close attention to my speech and asking
interesting questions.
The population of New Zealand is a fraction of that of Canada.
The only message we can get from that is we are going to be
given a lot more rope to hang ourselves than New Zealand was
given by the international buyers of its debt load.
Up to 60 per cent of our debt today is being purchased by
foreigners. The day they pull the plug on us it will not matter
what sort of resource base we have. We will be scrambling to
find money.
Sweden has had difficulties with its international financing. It
is really not related to population other than you get, as I said,
more rope to hang yourself.
The New Zealand model is a very good model for what will
happen here. It was pretty tough right after the debt crisis.
However the average person on the streets in New Zealand was
extremely happy to see the government finally taking the
initiatives they had wanted them to take all along.
It is no good pretending there are not people abusing our
social services system. There are lots of them and we had better
be prepared to stand up, admit it and get on top of the problem.
New Zealand was forced to because the money tree was taken
away. That may well happen here. But I hope we come to the
realization that we have to do something before the plug gets
pulled on us too.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
one of the great puzzles surrounding Canada's social programs
has been that they have had very little success in reducing the
country's social ills. This is so in spite of the fact that
expenditures per capita in real terms have increased
dramatically since they were initiated during the post war years.
What has gone wrong?
This question has occupied my academic research for some
time. In the short time available to me today I want to share with
you some of my insight on this matter. I do so because from
these insights emerge policies appropriate for revisions of
Canada's social programs during the present financial crisis and
as we enter the 21st century.
It is part of folklore that restaurants that have fire insurance
burn more often than those that do not. The insurance industry
attributes this increase to what is known as moral hazard
phenomenon. In simple language it is due to insurance induced
changes in behaviour. The greater number of fires that occur in
insured restaurants is due in part to outright arson. However,
many additional fires are started because in insured restaurants
less care is given to the cleaning of greasy vents and other fire
hazards. They are less likely to have sprinkler systems and fire
extinguishers.
6735
The Government of Canada provides insurance against the
hazards of unemployment, poverty and old age, disability,
illness and a wide range of other calamities befalling people.
As in the case of fire insurance these kinds of social insurance
programs induce changes in the behaviour of the insured that
result in higher claims and costs.
(1350 )
Let me illustrate in the context of unemployment insurance.
Undoubtedly unemployment and the costs of insurance are
raised by some criminal cheating through the filing of multiple
claims or receiving benefits while holding a job.
Some claim that such illegal acts are rare while others think
they are frequent. By the nature of the crime it is not easy to
obtain reliable estimates. At any rate, clamping down on such
cheating is not a contentious issue.
Of greatest concern for the present discussion of social
insurance reform is the fact that much of the present high
unemployment is due to individual Canadians reacting
rationally to the changes in the environment in which they
operate.
For example, persons with unemployment insurance benefits
have higher standards on a new acceptable job than those
without. The former will reject jobs with longer commutes,
lower pay and higher retraining requirements than the latter.
People who behave in this way do not break the law. They act
rationally in response to opportunities created by the
government. They can afford to hold out longer for a better job
because being unemployed costs less. Such legal and rational
behaviour nevertheless increases the rate of unemployment and
the cost of the unemployment insurance program.
Similar forces act on the welfare program, as was
demonstrated when in the summer of 1993 in Ontario a woman
created headlines with the revelation that she quit her job
deliberately and went on welfare. She argued that by doing so
she enjoyed a higher living standard than when she worked for
$40,000 a year.
The media made much out of the question of whether this was
true. In my view, this question misses the main point. Consider
as a thought experiment that the woman's income was actually
reduced by $6,000 by going on welfare. This means that full
time work brought her only $500 a month and the loss of time
with her family in leisure activities and valuable work in the
home.
I know few people who condemn Canadians who make the
choice this woman made. She was not violating any law. She was
simply taking advantage of choices created by the system. Yet
such behaviour swells the number of welfare recipients and
raises the cost of welfare programs.
The cost of unemployment insurance is increased even further
by the adoption by society of institutions which take explicit
advantage of the opportunities offered by the system. Industries
with seasonal employment expand. Some governments arrange
hiring to accommodate eligibility requirements. They all act
rationally and within the law. No one is to blame but the system
which allows the creation and exploitation of these institutions.
How large is the cost of social insurance programs due to the
insurance induced changes in behaviour and institutions? Social
scientists do not have precise answers to these important
questions. I have been the coauthor of studies of the effects of
unemployment insurance on the unemployment rate and venture
to guess that without the increased generosity of the UI system
introduced in the 1970s, Canada's unemployment rate today
might be about two to three percentage points lower than it is.
More generally, there is little doubt in my mind that insurance
induced changes in behaviour explain the puzzle of the post war
years, the ever increasing costs of social insurance programs
and the constancy of the problems they were designed to cure.
The green book contains a graph of Canada's unemployment
rate since the 1950s. It is on a steady upward trend. My analysis
suggests that this is due to the effects of insurance induced
changes in behaviour, institutions and the overall increased
social acceptance of such behaviour.
(1355 )
What does my analysis imply for social policy reform? The
answer is found in the practices used by private insurance
companies to limit opportunities for risk increasing behaviour.
Fire insurance premiums are lower for buildings with sprinkler
systems. All forms of private property and health insurance
carry deductibles, co-insurance on claims, waiting periods and
rates that differentiate between people according to the riskiness
of their behaviour. For example, life insurance premiums are
higher for smokers than non-smokers; sky-divers face
discriminatorily higher premiums.
It is important to note that the private insurance industry
knows that moral behaviour cannot be controlled completely.
Consequences of it are reflected in insurance premiums. Where
control is extremely difficult and the costs vary as in the case of
insurance against business losses, premiums have to be so high
that no one is interested in buying the insurance. That is why
there is no insurance against business losses.
For very noble reasons the architects of Canada's social
insurance programs have made only limited use of such private
insurance methods for controlling insurance induced behaviour.
6736
To me the most logical solution to the excessive cost of these
programs is to introduce more of the true and tried methods of
the private insurance industry. Deductibles can be raised. In the
case of unemployment insurance and welfare this would take
the form of longer waiting periods before benefits are paid.
Co-insurance can be increased by lowering the benefits
relative to previous earnings. Pensioners receive benefits only
when they are older. The receipt of benefits can be lessened by
requiring frequent reporting and evidence of job search,
retraining requirements and a host of other measures which are
equivalent to increasing co-insurance rates.
Other countries which have had similar experiences to those
of Canada have taken such measures. Sweden has cut housing
subsidies and brought in vouchers for child care payments.
Norway is tightening disability insurance payments. In France
social assistance is tied to signing on for a work training
scheme. In the Netherlands young people up to the age of 27
have their social assistance set at no more than 50 per cent of the
minimum wage. Germany and Italy are raising the age at which
pensions can be claimed. In Britain income support is made
available only on the basis of need and after means testing of
applicants.
I believe that the phenomenon of insurance induced behaviour
holds the clue on why in Canada and in other countries of the
world the cost of social programs has run out of control. It also
provides the answer for stopping these runaway expenditures.
We could do better than listen to what other countries are doing
to control their problem with insurance induced behaviour.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to acknowledge many of the fine points that the hon.
member made. His description of a disincentive to work is one
of the cornerstones of what is in the green book.
I would like to ask him a question. I acknowledge that
unemployment insurance social benefits may raise the
unemployment insurance rate. That is hard to quibble with.
Some people think we should do away with unemployment
insurance or lower the benefits of unemployment insurance.
They often point to the Americans and say: ``Look at their
unemployment rate. It is much lower than Canada's and the
main reason is because they have less generous unemployment
insurance benefits''.
Is there not going to be a cost if we toughen up the system?
Many thousands of people lose their jobs through no fault of
their own. They have no available work to go to. I come from a
community on the north shore of Lake Erie that suffered greatly
in the last recession. We lost 5,000 manufacturing jobs in a town
of 30,000 people. There were no real options for those people.
(1400)
If we look at the American example we see that they do not
have decent unemployment insurance programs. They have
people living on the street. They have entire families living on
the street. They have charities for no other purpose than to
provide medical care for children of people who live on the
street.
Is there not going to be a cost? We are going to have more poor
people in this country. While making the system tougher will
encourage some people to find jobs, there will be vast numbers
of people, through no fault of their own, who will simply be put
in a worse situation than they are. Crime rates will go up and all
sorts of other terrible social conditions will come into the foray.
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his
thoughtful comments. Clearly this is the tradeoff we face as a
society.
I can assure him that in the sixties we expected a
never-ending flow of funds. People thought so what if there is
some insurance induced increases in the demand for services;
we can afford it. The problem is we cannot afford them any
more. We are being asked what kinds of tradeoffs there will be to
reduce the expenditures.
The green book is full of ideas which will hurt someone. If we
are reducing expenditures, as we have to, in order to increase
spending on some other worthwhile thing or to eliminate the
deficit, as we would do, then somebody has to suffer.
I am suggesting that it would be a good idea to imitate what
some other countries have been doing that have thought about it
a lot. If some people have to suffer let it fall primarily on those
who have been induced by the system to change their behaviour.
Clearly there is no such thing as a free lunch. I wish there were.
Mr. Knutson: On the member's last point, he wants the cost
to fall primarily on those who change their behaviour, but there
is no way to distinguish them. If we toughen up the UI rules
there is no way to distinguish between persons who take a longer
time to look for a job than others would and persons who
legitimately cannot find a job because all the factories in their
towns have closed.
There is no way; the system is not that specific that we can say
some persons are not looking hard enough for a job so we are
going to toughen up on them.
Mr. Grubel: I fully agree and that is the dilemma. What are
we going to do about it? What is the member's party going to do
about it? We have no choice.
As socialists are so fond of saying, if we want to make an
omelette we have to break a few eggs. If we want to bring the
country from the brink of bankruptcy we are going to have to
impose on some people a reduction in the proportion of
replacement of earnings they will obtain. We will have to
impose on some people a longer waiting period. The
co-insurance deductible will have to go up in all programs.
6737
If we look at the green book and reinterpret some of the ideas
for savings, in the light of the analytical scheme I have
presented, namely how does it limit insurance induced changes
in behaviour, we will see that many are directed in this way.
My plea is that we recognize this explicitly and pay more
attention in future debates in the House and by consultations
throughout the country to this idea. I believe it underlies the
problems we now have.
The first best thing society can do is to attack the problem
directly rather than in some indirect way.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, as a New Democrat the issue of social programs is one
particularly close to me. Our social programs essentially came
about as a result of pressure from CCF governments, CCF
politicians and New Democrats across Canada to address the
concerns of people in times of need.
As a social democrat I am committed to ensuring that Canada
is a more compassionate country rather than a less
compassionate one. I am also committed to ensuring that if a
person is unable to earn sufficient resources through the
traditional economic marketplace to live in dignity, we as
citizens owe it to that person to ensure that his or her basic needs
are met. In order to do so we have to redistribute wealth from
those who have to those who do not have.
(1405)
The report we have in front of us called ``Agenda: Jobs and
Growth'' is none of those things. It is neither an agenda nor has
it anything to do with jobs nor anything to do with growth. It is a
continuation of the Mulroney agenda. While that government is
dead clearly its policies live on healthily with the new Liberal
government. Last October we saw a government change but the
bureaucrats and policies stayed essentially the same.
Those policies saw poverty numbers increase, taxes on
middle and lower income Canadians increase, the deficit
increase. Social programs kept for the last 10 years while tax
breaks to the rich grew and while inequality in the country grew.
We are now at a point where the gap between rich and poor is
roughly where it was at the end of the second world war, after
some gains in between. We are now heading backward to a
situation of haves and have nots with an enormous gap between
them.
The Liberals are continuing the same Mulroney agenda in
terms of the same monetary policies, the same fiscal, economic
and trade policies which have failed Canada and Canadians so
completely.
Canada and Canadians support the reform of social programs.
There is no doubt about that. We have a system of social
programs and we have a society or an economy that is not
working well for about four million Canadians. There is support
for reform. There is the political will to look at reform.
Canadians want real reform. They do not want empty words,
which is what this book contains. They want to have proposals
they can look at and be consulted on in a meaningful way. It is
not possible to consult with Canadians if there are no specific
proposals with which to discuss the issues at hand.
There are a number of general criticisms that one can make
before going on to suggest what might have been done. Clearly,
as I have said, there is very little in the way of specifics in this
paper. It is much too vague. The government has said that it is
not committed to any of the proposals that are put forward in this
paper. It is difficult to consult if something is not put forward
that people can get their teeth into.
Where is the leadership in this paper? What is it that the
government really thinks? When will the government finally
start to govern after a year in office of doing almost nothing?
This has not progressed us very far along the way in actually
dealing with the problems of either social programs or the
economy or the deficit.
It is clear, in spite of the government's attempts to hide this
fact, that deficit reduction is a serious element or a serious
component part of this so-called review. I would suggest that
deficit reduction drives the social security review in the way it
has been driven over the last 10 years. We are seeing an
Americanization of social programs as our social programs
continue under this government. There are choices, as many
have indicated today and yesterday, between more people
oriented social policies and those American ones the Liberals
have chosen to follow.
The paper does not really deal with the problem we face. It
does not deal with the job side of the equation. It does not deal
with the taxation system whereby we will ensure we have both
the resources to address the problems we face and the incentives
to ensure that economic activity continues unabated.
Where are those issues in this whole debate? They are
absolutely critical if we are going to ever appropriately reform
social programs. It seems to me, and it seems to most Canadians
from what I can understand, that the Liberals are continuing the
attack on the deficit on the backs of the poor.
It is time we took a more balanced approach to dealing with
the deficit. It is time that we did not foreclose on all those
options that would require the rich to provide for their fair share
of deficit reduction costs. It is time that we had a balanced
approach to dealing with the deficit, not just one targeted at
social programs.
(1410 )
Last, as a general comment, it is pretty clear that the
consultation process with the provinces has been totally
inadequate. Otherwise we would not have received enormous
criticism from all across the country, from all parties both
within the federal
6738
Liberal caucus and outside, and from the leader of the Liberal
Party in Ontario. We would not have had this enormous outburst
of criticism of the paper had there been effective consultation
with the provinces.
Clearly the process of social security reform can only take
place with the close co-operation of the provinces. As long as
the provinces feel they are right in that the government's main
intention is to slough off the deficit on to their already difficult
financial situations, they will not co-operate and they should
not co-operate in the whole process.
Let us look at the words of the green book. I wonder how many
different coloured books we are going to have. Its main focus
appears to be that Canadians are unemployed in the numbers
they are because they do not have the skills to fulfil the jobs of
the new economy. We all have to support increasing training,
upgrading and education for Canadians. We can only see the
benefits from that. It is good to focus on these issues but, as we
see from the green book, the expectations are modest. Above all,
there are no jobs out there for people to take once they receive
this training. We have already a serious expectation of finding
people continuing to live in poverty but being a bit better
educated and having a few more skills.
Until we address the real problem we will continue to attack
social programs. Unless we solve the jobs problem we will
continue to have more and more people flowing on to
unemployment and social assistance rolls and we will continue
to see pressures to address the overburdened system.
We need to ensure that the skills we have are adequate. We
also need to ensure that the paper deals with the so-called
disincentives to work. Those programs which make a transition
into the workplace more difficult need to be addressed too.
There are some specific proposals that need some attention.
Among all the words here, one proposal more specific than the
others deals with changing the funding arrangements with the
provinces. If all the federal government is going to do is
continue to address its deficit problems, albeit not very
effectively in this regard, by transferring the deficit to the
provinces that have done a much better job of dealing with their
deficits, we have not only the continuation of the Tory agenda
but we have the continuation of the consequences that generates.
We have provinces, and I speak in particular of my own
province of Saskatchewan, which have addressed the problem
effectively. That particular province, under a New Democrat
government, has reduced the deficit from the highest per capita
in Canada to the lowest. It will balance its books in the coming
year. It will be the first province to do that as a have not
province, a province without enormous resources. It has done
that in a balanced way while at the same time, I may add, it has
increased social program spending. It is not a prerequisite of
addressing a deficit to do it on the backs of the poor. The only
way to do it is in a balanced way which requires all citizens to
pay a share, to make a sacrifice in dealing with this problem
which affects us all.
With regard to unemployment insurance, it affects many
Canadians. There are 1.6 million people on unemployment
insurance at the moment. Many more who would have been had
previous governments not changed the rules. However to
suggest, as this paper does, that perhaps we should continue to
make unemployment insurance even more difficult-
The Deputy Speaker: It is 2.14 p.m. and there was an earlier
order. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to give the
member a few more minutes to finish his remarks.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, I really only need about five more minutes. I appreciate
the co-operation of members.
It really is perverse for the green paper even to consider
making unemployment insurance more difficult to get and
indeed for the benefits to be further reduced.
(1415)
It seems bizarre that we were focused on that as a solution to
the problem, again continuing to blame the unemployed for their
unemployment.
We need changes that would make unemployment insurance
more encompassing with about 50 per cent of the population
now being self-employed. Outside that system, we need to find
a way though not easy to include them within the unemployment
insurance system. We also need to include those part-timers
who are not now included in the unemployment system.
We need to look for creative ways to ensure that all Canadians
who need assistance are provided with it. Again we are seeing
the emphasis on training but training out of funds which would
otherwise go to those Canadians who are unemployed who need
the resources to feed their families.
We still have to ask the question: Training for what? Are we
really going to successfully train four million Canadians to
re-enter the work place? That is simply unrealistic.
With regard to child benefits, we have here another
suggestion that perhaps we should increase child benefits.
Indeed the numbers suggested are to double them.
While that is fine as far as it goes, it is obviously much better
for a child to have $2,500 to $3,000 a year than only $1,200, but
this will basically merely delay the visits to the food bank by
two or three days in a month. This will not address the problem
and we cannot keep addressing problems in this band-aid way,
responding to some of the symptoms of the problem.
6739
Children are poor because they are born to poor parents.
Their parents are poor because they do not have the means to
feed their families simply because they do not have work.
The last point I would like to make with regard to the more
specific proposals in the paper is with regard to post-secondary
education. This really is a very perverse approach by the federal
government. We all talk about and we all agree that a better
educated, more trained, higher skilled work force is important in
the new economy.
We would then anticipate if we all believe that that we will
find ways to make post-secondary education more accessible
and not less accessible. It really is difficult to understand how
the government feels that by making tuition fees higher, perhaps
five or six times as high, by increasing student loans from what
are already difficult burdens for students to what would be
almost insurmountable burdens and by reducing accessibility to
post-secondary education, that possibly can move us toward a
better trained, more educated work force. The opposition found
the education community indicative of the problems with that.
Let me just close by suggesting two or three things which we
really should do to address the problems that this green paper is
attempting to address.
The real solution can only be to ensure that more Canadians
are working, to develop the environment within the economy to
ensure that good quality jobs are created and that there are
enough of them to satisfy the demand. We have a long way to go
on that. Other countries have been much better at that than we
have. We really need a national consensus on how to move
forward to ensure that all Canadians who can work will be able
to work.
We also need to look at tax reform. We cannot continue to give
$15 billion worth of tax breaks to those who can invest in RRSPs
while children go to food banks. It is simply not possible. We
have difficult choices to make as all members have suggested.
That may be a difficult choice for the economy but we can
clearly ensure a reduction in the deficit and an ability to fund
more effectively our social programs if we look at serious, fair
and progressive tax reform.
There are many innovative things we can do within the
workplace itself. We can look at shorter working hours and
overtime restrictions to share the work that is there. If four
million Canadians are not working and another eight million
are, it does not seem to me to be very effective to ensure that
those numbers can continue.
There have been successes as we have seen in other countries
with efforts to deal with that problem and indeed voluntary
efforts on the part of trade unions and employers to move toward
shorter working weeks. We have constantly done that. In past
history people used to work seven days a week and now they
work five days a week.
(1420)
In closing I think this is a debate about the quality of Canadian
life, about our collective responsibility to one another, about
inequality and ensuring that social policy responds to deep
insecurities, changing family structures, high poverty levels and
great insecurity in the work force.
We have a lot of work today and I do not think this paper takes
us very far along the way.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being approximately 2:14 p.m., the
House shall now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
6739
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion
That Bill C-240, an act to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code, be read the
second time and referred to a Committee.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, in
this society of ours, criminality, and particularly the kind of
sexual offences Bill C-240 deals with, is a very sensitive
subject. Sure, we have to talk about it, but as parliamentarians
we have the moral obligation not to turn this into a circus. This is
a very sensitive issue.
The death of a child is always a tragedy. Whether a child dies
in a car accident, of natural causes, or whether he is abused
before being killed, it is still a death.
As individual members of a society, regardless of who and
where we are, we have the fundamental and legitimate duty to
protect children who, after all, represent the generation for
which all of us here work. Indeed, we must protect children. We
must do everything we can to provide them with the best
possible future in the safest possible world. However, it is wrong
to want to eliminate anyone who dares get close to a child.
I want to make it clear that the Official Opposition does not
take lightly a tragedy like the one referred to by the Reform
Party member, in his speech to this House, on June 10. I am
alluding to the case of young Christopher Stephenson who, on
the evening of June 17, 1988, was kidnapped and then physically
6740
and sexually abused for over 24 hours by a 45-year-old
individual named Joseph Fredericks.
No one in his or her right mind can tolerate tragedies like that.
And I mean no one. We often hear people say that inmates are all
like this or like that, but the fact is that they have their own code
in detention centres. Indeed, even inmates who have committed
crimes themselves do not tolerate such horrible crimes. All of
us, including criminals, agree that to hurt a child is a terrible
thing to do. In January 1992, some inmates in Collin's Bay
penitentiary, Ontario, took justice into their own hands and
Joseph Fredericks was stabbed while serving his sentence in that
institution.
You know, the worst thing is that, whether they have raped,
injured, killed or done all of the above, child molesters have to
face the judicial system to be sent to jail. They have to go
through the whole usual process to be sentenced. And then they
end up behind bars.
(1425)
Once inside the penitentiary, they have to face another type of
police, as I indicated earlier. That is why these individuals need
the form of protection commonly referred to as inside
protection, or the protect as they say.
I am not here to champion unduly the cause of such offenders,
but nonetheless, if the judicial system sentenced them once, we
should not keep sentencing them over and over, any time we feel
like it. The main fault we find with the correctional system is
this huge number of inside policies that govern the parole
procedure. In other words, giving too much of a free rein to
individuals who are not necessarily appointed because of their
high qualifications but, in some cases, because of their party
affiliation. To put it bluntly, these positions are too often filled
by party hacks.
Once a person has been sentenced, members of the parole
committee should not be given the authority to ``retry'' the
convict by trying to find out whether for some reason, it would
have been better to, or not to, and so forth, because there is no
end to the administrative maze. If we do that, we will get into an
incredible mess, a real mountain of red tape.
When a judge hands down a sentence-it was a judge who told
me this, and I think all judges would agree-he does so on the
basis of his assessment that by the end of the sentence, the
individual will normally have served his term and realize, after
going through the system and the follow-up services that are
available, that he must not repeat the offence for which he was
incarcerated.
Of course, if this worked every time, it would be an ideal
world, and we have yet to achieve that objective.
On the other hand, when we look at cases like the one
involving young Christopher Stephenson, everyone deplores the
mistakes that were made and, of course, mistakes were made,
unfortunately. Everyone deplores such mistakes. However,
statistics show-because we must look at both sides of the coin;
we were not elected to act in demagogic or dramatic ways-that
only 6 per cent of parolees reoffend within six months of their
release. Granted, they can commit new offences after the six
months are up. But even if we go up to 10 per cent, which is a
large increase, it means that the current correctional system still
works for 90 per cent of the people. After a period of
imprisonment, 90 per cent of the people can regain the freedom
to which they, like you and I, are entitled.
We live in a democratic and human system managed by
human beings so, on the one hand, there will always be mistakes
but, on the other hand, we must also work to improve living
conditions for individuals like ourselves. That is what we call
community.
There will always be marginal cases; there will always be
people who take undue advantage of the system, be they insiders
or outsiders. Of course some people will get away, but when a
system has a success rate of 90 to 94 per cent, I think that we
must start on that basis and try to improve it and not just focus on
the 6 per cent and dwell on them and go after them.
Yes, there is work to be done, that is quite true, everyone
agrees. But I think that letting people who are not even judges
render a second judgement, as the bill would do, is going too far.
I will conclude with that. Of course there is a flaw, as
everyone will agree. As I just said, the system is not perfect.
Many people from all backgrounds are working on it in good
faith, I think. Even people who do not always deal with the
public but are in the community or are senior officials. They all
work hard and listen to the people.
(1430)
Yes, we have to look for a solution, but I really doubt that we
will find it in Bill C-240.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
Surrey-White Rocks-South Langley for moving such an
important motion. We obviously need to better protect our
children against repeat violent offenders.
As a starting point and proof that such action is necessary, my
colleague referred to the crimes committed by Joseph
Fredericks. The senseless death of young Christopher
Stephenson, murdered in 1988 by this chronic paedophile from
Brampton reminds us, in case we need to be reminded, that we
must act quickly to deal with the weaknesses of our criminal
justice system and reduce the risk of similar tragedies, in future.
The federal government, the provinces and all the various
areas of the criminal justice system agree that they must work
together to reach this common goal. As for the federal
government, he is determined to act on this issue. This is why it
has already taken measures to implement several of the
recommendations made in 1993 by the coroner in charge of the
investigation concerning the death of young Christopher
Stephenson.
6741
Finally, most of the federal measures recommended were
implemented, which helped to improve the preparation of case
management and risk assessment reports throughout the federal
correctional system. We were also able to improve the exchange
of information on offenders, the accountability mechanisms
and the coordination of management and treatment activities
for sex offenders. We have made some remarkable progress, but
still have a long way to go.
This is why we will work hard to implement the few
remaining recommendations. These recommendations address
complex issues that cannot be resolved overnight. They require
global and sustainable solutions. Bill C-45, which amends the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, is one measure that
will help improve public protection. This bill, which was
introduced by the Solicitor General last June, is now before the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
One of the proposed amendments would make it easier for the
National Parole Board to keep sexual offenders who have a
preference for children in prison until they have served their full
sentence. As the Solicitor General pointed out recently, this
amendment does not mean that sexual offences against children
are more serious than those against adults. However, in the case
of children, it happens quite often that the National Parole Board
cannot keep a high risk pedophile in prison because it is difficult
to prove that he has caused serious harm to the child who was the
victim.
The proposal would solve this problem by eliminating the
need to prove that serious harm has been caused in these cases.
The Board would therefore have the legal right to keep an
offender in prison until he has served his full sentence if it
believes that the offender is likely to commit another offence
against a child. I think this proposal would be a great help in
protecting our children against sexual offenders under federal
jurisdiction.
However, we must keep in mind that real reform requires
more than just amending the legislation. Sooner or later, most
convicts are released. This is the reason why the government has
taken a number of initiatives aimed at protecting society in the
long run. Improving treatment programs for sexual offenders is
a case in point. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few
words on what we know about treating sexual offenders.
Research shows that sexual abuse has many roots and that
there is more than one approach to treatment. However,
clinicians agree that, in many cases, the chances of re-offending
can be considerably reduced through continuous treatment and
preventing relapses.
(1435)
Preventing relapses is crucial as it helps sexual offenders
control their urge when they are back in the community. In this
context, the Solicitor General announced that, as part of the
public security reform proposed by the government, programs
for sexual offenders will be improved and reinforced.
To ensure that the corrections system makes use of the most
effective means to deal with and treat sexual offenders,
Correctional Service Canada undertook a complete review of its
evaluation and treatment programs, last year, with a view to
improve evaluation of sexual offenders' needs related to their
criminal behaviour, to implement a series of treatment programs
designed to meet the various needs of this group of offenders, to
train corrections officers in the latest techniques for dealing
with sexual offenders, and to conduct research aimed at
improving the effectiveness of these approaches.
During the last five years, it made spectacular progress by
increasing the number of places set aside for sexual offenders
from 200 per year to over 1,800 per year.
In order to improve the national aspect of the management
and treatment of sexual offenders, the Commissioner of
Corrections recently announced the nomination of a senior
psychologist as incumbent of a new position, that of sexual
offenders program consultant. This is another example of action
taken following the enquiry on the death of Christopher
Stephenson.
In accordance with other recommendations made during that
enquiry, the government will take measures in order to help
local agencies better protect children against abuse in their
communities.
The RCMP is at the forefront because it gives all police forces
across Canada access to the data base of the Canadian Police
Information Centre, the CPIC. Thanks to those data, the local
police can determine the background of any person who applies
for a job involving children and can transfer that information to
local community organizations.
With these data, the organizations can make sure child
molesters and sexual offenders cannot come into direct contact
with children through community work.
In order that our national screening process be the best
possible, some representatives of the Solicitor General, in
cooperation with colleagues from Health Canada and Justice
Canada, are studying possible ways of improving on the data
bank of the CPIC so that the acquisition process would bring in
more complete data on criminal convictions and investigations.
6742
For our part, we will have a much better screening system
at the national level and we will be able to prevent contacts
between children and paedophiles or sexual offenders.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank once again the member
for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley who raised this vital
issue in the House.
We have the responsibility, in memory of Christopher
Stephenson and as a protection for all children and parents in
Canada, to do everything in our power to protect our young
people against sexual predators.
However, protection does not depend exclusively on
legislation. It also depends on the design and implementation of
effective treatment programs for sexual offenders, so the risk
can be manageable once they re-enter society. It is only through
a balanced reform of the criminal system that we will be able to
build a safe society where children will not live in fear of
violence or exploitation.
The initiatives I just described and the efforts we will
continue to make over the next few months exemplify the
commitment of our government to a better protection of our
children. I am confident that all members will co-operate with
us in the fulfilment of this goal.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today in support of Bill C-240. This bill, introduced by my
colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, offers
important changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act and the Criminal Code.
Once again the Reform Party has taken the initiative to ensure
that dangerous offenders are not permitted to walk free and
commit more deadly crimes and to threaten their victims'
families. Reform policy supports tougher punishment of crime
and the protection of law abiding citizens before the rights of
criminals. It is unfortunate that members on the other side of the
House continue to be so reluctant to introduce substantive
reforms to the justice system.
(1440 )
The intention of Bill C-240 is not to lock up prisoners and
throw away the key. Instead this bill protects Canadians by
keeping the most dangerous inmates behind bars. As my
colleague stated previously in the House: ``This legislation is
targeting individuals who are not designated as dangerous
offenders at the time of their original sentence but their
behaviour subsequent to incarceration coupled with their
criminal record has led Correctional Services Canada and the
National Parole Board to deem them too dangerous to be
released into society''.
On this side of the House we have often spoken of the need for
widespread criminal justice reform and Bill C-240 would do
just that.
Look again at the fear that Helen Leadley and her family face
daily while they await word of the date of Robert Paul
Thompson's escorted temporary absence. This House is well
aware of the history of this man and his criminal record dating
back to 1969 and I am not going to let go of this issue.
By 1983 Robert Paul Thompson had served time for
aggravated assault on a former girlfriend and was incarcerated
for two hit and run incidents. Even then with his record of
criminal activity and violence he was issued a day pass from
prison. While on this day pass Thompson went to the home of his
former common law spouse, Brenda Fitzgerald. He tried to kill
Brenda's male friend by beating him with a hammer and
stabbing him. He then brutally stabbed Brenda Fitzgerald to
death. How stupid, how irresponsible that he was issued this day
pass.
For this brutal murder and attempted murder Thompson plea
bargained and pleaded guilty to second degree murder. He was
never classified as a dangerous offender. He was sentenced to
life which made him eligible for parole in the spring of 1995. Is
that not a flagrant contradiction in terms: sentenced to life yet
eligible for parole.
The case does not end with Thompson's conviction and
sentencing. Two and a half years later Thompson stabbed two
prison guards and took a 63-year old prison nurse hostage.
During the hostage situation it took 10 guards to restrain
Thompson. For these subsequent attacks Thompson received a
sentence of 11 years to be served concurrent to his original
sentence with parole eligibility still in April 1995.
Even after these violent offences Thompson was still not
classified as a dangerous offender. What does it take? What does
it take for such a violent criminal to be considered a dangerous
offender? The parole board recently approved an ETA for
Thompson. His brother has a non-life threatening illness and is
in hospital. Thompson wishes to visit him for two hours.
It was an irresponsible decision to grant this man a day pass in
1983. It is even more reprehensible that the parole board has
elected yet again to grant this ETA. Despite the pleas of his
victim's family who live in fear of this man, despite the fact that
I have spoken in this House on this matter four times now asking
that this man not be released on an ETA, despite all of this, the
Solicitor General has chosen to ignore these requests.
Apparently the parole board, correctional services and the
Solicitor General do not consider Thompson's proclivity for
violence to be sufficient to keep him safely locked away.
A member of the parole board in New Brunswick admitted
that about 70 per cent of parole requests are granted and stated
publicly: ``Honestly, we would like to see 100 per cent''.
Vengeance is not part of the mandate of the board. Does the
parole board not have a moral obligation to prevent vengeance
against the victims and their families? That is what this is all
6743
about. Thompson has been able to reach beyond his prison walls
and terrorize Brenda Fitzgerald's mother. My colleagues and I
are fighting daily to ensure that victims' rights are not
compromised for the rights of the convicted.
The parole system allows offenders such as Thompson to
serve only one-third to one-half of their sentences. The board
even admits that fully one out of three violent offenders will
re-offend, yet classifying an offender as dangerous can only
occur at the time of sentencing. Even then current legislation
only allows the correctional service to keep dangerous offenders
in prison until the last day of their sentence. Then they must be
released back into society.
Convicted serial rapist Larry Fisher served his entire 23 year
sentence never once taking any rehabilitation program and he is
now free to offend again.
(1445 )
Bill C-240 would put a process into place that would permit
the re-revaluation of an inmate's release. Bill C-240 would
allow the crown attorney to apply the dangerous offender
provisions when recommended by correctional authorities.
When the evaluation of an offender suggests the likelihood of
reoffending, the offender would face continued detention. The
option for continued detention would include the imposition of a
definite or indefinite sentence or long term intensive
supervision of up to 10 years. Provisions such as these would
permit the detention of offenders beyond their sentence for
those who demonstrate their continued violent tendencies even
while imprisoned.
Canadians are frustrated at the government's lack of real
action to make criminals more accountable for their actions.
They are growing tired of watching the government tinker with
the edges and not make real changes. They are beginning to
question the government's ability to keep Canadians safe on
their streets.
This weekend is Thanksgiving. I find it appalling that the
corrections system would choose today as the date to decide on
Robert Thompson's ETA. It hardly seems fair that Brenda
Fitzgerald's family will have nothing to be thankful for, while
her murderer celebrates the holiday.
Bill C-240 introduced by my colleague introduces real
changes to the corrections system. It is time the Solicitor
General re-establishes some credibility and supports this bill. I
will not let this rest. Thompson's parole comes up in April 1995
and I will be back.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on debate at second reading of Bill C-240, an act
to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the
Criminal Code.
Sexual offending is an issue of great public concern. The
Coroner of Ontario has used a series of inquests to focus public
attention on heinous acts committed by individuals. The
reaction generated by such cases often implies that there are no
current provisions for dealing with such persons or that the
mechanisms available are entirely inadequate.
The Criminal Code of Canada currently has extensive
provisions regarding dangerous offenders. These provisions
have evolved significantly over the years. In 1948 criminal
sexual psychopath legislation was introduced, which permitted
the court to determine that person was a criminal sexual
psychopath if he had been convicted of an offence such as rape,
carnal knowledge, indecent assault, buggery, bestiality or gross
indecency, or an attempt at any of those offences.
If the court found the offender to be a criminal sexual
psychopath it could impose a specific term of imprisonment for
the substantive offence and an indeterminate period of
preventive detention to begin after the initial sentence had been
served.
The concept of criminal sexual psychopath was modified
subsequently to specify habitual criminals and dangerous sexual
offenders. There was particular concern to distinguish between
dangerous sexual offenders and petty offenders. The Criminal
Code was amended in 1969 and the concept of a fixed term
sentence was removed from the dangerous sexual offender
legislation, leaving only the indeterminate sentence. The
Ouimet committee considered dangerous sexual offenders and
recommended creating a new category entitled simply
dangerous offender.
Dangerous offender legislation was enacted in 1977 to replace
former provisions for habitual offenders and dangerous sexual
offenders. The current law is described in the Criminal Code in
part 24. In that part the definition of serious personal injury
offence is given in section 752 and the practical definition of the
nature of behaviours covered is given in section 753.
This section is applicable to offenders who constitute a threat
to the life, safety, or physical or mental well-being of other
persons. This threat can be established on four different bases.
The first is that the offender has demonstrated a pattern of
repetitive behaviour showing a failure to restrain his behaviour
and a likelihood of his causing death or injury to other persons,
or inflicting severe psychological damage through failure to
restrain his behaviour.
(1450 )
The second is a pattern of persistent, aggressive behaviour
showing substantial indifference on the part of the offender for
the consequences of his behaviour.
6744
The third is any behaviour by the offender that is of such a
brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that his behaviour in
the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of
behavioural restraint.
The final category relates to any conduct by the offender in a
sexual matter where the offender has shown failure to control his
sexual impulses, and a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other
evil to persons through a failure to control his sexual impulses.
If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender it may
impose an indeterminate sentence on the offender instead of any
other sentence that might have been appropriate.
I raise the history of the development of this section and the
definitions in it to bring to the attention of the House that
various governments over an extensive period of time have been
involved in wrestling with the problem of dangerous offenders.
The current provisions have been tested at the Supreme Court of
Canada and have been found to meet appropriate legal
standards.
The possibility of changes to the current provisions has been
the subject of consultations with the provinces who administer
the provisions and the result is that there is general satisfaction
with the current state of the law among those required to apply
it.
The issue of the potential danger of charter invalidation,
which has been raised in respect to the content of Bill C-240,
has been addressed by other speakers and I will not repeat those
points at this time.
The important issue which has to be addressed here is whether
it is good policy to consider amendments such as those proposed
in Bill C-240 which carry a significant risk of invalidation,
when we already have comprehensive and effective measures to
deal with the criminal aspect of dealing with dangerous
offenders. Federal, provincial and territorial ministers
responsible for justice have recognized that there are other
important areas that need to be considered. There are
jurisdictional difficulties which need to be addressed through
greater and more effective collaboration between jurisdictions.
Federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for
justice will be meeting with their health counterparts to address
these concerns.
The identification and effective prosecution of individuals
using the dangerous offender provisions is also a matter which
has been recognized. A process to track high risk violent
offenders and make information about these high risk
individuals available to crown attorneys for subsequent
prosecution is another important undertaking for dealing with
these offenders.
In closing, it is important to reiterate that the current state of
our law and practice is the result of a long evolution. It seems
clear that the informed opinion among criminal justice
professionals who administer provisions respecting dangerous
offenders is that the Criminal Code is an effective vehicle for
dealing with dangerous offenders.
The proposals in Bill C-240 present a significant risk of
invalidation to a system that has evolved over a long period of
time. We are much better served over both the short and the long
term by improvements in inter-jurisdictional collaboration, and
by administrative and procedural improvements than we are by
proposals carrying excessive legal risks.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take the floor on Bill C-240, an Act to amend the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code.
If this bill, introduced by the hon. member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley, were passed, authorities would be able to
review, while it is being served, the sentence of a inmate guilty
of a serious and violent crime, if they believed he would
reoffend upon his release.
Bill C-240 would even allow an inmate to be kept in jail for an
indeterminate period of time if he were to be considered beyond
rehabilitation.
(1455)
As one can see, the judicial system would be given significant
powers. Before I explain my reservations about this bill, I would
like to clarify a few points to avoid any misunderstanding.
Like most Canadians and Quebecers, I am absolutely not in
favour of releasing under probation offenders who are
dangerous for society. I agree that violent offenders who are
obviously not rehabilitated should be punished and serve their
sentence. We must keep them behind bars as long as they are a
threat to our society, and they should serve their full sentence. It
is a matter of public security, and that position is generally
accepted.
In a system based on the rule of law, the judicial system, the
law enforcement agencies and the political institutions should
make sure criminals serve their sentence and law-abiding
citizens can lead a normal life. That is the basis of the social
contract binding the citizens and the State.
We know that if we do not have clear rules and adequate
penalties for those who break the law, we run the risk of anarchy.
The bill before us, if passed unamended, would seriously
undermine fundamental rights and rules of justice we want to
protect at all costs. Let me explain.
As I said previously, we live in a free and democratic society
based on the respect of fundamental freedoms and the rule of
law. In the field of criminal justice, that means the inalienable
right of every individual to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty. This is a rule of law that we inherited from the British
6745
common law and which still remains a basic foundation of our
legal system.
Also, under these principles, an individual can only be
punished once for the crime that he or she was found guilty of. In
other words, no one can be tried and condemned twice for the
same offence. Trying to forego this fundamental principle of
justice would amount to unduly suspend the civil rights of the
individual and to use the rule of the arbitrary. Obviously, this
kind of situation is unacceptable in a society such as ours.
The bill before us contains, in clause 25, a provision which
would allow a court to keep an individual in prison despite the
fact that they served their time. This situation would result of
the fact that, in view of new evidence which had not been or
could not be produced at the time of the trial, the individual is
considered dangerous and should be kept in prison.
From my interpretation of this bill, evidence that was not
produced at the time of the trial against the accused could be
introduced in court in order to keep them longer in prison. This
provision, I think, would seriously undermine the fundamental
rights of that person.
I remind you that since it was enshrined in the 1982
Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has
been the best means of protection available to Canadians against
otherwise absolute powers of the modern state. The Charter
provides a list of rules and principles intended to protect the
fundamental rights of an individual. In this regard and for the
purposes of the debate, section 11 of the Charter clearly states
that: ``Any person charged with an offence has the right (-) if
finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried or punished for it
again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence,
not to be tried or punished for it again''. In other words, under
the Charter, a person cannot be punished twice for the same
offence in Canada. This is a fundamental right entrenched in the
Constitution.
To me, some provisions in this bill clearly violate this
principle, as we could, from now on, convict for a second time
someone who has already served his sentence if a court finds
that the offender still represents a danger for society. Clearly, we
would have to wait for a Supreme Court judgment to determine
if this bill could overrule the principles set forth in the Charter.
And I think that the Supreme Court would declare the bill
unconstitutional.
For the purposes of the debate, we must also consider that the
Criminal Code of Canada already includes provisions for
continued detention of dangerous criminals, even after their
sentences are served.
(1500)
Indeed, we know that the courts have the power to declare that
these people are ``dangerous offenders'' who should be
sentenced accordingly. But-and this is absolutely
fundamental-the Crown attorney must make the point during
the trial and not a few years later when the accused is about to be
released, as would be allowed with Bill C-240.
Why should we pass new legislation to protect society against
dangerous criminals while the Criminal Code provides us with
all necessary tools to that end? Either we let the Crown attorney
do his or her job, or we, as legislators, tighten the definition of a
criminal offender.
Finally, according to this proposal, it would be the
responsibility of the National Parole Board to inquire and
determine if there is enough evidence to proceed to another trial
and, ultimately, to extend the sentence. I think this would
substantially increase the Board's case load, with all the
additional delays and costs. Besides, this is not its jurisdiction in
the first place.
To conclude, I want to reiterate my firm belief that
fundamental human rights are inalienable and should not be
suspended. Sure, we can present some foul crimes in such a light
that people will think that, given special circumstances,
fundamental rights should be disregarded. But I do not think this
is justifiable, because as legislators we must uphold certain
principles.
If Bill C-240 is adopted in its present form, it would be
possible, I repeat, for the courts to detain individuals for longer
than their original sentences, under the pretext that they still
represented a danger to society. In other words, they could be
punished for longer than their original sentences. It is obvious
that this is unjustifiable.
Citizens must not be deprived of their fundamental rights
under the pretext that society or the correctional system can find
no other way to protect the public against dangerous criminals.
This solution does not resolve the problem of dangerous
offenders, who can pose a serious threat to society.
In conclusion, I would like to say that once society begins to
make exceptions to the fundamental rights of the person, its
members have every reason to believe that society is becoming
dangerously intolerant and that, in the long term, their personal
freedom is at risk.
[English]
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-240 seeks to address concerns about the incidence of
offenders repeating violent offences, particularly sexual
offences.
The focus of the bill is upon the identification and further
detention of a select group of offenders who are identified after
sentencing during their period of incarceration as presenting a
continuing and substantial threat of harm to the physical or
mental well-being of other persons.
Predicting violent behaviour is undeniably a highly valued
goal in terms of achieving community safety. Attaining this goal
is very elusive. Other speakers have addressed the wide variety
of measures which have been tried or which are currently under
way to deal with the protection of society from dangerous
offenders.
6746
There are, however, a number of obstacles to effectively
carry out this highly laudable goal. Approximately 10 per cent
of all crime can be called violent. The base rate for violent
behaviour is therefore quite low. For example, given the fact
that only 10 per cent of all crime is violent, if we were to predict
that no one would behave violently we would be correct about
90 per cent of the time.
The crux of our problem is that no one is satisfied with even a
90 per cent rate of prediction. Research over the past decade has
made significant strides in the prediction of violent behaviour.
Correctional Service Canada has been working hard at
developing risk assessment instruments and has developed one
of the better assessment and prediction tools in the world.
The major predictors of criminal and violent behaviour have
been reasonably well identified in research. These predictors
include criminal companions, a history of anti-social
behaviour, anti-social attitudes, family problems, cognitive
dysfunction and low educational and vocational achievement.
Some of the items in this list can be assessed relatively easily
through extensive and detailed individual histories. Some, such
as cognitive dysfunctions, require sophisticated testing.
(1505)
One of the better predictors relates to assessment of
psychopathy which comprises many traits including
callousness, manipulation, dishonesty, irresponsibility and
persistent anti-social conduct.
There are childhood predictors of violent recidivism
associated with difficulties in pregnancy, especially the
addiction of mother to alcohol or drugs, early childhood
problems such as temper tantrums, and being the victim of or
witnessing abuse or parental conflict.
Various conduct disorders characterized by stealing, lying,
fire setting, truancy, sexual aggression, violence, cruelty and
running away from home are strongly related to violent
recidivism.
The research seemed to suggest that there is an increasing
ability to predict dangerous behaviour. Accurate identification
of the highest risk offenders can be achieved by combining
measures of psychopathic traits, demographic variables and
criminal histories.
Although using such tools will optimize the accuracy of
predictions, it will not unfortunately identify all persons who
will commit violent crime after release from custody.
Attempts to refine the predictions even further will result in
high numbers of people wrongly identified as dangerous
persons. It will greatly increase the costs of such measures and
will impinge upon the rights of the many individuals improperly
identified.
One of the striking things about the predictive factors which
have been associated with violent recidivism is that virtually all
of them occurred years before the violent offence for which we
are concerned. They were known or could have been known at
the time of sentencing.
The Criminal Code contains extensive provisions for dealing
with dangerous offenders. The definitions in these sections have
evolved over time and have survived or have been modified by a
variety of legal challenges. Since we are increasingly able to
predict dangerous offenders, the tools for managing the kind of
problem being addressed in Bill C-240 already exist within the
Criminal Code.
What is needed to address the kinds of cases leading to the
current expressions of public concern is better early
identification and prosecution of the most dangerous offenders.
The various jurisdictions involved in administering criminal
justice need to carefully scrutinize cases of violent and
dangerous offenders to ensure that the appropriate use of
existing dangerous offender provisions are made.
Finding ways to identify and track high risk offenders from as
early as possible in their contacts with the criminal justice
system throughout their involvement with the law will enable
prosecutors to better apply the dangerous offender provisions of
the Criminal Code. Finally it must be recognized that some
offenders will slip through the net of criminal justice
prosecution.
For these individuals, better co-operation and co-ordination
at the policy level, at the level of prosecutions, in the
correctional domain and, most important, with mental health
can provide effective solutions to dealing with high risk
offenders without exposing our current, effective and tested
tools to the risk of invalidation on charter grounds.
In closing it is important to recognize an unpleasant reality. It
is ultimately impossible to identify in advance all those
individuals who will commit heinous acts. Our long term
interests are better served by more effective crime prevention.
I quote from the 12th report of the Standing Committee on
Justice and the Solicitor General entitled ``Crime Prevention in
Canada: Toward a National Strategy'':
The Committee accepts that crime will always be with us in one form or
another and will require police, court and correctional interventions.
At the same time, it believes that our collective response to crime must shift to
crime prevention efforts that reduce opportunities for crime and focus
increasingly on at-risk young people and on the underlying social and
economic factors associated with crime and criminality.
6747
This comprehensive approach involves partnerships between governments,
criminal justice organizations, and community agencies and groups.
And it situates the crime problem in a community context and sees its solution
as a social question.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill
C-240, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act and the Criminal Code.
This is a private member's bill and we are debating it at
second reading with the hope that it will be sent off to the justice
and legal affairs committee of the House. Private Members'
Business is one of the few opportunities members who are not in
cabinet have to bring forward ideas in the form of bills or
motions. They are debated and on some occasions are even put
to a vote by members of this House.
(1510)
I mention this because it was not so long ago that my private
member's motion on relaxation of the confidence convention
thus allowing freer voting in the House came forward for debate.
It was a votable motion. Due to the support this motion found
among members opposite it passed.
I mention this now because I believe it is important in the
period called Private Members' Business that we as members
should be able to use our own best judgment when determining
how to vote on a particular matter. The whip should not be on for
any vote in Private Members' Business. Members should be able
to study the legislation on its own merits, not on the basis of its
origin. That is the suggestion that all bills introduced by the
government are good and must be supported and all bills and
motions proposed by the opposition are bad and by definition
should be defeated.
This idea is not conducive to allow parliamentarians to do
their job which is to listen to the people of Canada. It prevents
members of this House from truly working together in the best
interests of our country's government and in the best interests of
all our constituents, the Canadian people.
I remind members that this House did approve the motion I
sponsored which endorsed freer voting. I hope members
opposite as well as members of the Bloc will find this bill
worthy of their support.
On the law and order issue which is being debated across this
great country, there is no question where the Reform Party
stands. It stands squarely in favour of law and order. That is why
this bill is coming forward at this time.
Bill C-240 is one more initiative by Reform members to bring
the necessary changes to our justice system to protect
Canadians. It is a response to a need in our society, a need which
has been eloquently expressed by those who are the friends and
relatives of persons killed by criminals who are being let out of
prison and who we all know will commit violent crimes again.
My hon. colleague from Calgary Southeast spoke a few
minutes earlier about the need to retain such criminals as Robert
Paul Thompson who murdered Brenda Fitzgerald in 1983 while
out on a day pass. This offender has been sentenced to life and is
eligible for parole in the spring of 1995. Such a bill as C-240
would allow corrections to keep dangerous criminals such as
Robert Paul Thompson in prison.
As my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley
has mentioned, under current legislation corrections officials
have the power to keep dangerous criminals in prison until the
expiration of their sentence. However, there is no legislation in
place to allow the federal corrections system to keep high risk
offenders in prison upon the expiration of their sentence.
At present there are high risk offenders who still retain violent
intentions toward society but will be released on the Canadian
public. The need for change is also expressed by families of
murder victims and by those few who have survived brutal
attacks by criminals who should have been kept behind bars for
the rest of their lives.
This bill is similar to a bill that was introduced in the last
Parliament and seems to be similar to proposals now being put
forward for discussion by the present government. If that is the
case, then why would any of us oppose it?
Let me take the time now to deal with two criticisms that have
been raised. First, the government proposal is that public
discussion and action on this matter should wait for the
conclusions of this consultative process.
My riding has provincial institutions such as the Fraser River
Correctional Centre, Alouette River Correctional Centre,
Boulder Bay and Stave Lake Camp. It has federal institutions as
well, such as Mission Institution and Ferndale Minimum
Security.
Between the riding of Mission-Coquitlam and adjacent
ridings we have provincial institutions such as Surrey Pre Trial,
Ford Mountain, Mount Thurston, Centre Creek (Youth) and
Chilliwack Community Correctional Centre. There are also
federal institutions such as Matsqui, Kent, Elbow Lake,
Mountain, Regional Psychiatric Facility and Harrison Mills.
That is a lot of prison institutions.
The people of my riding and the surrounding ridings know of
whence they talk. The people who work and live in the cities and
towns found in Mission-Coquitlam want this type of
legislation put in place immediately. They do not want violent
offenders who have caused sufficient trouble in prison and
therefore have been required to serve their complete sentence
getting out and living unsupervised in the community. This bill
only applies to the most potentially violent of incarcerated
prisoners. I am sure the people in my riding would much prefer
that such offenders stay in jail.
6748
(1515)
My householder contains a questionnaire to my constituents
with questions relating to reform of the criminal justice system.
I received what I believe is a very good return, over 6 per cent,
on questions relating to criminal justice reform, particularly 87
per cent and 95 per cent who wanted changes to respective
criminal justice reforms.
What is even more interesting is in the top concern in the
general comments, over 76 per cent commented on changes to
the Young Offenders Act, to sentencing, the parole system,
victims' rights and it goes on and on.
Canadians want change.
Listening to my constituents is all the consultation I need to
convince myself that this is a necessary piece of legislation.
Moreover, with whom is the government going to consult if it
asks the person in jail what to do as part of the consultation
process? It is quite likely the response would be that that
legislation is not needed.
If government consults with the friends and relatives of those
who have died at the hands of recently released offenders I am
sure the response would be that legislation is needed.
In her speech on this bill presented to the House on June 10,
1994, my friend from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley
eloquently pleaded the case in support of her bill by giving us
details of the murder of an 11-year old boy at the hands of such
an offender. I believe his parents would support this bill.
Therefore I believe the people with whom the government is
going to be carrying on discussions have already spoken and
spoken eloquently in favour of this bill.
The second criticism raised against this bill is that it might
contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yes, I suppose a
bill which deals in a harsh manner with dangerous offenders
could be found in contravention of some section of the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms but is it? The charter has a saving
clause, clause 1. By virtue of clause 1 the charter may be
violated by a statute but if such a statute would be acceptable in
a free and democratic society then that statute is valid.
This is one of the compromises that went into the charter
when it was drafted and I believe it is helpful in relation to Bill
C-240.
I submit that in a free and democratic society that it would be
unacceptable to deal in the way proposed by Bill C-240 with
society's most dangerous offenders.
My Liberal friends will say that such treatment violates the
convicted person's individual rights. That would be the classic
argument raised by Liberals but is it not time that we looked at
the rights of the community as a whole? Is this not a case where
the greater good for the greater number of people in our society
should win out over the rights of an individual, the rights of a
person who is so dangerous to society?
I believe in cases such as this the rights of society as a whole
should be protected and, yes, protected at the expense of the
rights of a very few to whom this bill would apply.
I endorse what my colleague from Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley said when she first spoke in support of
this bill, that if this bill can save even one life it is worth it.
I believe the time to act on this matter is now. There is no
point in consultation on this matter. People are demanding that
we deal in a tough straightforward manner with society's most
dangerous offenders. I urge all hon. members to look carefully at
the purpose of private members business and if they believe this
bill is necessary then vote for it, regardless of the party whips.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address this
important matter for the safety of all Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, I think we
will call it the end of the day. The member for Churchill would
have 30 seconds or something to speak, if that is acceptable to
the member for Churchill.
It being 3.20 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday,
October 17, 1994, pursuant to Standing Orders 22 and 24.
(The House adjourned at 3.20 p.m.)