CONTENTS
Thursday, November 17, 1994
Bill C-289. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 7894
Motion moved and agreed to 7894
Motion for concurrence in the 48th report 7894
(Motion is agreed to.) 7894
Bill C-58. Motion for second reading 7896
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 7906
Division on motion deferred 7912
Division on motion deferred 7912
Consideration resumed of motion 7912
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7925
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 7926
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 7926
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 7927
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7931
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7931
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7931
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7932
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7934
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7934
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7936
Motion No. 15. Consideration resumed of motion 7937
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 7937
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7957
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 7962
7893
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 17, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
nine petitions.
* * *
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to the fifth report of the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to the fifth report of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts.
* * *
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as was promised to the House on September 19, I wish
to table at this time a summary report on the investigation of
advance payments for internal government contractual
arrangements with respect to the Canada Communication Group
and Consulting and Audit Canada. This report is in both official
languages.
(1005 )
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, a summary
report of the investigation of advance payments for internal
government contractual arrangements with regard to advance
payments to Statistics Canada.
* * *
A message from His Excellency the Governor General
transmitting supplementary estimates (C) for the financial year
ending March 31, 1995, was presented by the President of the
Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages,
supplementary estimates (C).
* * *
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the
Standing Committee on Natural Resources regarding Bill C-48,
an act to establish a Department of Natural Resources and to
amend related acts.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the report of the Standing Committee on Government
Operations on Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of
Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal
certain acts, with an amendment.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the 48th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs concerning membership of committees.
7894
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
this report later this day.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-289, an act to provide for evaluations of
statutory programs.
(1010 )
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private
member's bill, the short title of which is the Statutory Program
Evaluation Act. This bill will establish a process whereby all
statutory program spending is reviewed by Parliament on a
cyclical basis.
In his 1993 report, the Auditor General stated that some 70 per
cent of all government spending is now statutory spending.
Spending is not reviewed or even voted on by Parliament once
the original bill is enacted. It has been many a long year since
Parliament voted on some statutory programs, spending
millions of dollars annually.
I believe this bill has significance in that it will turn the tide of
authority which has been flowing from Parliament to
government and cabinet back to the elected representatives and
Parliament.
Spending without review or analysis is clearly unacceptable
in these times of burgeoning debt. The Statutory Program
Evaluation Act would cause the examination of all program
spending based on the following objective criteria. First, is the
program still required, is it relevant, or are we just spending
money by virtue of habit? Second, is the program effective in
meeting its objectives or are we spending money with the
greatest of intentions but missing the mark? Third, is the
program being delivered efficiently knowing that our resources
are limited and that our taxpayers deserve good management?
Fourth, can the purposes of the program be better achieved
through different means?
The Auditor General stated that the program evaluation act
has great potential to save millions of dollars and I call on my
colleagues to support the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to move, pursuant to the provisions of
Standing Order 81(5) and Standing Order 81(6):
That supplementary estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995
laid upon the table this day be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with the consent of the House, I move, that the 48th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, tabled today, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, following consultation with representatives of the
parties, I seek leave at this time to move a motion, of which I
gave notice yesterday. I seek unanimous consent to move the
following motion:
That this House strongly condemn the recent shooting of Vancouver, B.C.
doctor, Gary Romalis, extend its wishes for a full and speedy recovery to Dr.
Romalis, and urge the appropriate authorities to take all necessary steps to
prevent violence directed at those providing legal medical procedures in
Canada.
Mr. Speaker, if there is unanimous consent to put the motion I
would briefly clarify the purpose of it.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
* * *
(1015 )
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table a petition containing approximately 170
signatures which was conveyed to me from my riding of
Cambridge.
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.
7895
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present two
petitions.
The first is signed by 665 constituents praying 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.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by 1,146 constituents.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present it to the House. It states
that your 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.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, today I have a petition signed by 158 constituents
of the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. The number
of people who are opposed to additional legislation for gun
control is growing.
The petitioners are calling on the House assembled to oppose
further legislation for firearms acquisition and possession and
to further provide strict guidelines and mandatory sentencing
for the use or possession of a firearm in the commission of a
violent crime. I agree with my petitioners.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table petitions signed by many
residents of my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway who draw
to the attention of the House the fact that the current provisions
of the Criminal Code deny people who are suffering from
terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness the right to
choose freely and voluntarily to end their lives with the
assistance of a physician.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the
code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with dignity by
allowing people with terminal or irreversible and debilitating
illness the right to the assistance of a physician in ending their
lives at a time of their choice subject to strict safeguards to
prevent abuse and to ensure that the decision is free, informed,
competent and voluntary.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition to the House.
The petitioners are from my riding of Mississauga South. They
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.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions here today that I would like to present. The
first calls upon Parliament to 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.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is concerned with the sanctity of life. The
petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings. I share the concerns about the fact that
there is no such law in Canada right now.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): The third
petition, Mr. Speaker, is that 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. I agree
with these petitioners.
(1020 )
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I too have the honour of
presenting a petition on behalf of Canadians who respect the
sanctity of human life. The petitioners request that Parliament
ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of
Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and,
that Parliament make no change in the law which would sanction
or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia. I add my support to these petitions.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a petition on
behalf of 48 Albertans, many of whom are my constituents.
These petitioners request that Parliament act immediately to
7896
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human
beings to unborn human beings.
Not only am I pleased to present this petition but to endorse it
as well.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I propose that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7896
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Leader of the Government
in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-58, an act to to amend the Public
Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Act, be read the second time and referred to committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on March 10, 1994 the Federal Court of
Appeal decided on its judgment on the Queen v. Yvon R.H.
Gingras that RCMP members were entitled to the bilingual
bonus now paid to eligible federal public servants.
The court ruled in this case that the bilingual bonus had to be
paid because the RCMP was listed as one of the agencies for
which Treasury Board is the employer under part 1 of schedule 1
of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
According to the ruling RCMP members, both uniformed and
civilian, are part of the public service. This government is
taking appropriate steps to respect the court decision and to live
up to its obligation to pay the bonus to current and former
members of the RCMP who are entitled to it.
Strictly speaking, the court's decision dealt only with the
bilingual bonuses issue. It therefore did not address issues of
labour relations or issues of health and safety. In this sense, the
legislation confirms that the existing arrangements should
continue.
[Translation]
I would like to stress the fact that within the RCMP, in
accordance with the divisional work relations system in place,
management meets with representatives who are elected by the
members. I can assure you that the RCMP occupational safety
and health measures are totally in line with the requirements of
the Canada Labour Code.
The bill we are bringing in today will clarify the status of the
RCMP by amending several provisions of the Public Service
Staff Relations Act and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Act.
(1025)
The proposed amendments do not change the status of the
RCMP. They only confirm the status it had before the Federal
Court ruling.
[English]
As such, the amendments merely remedy ambiguities in the
legislation not intended by Parliament. I ask the support of this
House for this bill.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, upon first glance Bill C-58 appears to be a
rather innocuous bill. It is only two pages long with four
amendments. It seems to be just a housecleaning measure.
The changes in this bill put into statute what has been in
practice for years. Police officers within the RCMP have never
viewed themselves as members of the public service within the
meaning of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. They have a
separate superannuation plan. They have a separate means of
employee representation. They have a different body to review
grievances and they have always considered themselves to be
outside the regular public service.
Now we have a bill before us that puts this into statute. It is no
big deal. It is really just confirming what is already a reality in
one sense perhaps. However, one must look at what prompted
the introduction of this bill.
It is not stated anywhere in the bill but acknowledged by the
speaker before me, the hon. secretary of state. The motivation of
this bill is a Federal Court appeal decision from March 10, 1994.
In rendering its decision in Gingras v. the Queen in the right of
Canada, the court concluded that the RCMP was included in the
definition of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
As such, it was required to pay the bilingual bonus that has
been paid to the public service for years but had not been paid
within the RCMP. Not only did the RCMP suddenly find itself
having to pay the bilingual bonus, it was also required to pay a
significant accumulation of bilingual back pay. This amount
will run into millions of dollars.
Last year the RCMP spent $5.1 million on official languages,
not including these retroactive bilingual bonus commitments.
Under the Gingras decision, the force will be required to pay
all members who occupy positions that were designated as
bilingual. In recent years the RCMP has not designated specific
positions as being bilingual. Instead it has utilized the unit
bilingual complement system.
7897
Ironically, in its main estimates this year the RCMP stated
that it was reinstating the bilingual position designation system
in all bilingual divisions. These bilingual divisions include
headquarters as well as A division, which is the national capital
region, C division which is Quebec, J division in New
Brunswick and O division in Ontario.
The force stated that it was required to reinstate the bilingual
position designation to meet its obligations under the Official
Languages Act, particularly as it relates to supervisory
positions. The force does not mention how many of its positions
are designated as bilingual but if it were to be 10 per cent of the
non-civilian positions this would result in an additional
expenditure of $1.3 million. If 25 per cent of the positions were
to be designated as bilingual that would mean another $3.2
million.
Faced with this unexpected expenditure, the RCMP and
government are looking for a way to get out of these payments.
They had to look no further than the Gingras decision to find a
way to get out of these payments.
It turned out that Mr. Gingras was a member of the RCMP
security service in 1984. When that organization became the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service he was transferred to
CSIS. When it was created, CSIS was designated a separate
employer. This means that CSIS employees do not have the
Treasury Board as their employer and that the bilingualism
bonus plan does not automatically apply to them. On August 7,
1984 Mr. Gingras' counsel asked the director of CSIS, Ted Finn,
to recognize that Mr. Gingras was entitled to the bilingual
bonus.
(1030)
In a response dated March 5, 1985 Mr. Finn replied that he had
decided to provide the bilingual bonus to employees in the
administrative support category only and excluded the
professional level position, including the one occupied by Mr.
Gingras.
Mr. Finn justified his position by stating that Mr. Gingras did
not qualify for the bilingual bonus in his previous position in the
RCMP and he would not change that now that he was in CSIS.
In the Federal Court of Appeal ruling the justices found that
the RCMP should have been paying the bonus all along. The
court ruled that RCMP members were indeed public servants
and that the RCMP was represented by the Treasury Board and
thus the force was compelled to pay the bilingual bonus.
The RCMP was required to pay Mr. Gingras the bilingual
bonus from November 28, 1980 when he first raised the issue
until he transferred to CSIS on July 16, 1984. CSIS was required
to pay Mr. Gingras the bilingual bonus from July 16, 1984 until
March 5, 1985. Why March 5, 1985? Because that is the date that
the director of CSIS decided that the bilingual bonus plan would
only apply to CSIS employees in the administrative support
category.
The court ruled that as a separate employer CSIS had the legal
right not to pay the bilingual bonus. Once the director decreed
that the service would not pay it to professional categories they
legally could avoid paying it.
The court ruled that there were two required elements to avoid
paying the bonus. First, the government agency must be a
separate employer. Second, the agency must decide not to pay
the bonus. Thus CSIS qualified on both points not to pay the
bonus but the RCMP did not. Yet the RCMP decided that it
would not pay the bonus.
Back in 1977 then Commissioner Bob Simmonds decreed that
the bonus did not apply to the RCMP. While this comment was
subsequently deemed to be an error in law, his reasoning for not
seeking authority to pay the bonus was sound.
Commissioner Simmonds decided that the RCMP should not
pay the bilingualism bonus on two grounds. First, other police
forces in Canada did not pay bilingualism bonuses even in
bilingual cities or provinces, and since the RCMP determined its
benefit package in relation to the police universe it was not
prepared to be the only police force to pay such bonuses.
Second, the commissioner went on to state that the payment of
such a bonus would become a divisive element as it would create
situations in which members of equal rank and responsibility
working side by side could receive differing remuneration
because one or several of them had either the good fortune to
grow up in a milieu favourable to learning a second official
language or have the equally good fortune to learn it at public
expense.
This was sound logic in 1977 and it is still sound logic today.
Why should the RCMP spend taxpayers' money to train some of
its members in Canada's other official language and then turn
around and financially reward them for having a second
language? Then again, why should any government department
spend taxpayers' money to train some of its employees in
Canada's other official language and then reward them with
$800 a year bonus?
The RCMP main estimates show that there are other rewards
for being bilingual. As I mentioned earlier the RCMP stated that
it is reinstating the bilingual position designation in all bilingual
regions in order to meet its obligations under the Official
Languages Act, particularly as it relates to supervisory
positions. Since bilingualism is a required element to obtain a
promotion to a supervisory position in a bilingual region then
maybe that is sufficient reward for bilingualism.
7898
Whatever the reason, the RCMP and the government have
decided that they should not be paying the bilingualism bonus
plan to its police officers. That is why today we are debating Bill
C-58. The bill will give the RCMP the second requirement to
avoid paying the bonus. By removing the RCMP from the Public
Service Staff Relations Act the force will therefore be a separate
employer. All it will have to do is have Commissioner Murray
announce that it will not be paying the bonus and it will be
legally exempt from doing so.
(1035)
Well, almost. The force has decided not to remove its civilian
employees from the Public Service Staff Relations Act. For
whatever reason, the RCMP has decided that civilian
employees, appointed or employed in accordance with section
10 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, will still be
covered by the PSSRA. There may be other reasons for treating
them separately from the police officers within the RCMP, but it
is clear the force will have to continue paying the bilingual
bonus to these employees.
Current management seems to have forgotten the words of
former Commissioner Simmonds who stated that payment of
such a bonus would have a divisive effect on employees. Some
may argue that the bonus is justified for civilian members
because they are generally lower paid support staff. In the
RCMP the 1,919 civilian employees of the force had an average
salary of $46,178 per year. While Commissioner Simmonds'
comment may have been made in reference to police officers
within the force, the same divisive effect could occur among
civilian employees.
Why should a civilian employee of the RCMP in a position
that is designated as bilingual receive $800 more than an
employee who is doing exactly the same job in a position that is
not designated as bilingual? Why should we limit this to just
bilingualism in the RCMP?
Consider the following comment: ``This year approximately
$50 million was once again spent without any assurance that the
payment of such a sum was necessary to ensure Canadians of the
availability of quality service in the official language of their
choice. Given the present economic circumstances we are more
than ever convinced that the bilingualism bonus should be
eliminated gradually by negotiating with the parties concerned.
In the interests of public finances as much as that of the official
languages program, it is high time for the government to take the
problem in hand''.
If those words sound familiar, they are. They were spoken by
the Commissioner of Official Languages in March of this year
when he presented his annual report for 1993. While I take some
exception with the commissioner's comments about eliminating
the plan gradually, I fully agree with his recommendation that
the government should turn its attention to this problem without
delay.
The government should not have to resort to such sleight of
hand legislation as Bill C-58. The RCMP should not be paying
out millions of dollars in bilingual bonuses to regular members
and special constables. Nor should the RCMP be paying the
bilingual bonus to its civilian employees. Nor should any
government department, agency or crown corporation be paying
any of its employees the bonus. The government must come to
terms with reality. That bonus must be dropped. When even the
Commissioner of Official Languages is calling for its
elimination it is time to drop the payments.
Bill C-58 seems like an innocuous bill. I am sure it was
intended to be. The government certainly does not want to be
seen as attacking any portion of the official languages program,
but it intends to use the bill to circumvent it.
The time has come for the government to be straight with the
Canadian public. It is time to scrap the entire bilingual bonus
plan. We will support the bill because it takes a step toward
eliminating the bonus, even if it has to take ten steps sideways to
take one step forward.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition, I wish to express
my objections to Bill C-58 at the second reading stage. We are
not alone, since the Canadian Police Association, including
associations of RCMP officers, did so yesterday. I would like to
quote from the minutes of a meeting held at their headquarters
here in Ottawa on November 14 and 15, on the subject of Bill
C-58.
(1040)
[English]
André Girard submitted copies of Bill C-58 introduced for
first reading on November 4 and scheduled for second reading
on November 17, 1994. If the bill is passed it will give separate
employer status to the RCMP commissioner and leave the
members vulnerable on all issues of pay and benefits.
It was decided to treat Bill C-58 as CPA priority and direct
Scott Newark to take all necessary action to make sure the bill
was sent to a parliamentary committee, vigorously debated and
defeated.
It was moved by André Nadon, seconded by Jim Davidson:
That the RCMP C and O Division Members' Associations have full support
of the Canadian Police Association and that the CPA take all necessary steps to
fight Bill C-58 on their behalf.
It was carried unanimously.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, our objections to Bill C-58 are two-fold. First,
this ostensibly routine legislation is, in fact, aimed at
invalidating the effect of the judgment handed down by the
Federal Court Appeal Division in the Gingras case on March 19,
1994. I intend to focus particularly on this aspect.
7899
Second, Bill C-58 constitutes an additional obstacle to union
membership for members of the RCMP, as well as interference
by the legislative with the judiciary, since a case is still pending
before the Quebec Court of Appeal. I am referring to Delisle vs
the Deputy Solicitor General of Canada and the Solicitor
General of Canada, file 500-09-001747-898 of the Montreal
appeal district.
I will now discuss my first point. Two of my colleagues in the
Official Opposition rose in the House to address this particular
matter. The first time was on March 11, 1994, when the hon.
member for Laval-Centre, in a question directed to the Solicitor
General, asked as follows:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday, the Federal
Court of Appeal ordered the federal government to pay bilingualism bonuses of
$800 a year to qualified officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is
estimated that the government now owes up to $4,000 to more than 3,000
officers, as well as to retired officers of the RCMP. Does the Solicitor General
intend to abide by the unanimous decision of the Federal Court of Appeal and
pay the bilingualism bonus to qualified officers of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police?
And the Solicitor General's reply:
Mr. Speaker, that decision raises some very complex issues. It is presently
under review, and I will have more information about that in the near future.
The ``near future'' came two months later. On May 10, the
hon. member for Richelieu rose in the House to make a
statement under Standing Order 31. He said as follows, and I
quote:
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois applauds the government's decision to
finally comply with the Federal Court of Appeal judgment and pay a
bilingualism bonus to RCMP members who occupy bilingual positions.
This puts an end to a lengthy dispute between RCMP members and their
employer who, must it be reminded, had decided not to provide this bonus,
supposedly ``to preserve cohesion within the forces''.
If it is serious about bilingualism, the government must continue to pay
bilingual bonuses inasmuch as it provides true incentive and compensation for
the added complexity of bilingual positions.
Considering there is much room for improvement in the federal Public
Service, particularly with regard to the use of French, the government must
make sure this bonus is awarded for language skills of the highest level to
provide services of the highest quality.
(1045)
That was the end of the statement under Standing Order 31
made by the hon. member for Richelieu.
The government did not appeal the decision of the Appeal
Division of the Federal Court. The case did not go to the
Supreme Court, although in March, the minister maintained that
some very important principles were at stake. We now know
why. The minister had decided to take a difficult approach.
Instead of asking the Supreme Court for a definitive opinion on
the legal aspects of this case, the government decided to
legislate, and that legislation is Bill C-58 before the House
today. The government decided to go after its own justice, not
by appealing to the Supreme Court, but instead by presenting to
the House a bill which, to all intents and purposes, is aimed at
rendering null and void the court's decision in the Gingras case.
Indeed, Bill C-58 seeks to overturn the decision handed down
by the Appeal Division of the Federal Court, on May 10, 1994, in
the Gingras case, which concerned the more or less 17,500
members of the RCMP. It should be pointed out that there are
three distinct categories of employees working for the RCMP.
The numbers I have were updated November 15, 1994, the day
before yesterday.
Regular members and special RCMP constables number
15,551, whereas 1,983 civilians and 3,440 civil servants work
for the RCMP.
The 15,500 regular members are, in fact, police officers. They
are not unionized. The 2,000 civilians are support staff working
in laboratories, as technicians or specialists; an unspecified
number of them belong to the administrative support category.
They are not unionized either.
The 3,500 civil servants are either administrative or support
staff such as clerks, secretaries, stenographers, guards,
caretakers and the like. They are all hired by the Public Service
Commission or transferred from other departments. They
belong to unions such as the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-58 seeks to overturn the
Federal Court of Appeal's decision. In the Gingras case, the
court came to the conclusion that members of the RCMP belong
to the Public Service and, as such, must abide by the rules set by
the Treasury Board and that they are entitled to the $800-a-year
bilingual bonus.
In May 1994, the government announced that it did not intend
to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and that it
was going to pay the bilingual bonus to RCMP members,
including retroactive payments for some of the years it had
illegally denied RCMP members this bonus. All in all,
retroactive payments could amount to $30 million.
It seems that the Gingras decision disturbs the RCMP top
brass because it means that, in certain cases, other Treasury
Board regulations may apply to the RCMP and its police
officers. Such regulations deal in particular with employment
equity, the enforcement of the Official Languages Act, and
working conditions. The right to unionize is being debated as
part of the Delisle case, which I will deal with later.
7900
(1050)
Schedule I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act contains a
list of departments and other agencies having the Treasury
Board as employer, that is to say that are part of the Public
Service, and a list of agencies which are separate employers.
The RCMP is listed in Part I of Schedule I, and that makes it a
part of the Public Service.
Bill C-58 would remove the RCMP from the Public Service,
and therefore the Treasury Board would cease to be its
employer. Consequently, the RCMP would be subject to
legislation applicable to public servants only if it were
specifically referred to in such legislation. Treasury Board
policies would no longer apply to the RCMP, except if the
RCMP itself decided to follow them, but that would be on a
strictly voluntary basis.
Since December 1992, the Financial Administration Act has
been the legal basis of the Employment Equity Program set up
by Treasury Board in the mid 80s. All departments and agencies
having the Treasury Board as their employer are subject to the
Employment Equity Act because they are part of the Public
Service.
Until recently, because the Commissioner had so decided, the
RCMP was not subject to Treasury Board policies despite the
fact that the force is listed in Part I, Schedule I of the Public
Service Staff Relations Act. However, we should stress that the
RCMP differs in some ways from the rest of the Public Service,
and that has allowed the commissioner to pretend that the policy
on bilingual bonuses did not apply to the RCMP.
The decision of the Appeal Division of the Federal Court,
made March 10, 1994, in the Gingras case, puts an end to such
pretence. From now on, said the tree presiding judges
unanimously, the RCMP is part of the Public Service. Therefore,
since March 1994, the RCMP has had to apply all Treasury
Board policies to its 17,500 employees. Bill C-58 puts an end to
that. We must note that civilian employees of the RCMP,
numbering approximately 3,440, were always fully subject to
Treasury Board policies on employment equity and bilingualism
because they were recruited by the Public Service Commission.
The RCMP submits an annual report to the Treasury Board
and is included in the Treasury Board's equity statistics.
However, the RCMP decided a long time ago to implement the
federal policy on employment equity for its 17,500 employees,
which include 15,500 peace officers and 2,000 civilians. Instead
of submitting an annual report to the Treasury Board and being
subject to its rules, the RCMP decided to create its own system
of co-operation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission,
to which it submits an annual report.
However you look at it, the system is an ad hoc one and, in
principle, inefficient. By in effect reversing the March 1994
decision, the government is seeking to exempt the RCMP from
the Treasury Board's authority regarding labour relations and
conditions of employment. Although the RCMP implements
certain policies on a voluntary basis, its goodwill is
questionable, given that, for 19 years, it denied its members the
bilingual bonus, thereby saving approximately $50 million, or
$2.8 million annually.
(1055)
If one of the purposes of Bill C-58 is to stop the payment of
bilingual bonuses to members of the RCMP, we can conclude
that the government is adopting the Reform position. Do the
Liberals intend to eliminate the bilingual bonus throughout the
public service? If the government announces that it intends to
pay the bonus to members occupying bilingual positions or if the
RCMP commissioner decides to continue the bonus voluntarily,
we can still say that the bill undermines the bilingual bonus
policy, because the commissioner can terminate the bonus at any
time.
It seems that the Official Languages Act applies differently to
the RCMP: service in both languages, equitable hiring, language
of administration, language of instruction at the Regina school
and other similar provisions.
The member for Nanaimo-Cowichan believes that the
Federal Court's decision in the Gingras case means that military
personnel would also be entitled to the bilingual bonus.
Unfortunately, under the act, military personnel are not
considered part of the public service.
The Public Service Staff Relations Act specifically excludes
members of the RCMP. They cannot, therefore, apply for
certification to the Public Service Staff Relations Board,
although the Delisle case I mentioned earlier may change this.
While Her Majesty in Right of Canada, represented by the
Treasury Board, is ultimately their employer, members of the
RCMP are excluded from the definition of ``employee'' for the
purposes of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
At any rate, since RCMP members are presently part of the
public service, this means that the RCMP remains subject to
Treasury Board policies and standards. Only organizations with
separate employer status are not subject to TB policies. Separate
employers are paid a lump-sum each year, but are not required
to comply with general policies regarding official languages or
employment equity for example. Bill C-58 excludes the RCMP
from the application of TB policies.
The Financial Administration Act under which the Treasury
Board was established sets several standards regarding the
public service and government finance administration, except as
specifically provided in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act
and any other act that applies to the RCMP, such as the Official
Languages Act.
Bill C-58 provides for Treasury Board policies to no longer
apply to members of the RCMP. Paragraph 7(1)(e) of the
Financial Administration Act states clearly that the Treasury
7901
Board may act on matters relating to, and I quote: ``personnel
management in the public service of Canada, including the
determination of the terms and conditions of employment''.
Bill C-58 would add to the RCMP Act a provision by which
paragraph 7(1)(e) would not apply to the RCMP. Therefore,
terms and conditions of employment would be determined by
the commissioner of the RCMP and the RCMP Act. This act
does provide that staff may appeal to the RCMP external review
committee.
Without Bill C-58, the RCMP would presumably have had to
gradually comply with Treasury Board occupational standards. I
do not have the full list of TB standards and cannot compare
them to those in effect within the RCMP under the RCMP Act,
but I note that the Treasury Board has powers in the following
areas: first, administration of the Employment Equity Act;
second, administration of the Official Languages Act; third,
financial management; fourth, annual expenditure plans; and
fifth, personnel management and determination of terms and
conditions of employment.
(1100)
As far as personnel management is concerned, it is interesting
to note that, under Section 11(2) of the Financial Administration
Act, the Public Service Commission is partly responsible for
personnel management in other departments. In the case of
RCMP members, however, it is the Treasury Board which plays
this role.
I note that the RCMP Act and some other acts make an
exception for the RCMP given the nature of its work. Therefore,
at this time, RCMP members' terms and conditions of
employment are not identical to those of other public service
employees. Among other things, RCMP members are excluded
from the definition of ``public servant'' in the Public Service
Staff Relations Act and cannot form a union.
So we can ask ourselves why the government is not proposing
at the same time to grant civilian employees of the
RCMP-about 2,000 office and support workers-the same
rights and privileges as their 3,400 colleagues who are already
part of the public service. After all, neither group is composed of
law enforcement officers.
There is also an RCMP External Review Committee, whose
mandate is ``to provide an independent review of grievances,
formal discipline, and discharge and demotion appeals filed by
members of the RCMP''. But, as the external committee points
out in its annual reports, no document clearly spells out its
jurisdiction. A member of the RCMP can ask the RCMP
Commissioner to review a demotion or discharge. The
Commissioner then asks the external committee to review the
decision before settling the matter himself. The Commissioner
is not required to follow the recommendations of the external
committee.
The external committee also notes in its annual report that the
decisions of the RCMP arbitration committee cannot be
appealed to the external committee. Again, everything rests on
the good will of the RCMP Commissioner, who ultimately
becomes both a judge and a party in the disputes that may arise
within the RCMP. How can we leave the terms and conditions of
employment up to the good will of the RCMP Commissioner?
The external committee also stresses in its annual report that
the grievance procedure is even more complex. In some cases,
the Commissioner himself determines what kind of grievances
can be submitted to the external committee.
Let us now talk about the RCMP as a separate or almost
separate employer. The Treasury Board is the employer of the
Public Service and all public servants, according to the list in
Part I of Schedule I to the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The RCMP is now listed in Part I of Schedule I and Bill C-58
would replace the expression ``RCMP'' in this list with
``civilian employees appointed or employed in accordance with
section 10 of the RCMP Act'', who number 2,000. It would
exclude the peace officers in the RCMP, who number 15,500.
This same law presents a second list, in Part II of Schedule I, of
sectors of the federal public service that are distinct employers.
Note that the expression ``federal government employees''
takes in all government employees, including those who work
for Crown corporations and the military. In all, there are
550,000. The Public Service does not count employees of Crown
corporations, the military and personnel of separate employers,
who number about 235,000 in all.
In particular, the separate employers in Part II of Schedule I
include the Communications Security Establishment, CSE, and
the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS.
(1105)
Bill C-58 does not add the RCMP to the list in Part II of
Schedule I, neither does it add the 15,500 members of the RCMP
who are peace officers to this list. Therefore, the 15,500
members of the RCMP who are peace officers will have the same
status as members of the Canadian Forces; that is, they do not
even appear in Part II of the schedule.
In fact, only the personnel not paid with public funds, namely
the employees of bars, restaurants and other service
establishments on military bases, are listed there. However, the
Commissioner of the RCMP would have the status of a separate
employer. I think that not putting the 15,500 members of the
RCMP who are peace officers in Part II of Schedule I would give
7902
the commissioner even more absolute control over his staff.
Why? For what purpose? That is the hidden agenda in this bill.
I now come to my second point, very briefly, because to a
large extent it is now before the courts. Bill C-58 further
infringes on the unionization of members of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police and is unacceptable interference of the
legislative authority in judicial matters, since a case on this
issue is pending before the Quebec Court of Appeal. It is the
case which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, Delisle v.
the Deputy Attorney General of Canada and the Solicitor
General of Canada, which is to be heard by the Montreal District
Court of Appeal in the coming months.
In this legal proceeding, the plaintiff, Gaétan Delisle, a
member of the RCMP and member of the Quebec provincial
association of the RCMP, is asking the courts of this country to
declare unconstitutional all the provisions which prevent the
Canadian Labour Board from issuing a certificate of
accreditation for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and
especially for its employees who are peace officers.
The officers who are the plaintiffs in these proceedings are
basing their argument on section 2 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms which provides for freedom of
association. These plaintiffs argue that the freedom of
association gives them the collective bargaining right, hence the
right to unionize. This is an issue the Court of Appeal will have
to settle, and I do not think that we, as legislators, should hinder
the Court of Appeal and influence any interpretation it might
give.
The plaintiffs before the Quebec Court of Appeal, the police
officers of the Quebec section of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police, also refer to the equality rights enshrined in section 15 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why is it that in
every Canadian jurisdiction, and especially in provincial
jurisdictions, police officers can join a union, but that the
federal legislation prevents members and police officers of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police from unionizing? Can we talk
about inequality pursuant to section 15 of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms? This is another issue upon which the
Quebec Court of Appeal will have to decide.
Would it not be wiser to postpone this bill for six months or
even longer until the court rules on the rights of the police
officers and other bargainable employees of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, should they be successful with their court
challenge?
(1110)
For all these reasons, we will vote against Bill C-58 at the
second reading stage.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are addressing Bill C-58, a bill to amend the Public
Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Act. At first blush it appears to be just an innocuous
housekeeping bill. However, this morning it became evident that
the purpose of the bill is solely to avoid paying bilingual
bonuses to the RCMP which resulted from the Federal Court of
Appeal ruling in the Gingras case.
At the time of the court decision the government said it had no
choice but to pay the bilingual bonus. Not only is this untrue as it
could have appealed to the Supreme Court but it is also
misleading to Canadians as the government has now brought in
this legislation as an attempt to quietly circumvent the court
system.
I give the bill the label of good news, bad news. It is good
news in what it will do with regard to bilingual bonuses. It is bad
news in the manner in which it is being brought into being and
things that have been quietly put aside in the past.
The Liberals were aware of the potential problems this case
could create back in 1990. The Commissioner of Official
Languages in the 1990 annual report wrote: ``The distribution of
this bonus was also brought into question in 1990 when the
Federal Court ruled that an RCMP officer was as much entitled
to it as a public servant. If the appeal court decision does not
reverse this judgment we may see other federal employees in the
armed forces or in some crown corporations claiming the
bilingual bonus, all the more reason to reform this rickety
structure, especially in a period of budget cuts''.
The Liberals were also well aware of the reasons for the
judgment in that 1990 Federal Court ruling. At that time the
court stated: ``The exclusion of the staff of these two agencies
which are covered by the Public Service Staff Relations Act
constituted illegal discrimination under the rules of
administrative law''. That is the court talking. The Liberals
knew this. They were sitting in this House, but they waited more
than a year after coming to power a year ago to act on this
problem.
In April of this year in this House I asked the Prime Minister
to heed the strong recommendation of the Commissioner of
Official Languages and eliminate the bilingual bonus. At that
time the Prime Minister stated: ``I do not think the
commissioner has made a strong recommendation''. That is
what he said, there is no strong recommendation, therefore we
do not have to do anything about it.
Before I quote the present Commissioner of Official
Languages from his last report I would like to quote previous
commissioners on this very issue.
In 1983 the commissioner at that time stated: ``Six years and
let us say almost a quarter of a billion dollars into the game, any
question of the real contribution that the bilingualism bonus
might be making to federal language programs has pretty much
7903
been lost from view''. There is now nothing to prevent the cost
climbing to $50 million or more except that a short, sharp
government decision to stop this nonsense now before it does
any more harm''. How prescient the commissioner was in 1983
saying that because that is precisely the cost, $50 million a year,
of bilingual bonuses today other than those of the RCMP.
(1115)
To go on with comments of other official language
commissioners, in 1986 the commissioner wrote: ``There was at
one point in 1985 a hint that Treasury Board was looking for
ways to curtail whatever part of bonus spending might frankly
be considered superfluous such as payments to middle and upper
managers whose bilingualism is adequately compensated in
other ways. It may be that the board is still looking and we
encourage it to do so''.
Let us move on to 1987 when the commissioner's report
contained the following statement, and the Liberals sitting in
this House were privy to all of this: ``The bilingualism bonus as
an instrument to encourage more active work related
bilingualism among public servants is not well attuned to
present needs. It falls like heaven's rain indiscriminately on the
just and unjust alike which is not how bonus incentives are
supposed to work''.
Similarly at the risk of being boring in 1988 the commissioner
stated: ``Since the bonus no longer has the incentive effect that
justified its creation, we can only repeat our recommendation
that Treasury Board review the value of the bilingualism
bonus''.
That brings us to 1989 when the commissioner wrote: ``The
awarding of a bilingualism bonus may originally have been a
positive measure but over time it has proven to be more of an
obstacle to a fair linguistic designation of positions and a source
of inequities within the public service''.
I have already stated the concerns of the commissioner in his
1990 report so we will fast forward to 1991. That year the
commissioner applauded the updating of the bilingualism bonus
confirmation process but added: ``This updating clearly cannot
be called a reform of the bonus system, a system whose
disappearance we, like many others, continue to hope for. This
bonus which originated in 1966 as a 7 per cent supplement to the
salary paid to secretaries truly has nine lives''.
The commissioner's 1992 report states: ``We are far from sure
that this bonus paid to 59,900 public servants constitutes a
necessary encouragement to the effective use of both languages.
We can only reiterate the recommendation we have made so
often that the bilingualism bonus be gradually eliminated''.
Finally, everyone will be pleased to know the commissioner's
comment from last year: ``Unfortunately, with regard to the
issue of the bilingualism bonus, it is obvious that the
commissioner's repeated recommendations still have not been
followed. This year approximately $50 million was once again
spent without any assurance that the payment of such a sum was
necessary to ensure Canadians of the availability of quality
service in the official language of their choice. Given the present
economic circumstances, we are more than ever convinced that
the bilingualism bonus should be eliminated in the interest of
the public finances as well as that of the official languages
program. It is high time for the government to take this problem
in hand''.
(1120 )
That is the recommendation of the commissioner that the
Prime Minister said was not a strong recommendation. I do not
know how much stronger he could make it based on years of
precedent recommendations by other language commissioners.
It is interesting that while publicly the Prime Minister has
shrugged off these recommendations, his government today
quietly tries to slip through this innocuous legislation which
will at least partially achieve what so many commissioners have
strongly advocated for more than 10 years.
Let us have a quick look at what the rationale was regarding
this bonus within the RCMP in years gone by. Back in 1977 R. H.
Simmonds who was the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police gave as his rationale for not paying the bilingual
bonus that members of the police universe who are compared to
the RCMP in the amount of pay and benefits received do not
receive the bonus and the equations between these groups
should remain the same as much as possible.
The Commissioner of the RCMP also said in that year: ``The
payment of a bonus was seen as a divisive element in a cohesive
organization as situations would be created whereby members
of equal rank and responsibility working side by side could
receive differing remuneration because of different advantages
toward learning a second language, perhaps even at public
expense''.
This was the evidence, part of it, that has been picked up on by
various language commissioners over the years.
From my own experience in the Canadian forces I am well
aware that members who are bilingual, and this applies to the
RCMP as well, already have an enhanced opportunity of
promotion with the accompanying increases in remuneration.
The bilingual bonus therefore is in effect an additional payment.
I might add as well that most members are bilingual because of
language training at public expense.
So I ask, in view of all of this background, in view of the
evidence presented, why is the government not proudly
proclaiming its attempt to cut wasteful spending? Could it be
that it is afraid of publicly slaying the sacred cow, which is
official languages, no matter how small a knife the government
wields?
7904
I congratulate the government on its attempt to right a wrong,
but I condemn the government for wrapping this initiative in a
cloak of secrecy. Why not tell people the truth? The Federal
Court of Appeal ruling in the Gingras case means taxpayers will
have to shell out roughly $30 million in retroactive bilingual
bonus payments.
The government should say: ``We do not agree with this
decision. Therefore we are enacting this legislation to prevent
further annual payments of nearly $3 million.'' This is the truth
of the legislation and the people of Canada deserve nothing less
than the truth, especially from a government that claims honesty
and integrity as its guiding principles.
(1125)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-58 aims at reversing the decision of the Federal Court of
Appeal in the Gingras case, on March 10, 1994. As you may
remember, the Court of Appeal then concluded that members of
the RCMP, most of whom are of course police officers, are part
of the public service and must adhere to Treasury Board rules,
and that these members are also entitled to the bilingualism
bonus of $800 per year. This is a brief summary of the decision.
In May of 1994, the government announced that it had no
intention of appealing the decision and that it would pay the
bonus to RCMP members, including for part of the years during
which the government had illegally refused to grant such bonus.
In all, retroactive payments should amount to $30 million.
The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal seems to bother
RCMP authorities since, according to some, it means that the
RCMP and its police officers will be subjected to the other
Treasury Board rules. These rules deal, among other things, with
employment equity, the implementation of the Official
Languages Act and the rules governing working conditions,
with the exception however of the right to set up a union. This is
a very important aspect which must not be overlooked.
Before going any further, we have to look at the issue from a
temporal perspective, but also in the context of that specific
group.
What is the RCMP? We must first make an important
distinction between three different groups of employees within
that organization. In total, there are 15,500 police officers in the
RCMP; there are also 1,983 civilian members, as well as 3,440
public service employees. Again, 15,551 regular members are in
fact police officers and are not unionized. The 2,000 civilian
members, or 1,983 to be precise, are in support positions and
include laboratory and general technicians, experts in various
fields, aircraft pilots, as well as an indeterminate number of
employees from the administrative support category. Those
people are not unionized either.
The some 3,500 public service employees hold administrative
and support jobs and include clerks, secretaries, stenographers,
nurses, janitors, etc. These employees were all recruited by the
Public Service Commission or transferred from other
departments. They belong to unions such as the Public Service
Alliance of Canada.
What is troublesome with Bill C-58 is that it is an
underhanded way of doing what is prohibited by the law. As can
be seen in Bill C-58, what bothers the authorities is that for
many years some RCMP members have been trying to unionize.
Three times already, their attempts have failed. In 1994,
unionization should no longer be considered a barbaric action
that needs to be countered. For a group, it is the freedom to
express its will to protect itself against its employer.
So, the purpose of Bill C-58 is to reverse the Gingras case of
March 10, 1994. Bill C-58 would exclude RCMP members from
the Public Service, taking away their capacity to unionize, but
would give them the bilingualism bonus. Such an opportunity to
depict the bilingualism bonus as a favour will certainly not be
missed when, in reality, it was originally established to promote
bilingualism within the Public Service of Canada.
(1130)
Now, let us set aside the union aspect for a moment-I will
come back to it later-to focus on the bilingualism bonus. I just
want to make a few comments to show the unwillingness of the
administration to acknowledge some data concerning the RCMP
and the bilingualism bonus.
The bilingualism bonus program for public servants who meet
the standards of proficiency for bilingual positions was
established on November 15, 1976. Its purpose is to promote
bilingualism within the Public Service, working as an incentive
for civil servants to become bilingual. In 1993-94, the
government will again have spent approximately $30 million in
bilingualism bonuses, which represents $800 a year for each
beneficiary.
As I was saying earlier, in its March 10 ruling on the Gingras
case, the Federal Court of Appeal has declared that members of
the RCMP are entitled to the bilingualism bonus. However, as
far as the government or, should I say, RCMP administrators are
concerned, two problems persist. Firstly, the government is
repudiating the ruling handed down by the court by refusing to
make retroactive payments as far back as the court ordered.
Secondly, we have now learned that payment of the bonus has
since been granted.
7905
RCMP senior management has reduced by half the number of
employees entitled to the bonus. According to the president of
the RCMP Employees' Association, this drastic change in the
application of the Official Languages Act is based on the fact
that the great majority of RCMP members entitled to the
bilingualism bonus are francophones. What a coincidence, Mr.
Speaker! The President of the Treasury Board must make a
commitment, as he is being asked to do by RCMP members, to
intervene as soon as possible in order to redress this flagrant
injustice. That is what we hear.
Today, this bonus is considered a source of inequity within the
public service rather than a real compensation for the added
difficulties related to working in both languages. The same
amount is paid to every employee, whatever the level of
competence, the salary or the frequency of use of the second
language. The bonus is granted to public servants, but not to
government employees.
According to the Commissioner of Official Languages, it is
far from certain that this bonus is an incentive to effectively use
both languages whenever it is required by law. If the government
really believes in the importance of bilingualism in federal
institutions, the bilingualism bonus can be considered a major
asset when it provides an incentive for public servants to learn a
second language and use it effectively.
The Bloc Quebecois does not, however, agree with those who
argue that the cost of bilingualism is too high. We must see
things in perspective. As long as the federal government
maintains its official bilingualism policy, which is entirely
reasonable, it will have to allocate the requisite funding. I
suggest that when the annual report of the Commissioner of
Official Languages is tabled, the debate should not be about
costs but should focus on the government's failure to act in this
area and on the long way it still has to go before the federal
public service is truly able to offer quality services in both
official languages. That was in connection with the bilingualism
bonus.
I will now consider the aspect of union membership, to which
I referred earlier. I said that Bill C-58 was an attempt to isolate
members of the RCMP by targeting the organization's regular
members, in other words, the police. The bill creates two groups
but only one group will belong to the RCMP, and I am referring
to the police officers. In other words, civilian employees and
other technicians will no longer be members of the RCMP. Bill
C-58 no longer wants to include public servants, the so-called
civilians. The people of the RCMP are being isolated.
(1135)
The question people are asking and I am asking is this: Why
are they trying to isolate police officers in the RCMP? There are
several theories, of course, and I will tell you mine.
The Quebec government recently set up a rather interesting
program in its public service, aimed at encouraging input from
public servants who want to discuss, as a matter of economic and
social concern, anything that might look like terrible waste and
abuse of public funds, in a straightforward attempt to reduce
operating costs without, of course, affecting the quality of
service to the public. Today, for instance, it would be the quality
of service provided by members of the RCMP to Canadian
taxpayers.
Clearly, Bill C-58 will prevent these people from making an
honest attempt to show up any abuse that might occur within
their organization. Bill C-58 confirms that it will turn these
people into robots at the beck and call of a small group of
individuals who are only intent on controlling situations and
thus keeping a certain power over events and the people who are
supposed to manufacture those events.
For instance, suppose an RCMP officer were to notice that
equipment, to give a simple example, was being used
wrongfully by his superiors for their own use. Can anyone in this
House imagine just for a second this officer going to his
superiors and telling them: ``You are misusing public funds, and
you are doing so for your personnal benefit''? Not on your life.
Even if the alleged incident is illegal or close to breaking the
law, he cannot do it because he has no protection. These people
are muzzled.
Trade unionism is not a weapon, it is a working tool in a
democratic social system, which gives more power to those who
use it, no matter where, even in those areas where it is the most
difficult to unionize workers, as is the case at the Ogilvie flour
mill, in Montreal. Even though the workers there belong to a
union, they are now faced with the lack of anti-scab legislation
in the Labour Code of Canada. Therefore, they are very close to
being under some kind of a dictatorial regime since they have to
sit idle while scabs come in to take their place. Negotiations
then become meaningless. This creates a dangerous social
climate.
Last spring, we had the very same situation, for three months
at Q.N.S. & L. in Sept-Îles, in my riding of Manicouagan. Scabs
were allowed inside to take the jobs of workers who, in all good
faith, wanted to negotiate with their employer. Once again, there
was provocation. There is nothing illegal in being unionized, it
is perfectly legal.
The Sûreté du Québec is unionized. Its members belong to a
group that is there to protect them. The Communauté urbaine de
Montréal, otherwise known as the CUM, is made up of police
officers. They are not animals or equipment, they are
individuals, human beings. They are entitled to some security in
their life. The same goes for the Communauté urbaine de
Québec. But the RCMP said no.
7906
The rumour has it that the employees tried to unionize on
three occasions, but each time, their attempts were
unsuccessful. Such tactics, you can imagine, go against the
Charter of Rights. But these hypocritical tactics are concealed
so well in Bill C-58 that it is impossible to make an official
complaint under the Charter of Rights, arguing that the Liberal
government does not want RCMP employees to form a union or
is trying to prevent them from doing so.
This prompts me to make a connection with the situation of
CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I think that
there is a strategy, that Bill C-58 is an element of a very simple
strategy.
(1140)
First, you prevent the members of the RCMP from unionizing.
On three separate occasions already, attempts to do so failed, but
pressure to unionize most have been growing and getting quite
strong recently, last spring. This gave fuel to the case, the
Gingras case, which was brought before the Federal Court of
Appeal on March 10.
This case castigates the Liberal government, so it reacted by
introducing Bill C-58. Here is the line of thought: because this
is a small separate group within forces responsible for national
security, unable to unionize and therefore unable to make itself
heard and to protect its members against abuse of power on the
part of management, before this Parliament is over, a bill will
probably be tabled before us to renew the RCMP, perhaps even
under a new name! Why not? This group will need a special
budget and, as it turns out, no one will be allowed to know what
exactly this money is used for. This is where I see a similarity
with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Let us take a brief look back at the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service,so as to clearly put the problem facing us in
its proper context. In 1946, given the increased workload of the
RCMP resulting from this added jurisdiction, the staff assigned
to this particular function was made into a separate group for the
first time. In 1956, the Special ``I'' Branch became a directorate
within the RCMP. I am going quickly. In 1969, the royal
commission of inquiry on security recommended creating a
civilian security agency. From 1971 to 1974, especially but not
exclusively in Quebec, the security service mounted a series of
operations, many of which were apparently illegal, to neutralize
radical groups, who happen to be separatists, once again.
On March 27, 1975, the federal Cabinet developed a directive
for the security service's activities. This directive remained
secret until 1978. In 1976, Corporal Samson, who was tried for
an incident unrelated to this affair, revealed his participation in
Operation Bricole in 1972, which involved breaking and
entering and stealing files, as we recall.
Various events occurred over the years, but let us go to
November 29, when the members of the Security Intelligence
Review Committee were appointed; the chairman was a former
Conservative Cabinet minister. In February 1985, CSIS's
operating budget was $115 million. This was less than the $200
million it is today, and neither Canadian taxpayers, nor the
House of Commons, are allowed to review it. Something is
wrong! It is a terrible outfit which not even the House of
Commons is able to control any more.
So, to sum up, one, we want to talk about unionization, to
move the process along. We intend to talk about unionizing
members of the RCMP because the people in that force can find
out about the abuses going on in various branches.
Second, they table a bill aimed at isolating the only people
with access to compromising documents. Third, I am convinced
that, before the end of this parliamentary session, they will pass
a bill putting the RCMP in the same class as CSIS, that is, with
millions of dollars to spend but without ordinary taxpayers
being allowed to look into how this money is spent.
In conclusion,it is my firm belief that it is high time that
Quebec achieve sovereignty. Bill C-58 will not make Quebecers
change their minds and convince them that it might be beneficial
to keep federalism in good shape.
(1145)
In fact, we do not have to worry about federalism or trying to
destroy it. Federalism is destroying itself through bills like
C-58.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, members
recognize that this bill is very straightforward and very
important. Not only does it deal with a circumstance that was
created by a court decision, it deals with a matter that could be
very costly to the government and to Canadians. On that basis
the matter is very timely.
I find two issues of interest in this legislative change. First is
the matter of the bilingual bonuses which are the base purpose of
the bill. Second is the autonomy of the RCMP. That both these
purposes can be achieved is to be commended.
I would like to give some background which I believe we all
recognize is important to our discussion. Certainly the purpose
of the bill should be discussed. As I understand it, the bill
removes RCMP officers from the definition of employee and in
so doing it removes them from the public service as defined
under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
How will they be governed? They will now be governed under
the RCMP act. That is where the item of autonomy is discussed.
It all seems very simple at first glance.
7907
However when the background of the bill is examined some
significant consequences are shown. First, let us talk about the
matter of bilingualism. RCMP officers would be able to opt out
of bilingualism. Reform Party policy states very clearly that it
supports the removal of bilingual bonuses to civil servants as a
federal cost reduction measure. We support individual
bilingualism but oppose institutional bilingualism as dictated
by the Official Languages Act. We feel the bill is in line with
that policy.
Why do we believe there are reasons for the RCMP to be able
to opt out of bilingual bonuses? First, we can talk about the very
basic matter of fiscal constraints. We all recognize that the
decision of March 10, 1994 with regard to Gingras v. The Queen
in right of Canada that bonuses that were not paid in the past can
now be collected by the RCMP. It will cost millions and millions
of dollars. The question is whether a person should legitimately
have it or not. I say he or she should not.
It was the policy of government under the Public Service Staff
Relations Act that was wrong in the first place. We should be
able to stick to that very basic principle which we hear often,
that of equal pay for equal work. Not only should that happen in
the public service but it should happen in the private sector. It is
very important, as I examine this matter.
I refer to a comment by R. H. Simmonds who was the
commissioner of the RCMP in 1977. He was at that time putting
together a rationale for not paying the bilingual bonus. He came
to the conclusion that the payment of the bonus was seen as a
divisive element in a cohesive organization, as situations would
be created whereby members of equal rank and responsibility,
working side by side, could receive differing remunerations
because of different advantages toward learning a second
language, perhaps even at public expense. That was a major
concern and on that basis there was a resistance to paying the
bilingual bonus.
(1150)
That principle is very important to the RCMP, which as an
organization and as individuals, whether male or female, must
be very objective and fair in how the law is applied in a variety
of situations. In no way can there be discrimination that is based
on either linguistic, racial, religious or any other characteristic
of the RCMP officer when the law is applied.
In certain circumstances there may be a need for a limited
number of bilingual positions. We need bilingual members of
the force. Those people already receive certain rewards.
However, it should not be the reward of a special pay bonus.
They receive a reward because they can take advantage of
certain promotions within the public service. They can receive
assignments which require special skills in providing service to
the public in law enforcement.
When looking at this matter of an extra bonus because one has
special skills in a language, I can think of a variety of analogies
which are appropriate. For example, if a person comes to the
RCMP with a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Science degree,
should a clause in the bill say that person should receive an extra
bonus to perform a duty? Should they receive a bonus? I do not
think so.
I look at another analogy of Elizabeth Manley, for example, a
professional figure skater, who if she became an RCMP officer
would bring that special skill, a very special skill that we in
Canada certainly admire and respect. Should there be an extra
bonus because this person is physically fit, able to do the job and
may be a little bit more nimble in applying the law in a variety of
circumstances? I do not think so.
The Globe and Mail this morning made a statement with
regard to the abilities of males versus females. It stated that
studies show that females have better verbal skills to bring to the
job market. Does that mean we should pay an extra bonus?
Should we really do that or not? Do those skills assist the person
to get a job or to compete in the marketplace? Yes, I think it
does. Does it mean that females should get paid more than males
under those circumstances? I do not think so.
We have to look at the responsibilities of that job. We hire
based on qualifications to meet the requirements of the job. We
maintain the basic principle that there is equal pay for equal
work in whatever job confronts the individual whether male or
female. That is the only logical way we can look at a
circumstance such as this.
The second consequence of the bill is the matter of more
autonomy for the RCMP. It takes members of the RCMP and
places them under the RCMP act. That is the way it should be.
They should have more autonomy and more control with regard
to their members and employment. As Reform policy we state
very clearly in our manual that the Reform Party supports the
traditional role of the RCMP as a police force, representative of
and responsive to the population it serves in Canada's regions. It
means it has to have its own autonomy and its own ability to
apply the law equally to all citizens in the country, without some
RCMP officers having special pay with regard to applying those
services whatever they may be.
(1155)
I believe that bringing the other members of the RCMP under
the RCMP act will make it possible for them to be more
responsible to the public rather than being responsible to the
broad federal bureaucracy under the Public Service Staff
Relations Act. It is important that this law enforcement
organization maintain its independence.
I conclude my remarks by saying it is good that the RCMP
have the opportunity to opt out of the bilingual bonus program. I
certainly would urge them to do so when we finalize this
7908
legislation. Second, greater autonomy for that organization is
good and it is most important.
If I had to say anything negative with regard to the
government's bill and its presentation here, I would say that it
has not gone quite far enough. If we examine the bill we will see
that something is missing. The civilian personnel working for
the RCMP, as I understand it, can still claim the bilingual bonus.
The bilingual bonus should be eliminated across the board and
we should deal with the whole public service in the same way.
We should have a complete change rather than this somewhat
piecemeal change, even though it is good as presented.
The government is playing a bit of catch-up. I know some of
these policies and legislative changes are brought in by
governments under different circumstances. We have to
recognize that circumstances have changed, not only fiscally but
in the attitudes of Canadians. They are saying: ``We are all
Canadians no matter where we live. We should have equal
opportunity, not only in the job place but equal opportunity in
terms of cultural and other social aspirations''.
This law as it was put in place some time ago created
inequality not equality. I believe it is good that we are trying to
tackle that problem.
I certainly support my colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan
who said we should tackle this problem in a very comprehensive
way. As Reformers we are certainly united on that front.
We support this bill. We feel it is a small step in the right
direction. We certainly urge the government to continue this
pursuit and make sure that equality is brought to the public
service.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
introduced Bill C-58 this morning by telling us that, for all
intents and purposes, these were mere technical provisions, that
they were of little consequence, and that they only aimed at
bringing back the status quo which prevailed before the Gingras
decision. As everyone now knows, the Court of Appeal ruled
that some RCMP employees were part of the public service and
not excluded from it.
We wonder if this issue is so simple. Indeed, if it is so
ordinary, why is the government acting in this fashion?
(1200)
It does not seem to be a matter of avoiding additional costs,
since the court decision has already been implemented and the
bilingualism bonus paid to those RCMP members who are
entitled to it. Consequently, it does not look as though this bill
will help the government make significant savings in the
immediate future.
We wonder why the government wants to act so quickly in this
particular case, considering that it still has not done anything in
other cases involving a lot more money, such as the now famous
Gulf Oil case. In 1974, the government legislated to allow
certain tax deductions for oil companies, thereby reducing their
tax burden.
Oil companies took advantage of those provisions to the point
that after a while the government must have concluded that
some were going too far. However, the government merely
watched: It did not take any action. Yet, there is a lot of money
involved. Since 1974, these companies have avoided-and I am
not saying they acted illegally, because the law entitles them to
do so-the payment of $1.2 billion in taxes. In fact, every day
the government loses $260,000 because of those tax provisions.
In this case, however, 20 years later, the government has still not
seen fit to change the law, even if it seems to do the exact
opposite of what the government intended to achieve, which was
to allow companies to increase their research and development
activities in the natural resources area.
There are billions of dollars at stake. For 20 years now, we
have been studying the legislation and wondering if we should
act now, or wait a little longer to see if the law has any impact on
other companies. If a bill had been passed right away and if we
had said after a few years: ``Since the law does not seem to say
what we meant to say, we will correct it and change it right
now'', we would have saved billions of tax dollars.
So, here we are 20 years later and nothing has been done yet.
However, the government is in a hurry to pass Bill C-58. The
ruling of the Court of Appeal only dates back to March 1994, but
already the members of the RCMP who were hopeful to see their
situation be legitimized realize that the government had decided
to act right away and to say: ``Since the court's ruling is at
variance with our intent, we will act now and pass an act to
clarify the situation and make the act say what we want it to say,
which is to stipulate that employees of the RCMP are not part of
the public service''.
There are some 15,500 regular members and special
constables, and, as was said earlier, 2,000 civilian employees in
the RCMP. There are also about 3,400 civil servants, currently
the only ones who have the right to join a union. Of course, this
bill in itself represents a step in the right direction, since it
allows civilian employees of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police to unionize, which they could not do before.
So, we should commend this part of the bill, thanks to which
2,000 and more employees will be able to exercise their
democratic rights.
(1205)
That is a nice gesture on the part of the government, but it
does not go far enough, since it still deprives the vast majority of
RCMP employees, and I am referring to regular members and
special constables, of the right to enjoy the same privilege,
which is the right to organize, to form a union, a right that has
been recognized by all other groups in society, all other occupa-
7909
tions and professions, and even by other police forces across
Canada. Other police forces have this basic, democratic right
which respects the right of individuals to organize freely and to
be able to negotiate the terms and conditions of their
employment. In Bill C-58, RCMP officers are denied that right.
Why should these people not enjoy the same advantages as
their colleagues in the provincial police forces or the rest of
society? What is the government's real agenda? Does the
government expect to control this police force more readily by
removing it from the supervision of Treasury Board, thus
turning it into an agency that is not an agency defined by law as
another activity sector, that is not covered by a specific
department and, in fact, seems to come under the sole
supervision of the commissioner, who has a lot of power. Bill
C-58 more or less confirms, although it does not say so
explicitly, that the big boss, the big decision-maker, is the
Commissioner of the RCMP. Occasionally, he gets some help
from an outside committee, but mostly he accepts the
committee's recommendations to protect his image, while he
ultimately has the right to reject those recommendations.
What we want is transparency in the way the government is
run, which should include the way police forces are run as well.
To exclude them from the public service boils down to treating
them like members of the military, who for security reasons, are
excluded from this kind of control and have their own justice
system and their own courts. However, we do not think it is
appropriate to run a police force along those lines.
Would the government want to exempt these 15,000 RCMP
members from the policy on bilingualism in the future? We
wonder. We can feel that government has the support of another
opposition party in this matter. That party has been very clear:
the government's approach is not the proper one in this case.
Bilingualism should mean two languages in Quebec and only
one language in the rest of Canada. That is bilingualism
according to the Reform Party. Is the government prepared to
adopt that Reform Party policy on bilingualism for Canada?
Does the government intend to cut the bonus for RCMP
members? We wonder.
What are the intentions of the government in terms of
employment equity? Since the courts have ruled that, by virtue
of the present legislation, the RCMP should come under the
jurisdiction of the Treasury Board, why would the government
not accept that RCMP members be treated according to the same
standards as those applied to all other civil servants, that is the
standards laid down by the Treasury Board?
(1210)
Why not take this opportunity to give RCMP members the
same privileges as those granted all other employees of the
public service?
The Public Service Commission is responsible for personnel
management in several other departments. As part of the
monitoring process, it must make sure that everybody abides by
standards and regulations. In the case of the RCMP, the Treasury
Board, not the Public Service Commission, had that
responsibility. The Treasury Board authorities would ensure a
better control of the RCMP.
But Bill C-58 would take that responsibility away from the
Treasury Board. Is this another way for the RCMP to avoid
having its activities scrutinized by a public body whose role is to
ensure transparency and answer taxpayers' questions? What is
so secret that Treasury Board should not have authority over the
RCMP?
Is there a hidden agenda? Is the government planning again to
have the RCMP carry out duties in a covert way, protecting it
from inquisitive taxpayers wanting to know why the RCMP is
behaving this way or that? Does the government have ulterior
motives?
It is hard to say, but it seems rather strange for the government
to take advantage of an Appeal Court decision not only to give
back to the RCMP Commissioner the same powers he had
before, but also, in reality, to reinforce the authority he has now
since, to all intents and purposes, he does not seem to be
accountable to anybody in particular in the government.
We cannot condone this policy because this bill lacks
transparency and does not go far enough. Why is it that
something good for 5,000 RCMP employees should not be good
also for the remaining 15,000? As the saying goes, what is sauce
for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Why would what is supposed to be good for support and
administrative staff and all other RCMP employees not be good
for special constables and regular members of the RCMP? Why
should they not benefit from it also?
We will vote against this bill at second reading, and we hope
that the government will do an about-turn and abide by its civil
service renewal policy, which was supposed to give more
decision-making powers to lower levels of government, and not
to exclude certain agencies from the decision-making process.
If this is the kind of civil service renewal the government had
in mind, we misunderstood its intentions and we must denounce
them here and now. Letting authority move from top to bottom,
means allowing the decisions to be taken as close as possible to
the place where the problems occur.
This is not what the government is doing with Bill C-58. What
the government is doing is exclude the RCMP from the
jurisdiction of Treasury Board. By making the RCMP come
under a single person it enables it to act on the sly, without any
openness and in a way unacceptable to taxpayers.
7910
Once again, we think that the government should backtrack
and respect the spirit of the program of public service renewal,
the so-called Public Service 2000, that it does not seem to hold
in high regard and has not really considered up to now. We have
a feeling that it has been relegated to the highest shelf and that
the government is in no hurry to follow-up on its electoral
promises in this regard.
(1215)
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your attention. I am ready to
answer questions if there are any.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments. Normally, I
would give the floor to a member from another party, but since
no member for another party wishes to speak, I recognize the
hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate my Bloc colleague
from the riding of Joliette because I think he grasped the full
significance of this bill. Since he is the critic on public service
renewal, there should be at least one person in this House who
defends the public servants working for the system. RCMP
members are directly affected by what is done or not done in this
House.
I must tell you at the outset that although we seem to defend
the RCMP, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, would have good reasons
not to oppose a bill which paints the RCMP into a corner and
puts them in a separate class. You have certainly heard members
of this House talk about incidents involving the RCMP back in
the 1970s. As you know, sovereignists and independentists are
not great friends of the system, of the RCMP, but I think that as
the Official Opposition we must denounce such bills. This is
what I am doing today by denouncing Bill C-58.
Our first reaction after looking at a bill like this is to see it as a
harmless piece of legislation. There are not many sections. It
does not seem very consequential at the jurisdictional level.
Nevertheless, I think we should ask ourselves why Bill C-58,
now, in November, singles out RCMP members by putting them
in a separate class. Because C-58 does put RCMP members in a
separate class.
Looking at the bill, we realize that it touches on staff relations
and wonder why the Federal Court of Appeal made a certain
ruling under the law as it stood when the court addressed the
issue. It handed down a very fair, very well-researched ruling,
so that the Liberal federal government-I will come back to this
a little later-does not want to appeal it.
Why C-58? As my colleague said earlier, I think that the
Gingras case spurred the Liberal government into introducing
legislation in this area. For the benefit of those who are not
familiar with the Gingras case, a brief review of this case may be
useful, for the sake of understanding the general dynamics of
Bill C-58.
You all know that the federal government instituted a
bilingualism bonus plan in the seventies, on the 15 of November
to be exact. Yesterday was the anniversary, not only of the first
term of office of the Parti Quebecois, but also of the creation of
the bilingual bonus. This plan was for employees hired by
Treasury Board, that is to say the government of Canada, who
held a bilingual position, a position recognized as such, which
required the use of both official languages. The bonus was $800
a year.
The purpose of this bonus, and I do not wish to discuss the
purpose of the bonus again, was to promote bilingualism. It was
designed as an incentive for public servants to learn the other
official language to serve the people of Canada, and the people
of Quebec in particular.
(1220)
Well, Mr. Gingras had been a member of the RCMP since
1962. In fact, he worked for the RCMP until 1984. But between
1976, when the bilingualism bonus plan was put in place, and
1984, when Mr. Gingras retired from the RCMP, despite the fact
his position was designated as bilingual, he never received the
$800 bilingual bonus, while all other public service employees
working on the Hill or elsewhere did.
Naturally, pursuant to the RCMP regulations, Mr. Gingras
asked his superiors to look into the matter and, unsatisfied with
their decision, brought the whole matter before the Federal
Court. The case even went to the Federal Court of Appeal, which
ruled very clearly on March 10, 1994 that Mr. Gingras and all
members of the RCMP were entitled to this bonus.
Although I do not want to read much of the ruling of the
Federal Court of Appeal, we see that the reason for this ruling is
that all members of the RCMP are public servants who must
comply with the rules adopted by Treasury Board and are
entitled to the bilingual bonus if they occupy a position
recognized as bilingual and requiring bilingualism.
Given such a ruling, we must conclude that Bill C-58 seeks to
overturn the Federal Court of Appeal's decision-it is as simple
as that.
I come back to the question I raised at the beginning. Is this a
harmless bill? I think not. I think that it is a dangerous, sneaky
bill for a society that claims to recognize the rights of equality
and association. I repeat those two terms.
Why did I say that it is a sneaky bill? Because after this ruling
was rendered in March 1994, the government, through its
minister, said that it was reviewing the matter to see whether it
could appeal. It wanted to analyze the consequences of this
judgement. However, in May 1994, the government announced
7911
that it did not intend to appeal the Supreme Court's decision and
therefore it would pay the bonus to members of the RCMP,
including the bonuses for part of the years when the government
illegally refused to pay the members of the RCMP.
It is true that the Liberal government did not appeal this
decision. However, what the government does not do openly by
appealing this ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada, it does
indirectly to arrive more or less at the same result. By asking the
House to pass Bill C-58, the government is using a sneaky
approach. It led us to believe that it was going to live with the
ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal, but then it turned around
and drafted Bill C-58, which is now before us.
This is sneaky because even those directly concerned by this
legislation, namely RCMP members, did not know about it until
the Official Opposition approached them to find out what they
thought of Bill C-58. These people were not even aware of that
legislation. You cannot help but wonder about the internal
consultation process. This is why I find it sneaky. This is not a
bill about which all concerned were clearly informed. It was
drafted, and the government is now trying to have the House
pass it rather quickly. I doubt many Liberal members will
discuss it. The government is trying to proceed quickly. Yet, this
legislation will have very significant consequences.
I also think this is a dangerous bill for a society which claims
to be respectful of union membership and equality rights.
(1225)
By introducing a bill which has the effect of overruling a
Federal Court of Appeal decision, the government does not
necessarily solve an issue related to bilingualism: It is trying to
do a lot more than that. And this is what can be very dangerous
for RCMP members. Let us not forget that the ruling of the
Federal Court of Appeal has an impact on many other very
important issues. For example, the court was unanimous in
saying that RCMP members are Treasury Board employees and
must be considered as such. Consequently, it court ruled that the
RCMP and its peace officers should be subjected to all other
Treasury Board rules. These rules govern such things as
employment equity, enforcement of the Official Languages Act
and the rules concerning labour conditions, with of course one
exception relating to the right to unionize.
Once the Federal Court of Appeal made its ruling, we heard
that the mandarins at the RCMP were concerned about the legal
implications of this ruling. Which brings me to another
question: Who is affected by this ruling? Why does it bother
people so much, why does it bother the mandarins of the RCMP
who seem to call all the shots within their agency?
According to inquiries made yesterday, the Gingras case
affects some 17,500 members of the RCMP. Of these 17,500
members, about 15,500 are regular members and special
constables and about 2,000 are civilian employees. These were
the people working for the RCMP who were affected by the
Gingras ruling. To these figures you can add about 3,500
employees of the public service, who are not however affected
by Bill C-58 or the Gingras case, because they are already
considered to be public servants.
We are forced to realize that an injustice was done and we
have to understand the rationale behind the ruling of the Federal
Court of Appeal, because we had a situation where people
working at the same place, for the same employer, were subject
to different labour conditions, where the rules were not the same
for everyone, and that did not make sense. This is why the ruling
of the Federal Court of Appeal set things straight. However,
unhappy with this decision, the government now introduces Bill
C-58 which negates the ruling of the Federal Court.
As I said earlier, and as my colleagues already said, the first
objective of Bill C-58 is to exclude RCMP employees from the
Public Service, employees who, at the present time, come under
the control of Treasury Board like the rest of the Public Service.
If this bill passes under its present form, the RCMP will be
covered by legislation governing public service only if it is
specifically mentioned in such legislation.
The basic rule under the bill is that Treasury Board policies no
longer apply. They applied ever since the court decision. Under
Bill C-58 these policies will no longer apply, unless RCMP
management decides they do. Therefore, we give mandarins,
who worried about the consequences of the Federal Court of
Appeal decision, the option to follow or not the rules set out by
Treasury Board.
I am no longer as naive as I was on election day, and I know
full well that they are not ever going to accept those rules since
they were the ones who pushed for Bill C-58. So, even from that
point of view this is a sneaky piece of legislation.
If I were a member of the RCMP, I would be furious. I do not
know what they are going to do, but if I were in their place I
would try to make it known that I am unhappy. I am going to give
you some examples. In the area of employment equity: In
December 1992, the Financial Administration Act gave the
Public Service Employment Equity Program, launched by
Treasury Board in the mid-1980s, its real legal basis.
(1230)
All departments and agencies, including Treasury Board and
the employer, that is the public service, are subject to the
Employment Equity Act, because they are part of the public
service. Until quite recently, the RCMP commissioner had
decided that the RCMP was not subject to Treasury Board
7912
policies, although the RCMP is listed in Part I of Schedule I of
the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
It should, however, be mentioned that the RCMP's status is
not quite the same as the rest of the public service, which
allowed the commissioner to claim that the bilingual bonus
policy did not apply. The Federal Court of Appeal decision did
not back him up. In the Gingras decision handed down on March
10, 1994, the court ruled unanimously that the RCMP would in
future be considered part of the public service. Since then, the
RCMP has been obliged to apply Treasury Board policies to all
17,500 of its members affected by the decision.
Bill C-58 is an attempt to put an end to this process of equity.
After all, the approximately 3,500 RCMP employees in the third
category I referred to earlier were recruited by the Public
Service Commission and have therefore always been fully
subject to the Treasury Board policies on equity and
bilingualism.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-58, members of the
RCMP who are police officers or special constables are being
treated as a separate class within the RCMP itself. They are
being put in a class quite distinct from secretaries, clerks,
caretakers and so on.
And it is the same with the official languages policy. The
decision to implement this policy in the RCMP as an
organization will rest with the big boss himself, the RCMP
commissioner. It is extremely dangerous to leave this power in
the hands of one person alone.
As for the labour relations and unionization aspects, I think
that my hon. colleague from Joliette has covered them well.
Since I am rising immediately after him, there is no need for me
to argue the unionization issue all over again, except to say that
Bill C-58 confirms in no uncertain terms that RCMP employees
who may, at one time or another, have contemplated forming a
brotherhood or a union can forget it for good.
If there was room for interpretation before, it is all very clear
now. As you probably know, Mr. Speaker, applications were
made by RCMP employees wishing to unionize. Actually, some
are still pending, but Bill C-58 clearly puts an end to any
attempt to unionize. Bill C-58, if passed, will make it
impossible.
To sum up, seeing that I have one minute or so remaining, the
most dangerous thing about Bill C-58 is the tendency to put
almost everything in the hands of the commissioner of the
RCMP. Mr. Speaker, I think that you for one would understand
the situation, because you are sensitive to these issues. If we
look at what is happening with the Communications Security
Establishment and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service,
which are truly considered as separate employers by the
government in Ottawa, the same thing will happen, indirectly, to
the RCMP people, but that is not spelled out clearly, as it was in
the other two cases.
Indirectly, the commissioner of the RCMP will have the final
say on certain aspects of the application of RCMP regulations.
That is what is extremely dangerous in a country that claims to
be democratic and open to the right to organize, to official
languages and so on.
This is a bill that centralizes many jurisdictions under a single
person, and that is very harmful. You will understand that, for all
the aforementioned reasons, like all my colleagues from the
Bloc Quebecois, I will vote against Bill C-58.
(1235)
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a),
the chief whip of the official opposition has asked me to defer
the division until a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the vote on
the motion stands deferred until 5.30 p.m. on Monday, when the
bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think
you would find unanimous consent to further defer the division
from Monday at 5.30 p.m. to Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the
House to accept the proposition?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the
motion.
7913
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the
following motion of the Minister of Human Resources
Development:
That this House take note of the progress made to date on the government's
forthcoming reform of social security programs and of the views expressed by
Canadians with regard to this reform.
I believe the discussion paper on improving social security in
Canada, tabled by the minister some weeks ago in the House, is a
very welcome and courageous document. As with all initiatives
that involve courage there is the potential for controversy and
for misrepresentation. Certainly we have seen a fair amount of
both since the issuance of the discussion paper.
I am not surprised by that. Indeed I would be disappointed if
there were not such controversy and I would certainly be
surprised if there were not some misrepresentation. It is the
nature of our system of government that for every point of view
there is a counter point of view. It is the nature of the way things
get done in the Chamber that very often people who choose to
take an opposing point of view are not hampered by the facts in
some cases. They tend to do a bit of fearmongering and create a
whole lot of what if scenarios: Does the government mean to do
this or does it mean to do that?
(1240)
I am not surprised by the misrepresentation and indeed I
welcome the controversy. The minister and the government have
wanted a full scale discussion on this issue and that presumes a
discussion of the facts in play.
What I like about the discussion paper is that it raises a series
of questions. Do we want this? Do we want that? They are
questions. The standing committee is now travelling around the
country to canvass the views of Canadians and to invite
Canadians who cannot appear before the committee by reason of
distance, time or whatever to send their views. I repeat the
invitation to send their views to the committee and to their
respective members of Parliament but particularly to the
committee. As sure as night follows day there will be changes in
the social security package as we know it in Canada. There has
to be changes.
One of the reasons there has to be changes is that the present
system was put in place so long ago that in the intervening time
there have been new demands and new realities. Another reason
change is needed is that no matter how tightly the rules are
written there is always potential for abuse. I could indicate, as
could many members of Parliament, many specific examples of
where a particular package within the social security network
has been abused.
That must never be an argument for throwing out the baby
with the bath water. Unemployment insurance is a good system.
It has served us well. Have there been abuses? My friend from
Elk Island is probably in the category to which I just made
reference. He would probably be leading the charge. He would
be the pied piper of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Judging by his reaction in the House at this moment, he would be
the kind of person who would want to get rid of the whole
system. I am not one of those. That is where he and I differ.
There have been abuses in the UI system; I can document
many hundreds of them. The abuses need to be corrected but the
basic premise remains. The basic premise is that there are
people who need to be assisted financially from one work
opportunity to the next one. That is the basic premise of the UI
system and we cannot lose sight of that. Nor can we lose sight of
the abuses. That is one of the reasons this discussion paper is
before us right now.
I could refer to other programs. There are abuses of any
program embraced by the social security net, but for each of
those programs there is a basic premise. For example, are there
people who need an old age supplement? Yes, there are and I can
give a list of many tens of thousands of them who need it.
With reference to what my friend from Gander-Grand Falls
was saying a few days ago, was it ever intended that the old age
security program should help people who already net several
million dollars a year to get some more millions, some more
dollars? No. Was it ever intended that 2,340 millionaires in this
country should be able to draw unemployment insurance and
benefit therefrom in tax terms? No, but that is happening. Now
what is the solution?
(1245)
There are two possible solutions, I suppose, theoretically.
There is a sure way of guaranteeing that not one of these 2,340
people draw UI ever again. Wipe out the system. Wipe the
system out completely and you will have guaranteed that none of
them ever draw it because it will not be there to draw on. But
what will you have done in the meantime? You will have ignored
the basic premise of the program, the basic reason for the
program in the first place: To help those who genuinely have
financial need to get from one work opportunity to the next work
opportunity.
With respect to unemployment insurance, old age security,
medicare, university tuition, transfer payments, let us not lose
sight of what their basic raison d'être was in the first place, the
basic reason for putting them in place.
There is going to be and there is already a very wide debate.
We saw an aspect of it yesterday here in front of the Parliament
Buildings when many thousands of university students came to
the Hill. I for one was glad to see them there. It is part of the
debate that must go on. It must be an informed debate. I hear and
I read in the papers a lot of information, a lot of misinformation,
a lot of fear mongering. No matter what you attempt to do as a
7914
public policy maker or as government, the NIMBY factor
immediately comes into play. NIMBY, not in my back yard.
Any Canadian, any taxpayer anywhere in the world will
respond to the following set of questions in the following way:
Do you want to improve roads? Yes. Do you want to pay for
them? No. It is the nature of how politics is done in democracies
around the world. Do you want change? Yes. Do you want it to
cost you? No. NIMBY. Do it by all means, politicians, please do
it, but do not do it in my backyard. Do not affect me adversely.
Well budgeting in government is like a zero sum. Again, as
soon as you spend it somewhere you have to take it from
somewhere else.
So I say to university students, I say to unemployment
insurance recipients, I say to old age pensioners, I say to
recipients of medicare, I say to all of them out there including
those of them who are my constituents: If you want change you
are going to have to accept a basic fact of life. Change will mean
improvements in some areas from your perspective but a less
adequate measure in other areas from your perspective.
Everybody sees it from his or her own perspective.
If you want the status quo, we can just tear up this little green
book and we can allow the abuses to go on, allow the
millionaires to continue receiving their unemployment
insurance. We can allow that to go on, but that would be
unthinkable. Therefore we have taken the other route as a
government of which I am a supporter of saying that changes are
needed but before we trigger those changes let us see what kind
of changes you have in mind.
That is why we are having quite a far reaching consultation
with the Canadian people. I have been encouraged by the kinds
of letters I get, the kinds of spontaneous dialogue I encounter in
airports and elsewhere around this country. I have been quite
encouraged. But do not for a moment make the assumption that
the vested interests are going to allow that dialogue to continue
unfettered. There are vested interests.
(1250)
If for example the government contemplates a change in a
funding formula for various organizations around this country,
the paid staff in that organization immediately says: ``What does
this mean for my job? If the subsidy from government is less or
wiped out altogether, what does it mean for my job?''
Understand that we are talking about a discussion paper.
Nobody has said that we are going to do this, this and this. The
government through the Minister of Human Resources
Development has said: ``Here are some questions about what
could be done. Canadians, what do you think?''
Let us go back to the organization I was talking about. The guy
or the girl sitting behind a desk in a job that is funded by a
government subsidy says: ``Is it not possible that if they change
the system there might be less money flowing to this
organization? Therefore, my welfare, my livelihood, my pay,
my job might be at stake''. It does not take a nuclear scientist to
figure out that the next thought that person may well have is:
``How can I stop that from happening? I could mobilize a great
rally. I could mobilize some letter writing''.
Why has he or she done it in that example? Is it because he or
she does not think there is a need for change? No. It has been
done for the NIMBY reason: Not in my backyard; do not
adversely affect me; however good your intentions, however
good this program will serve the country, do not do it because it
might affect my pocketbook.
Is there controversy? Oh yes, there is lots of controversy. Will
there be more? Yes, I certainly hope there will be a lot more.
Because at the end of the day when the smoke has cleared,
everyone will see that this government will bring in a social
security reform package which reflects the concerns of
Canadians from coast to coast. Will everybody be happy? I
doubt that very much. However I sincerely believe that most of
them will be happy if they honestly engage in the process along
the way, if they ignore the fear mongers, read the document
themselves and respond to the document themselves.
I have some concerns about the process. I hope this does not
fall into the category of the fear mongering I have just
castigated. I subscribe to the view that what is in this document
is basically a series of questions. However you would need to be
deaf, dumb, blind and everything else not to realize there are
some implied policy directions in this document.
One relates to the issue of university tuition. The government
has not said it is going to do it, but it certainly has wondered out
loud as to whether that is the route to go. Whether it goes that
route or not depends on what Canadians say about the issue in
the next few weeks.
The government has wondered out loud about seasonal
workers versus workers who only have occasion to tap into
unemployment insurance benefits spasmodically and
infrequently. I have a very decided view on that issue.
(1255)
Let us take an example of two brothers or sisters who are
doing the same job. They are both carpenters driving nails and
building the same office building in Toronto or St. John's. They
both work for 18 or 19 weeks and both get laid off. Then UI says
to one: ``You came straight to this job from another job out in
Cold Lake, Alberta where you worked for six years. You have no
record of being unemployed over the last six or eight years so
you are going to get a certain rate of remuneration or benefit
while you are looking for work''. However UI says to the other
brother: ``Before your 18 weeks, you were out of work for two
7915
or three months. It was through no fault of your own mind you. It
was not because you are lazy because you are not, but because
you could not find work. However we are going to pay you a
lesser rate''.
Forget Liberalism, forget Reformism, forget Blocism. Let us
talk another theology called fairness. Let us talk about basic
fairness and another theology called basic common sense. The
two brothers having worked the same amount of time driving the
same kind of nails and getting the same rate of pay receive
different UI payments. Who can buy the more groceries? That is
the issue.
Remember that UI was put in place in the first instance to help
tide a person over from one work opportunity to the next work
opportunity. If in the process we say to a person who through no
fault of his own has had fewer work opportunities that we are
going to give him less money to buy the groceries to get him to
the next work opportunity, that comes down to not a matter of
political ideology, but to a basic matter of fairness. It is blatantly
unfair to contemplate that approach. That is the kind of feedback
I am getting and I expect others are getting too.
If it is a matter of deficit reduction, if it is a matter of having
the UI fund live within its means, there is another way to fix that.
The way to do it is not through unfairness. Instead of paying that
fellow that rate and that other person another rate let us just
equalize it. We may have to pay one fellow a bit less and the
other fellow a bit more. It is not a matter of dollars here. We are
not talking overall costs. We are talking another issue. We are
talking about whether we believe as parliamentarians in a
system that is fair. I can tell this House that I do and I will
oppose any suggestion that would treat Canadians unfairly.
I have just given one quick example of where my eyes are
open in case the need arises to have them open on that issue. Lest
some colleagues who just joined us got bogged down in my
examples, let me remind all concerned, including the people
outside the House who may be watching, that the Minister of
Human Resources Development put down a motion that the
House take note of the progress made to date on the
government's forthcoming reform of social security programs
and take note of the views expressed by Canadians.
I spent most of my time on the latter issue. I believe the
success of this process or its failure will be determined largely
by the degree to which we give Canadians an opportunity to say
what they think of the proposals, say what their answers are to
the questions and the degree to which we listen to that feedback.
(1300 )
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy
interventions by the member for Burin-St. George's. Actually,
without any disrespect to him, he did remind me of a friend I
have who used to talk endlessly and used many words. When I
challenged him on it one time he said: ``I am a mathematician. I
just use statistics. By the law of averages if I speak long enough
and fast enough sooner or later I will say something important''.
Without putting the member down, there were many words but
not terribly many solid ideas in his speech.
One place I was invoked to make a little comment was when
he was speaking about unemployment insurance. I have said
unemployment insurance is exactly what its name implies. It
ensures that we have unemployment, and so it has been. I could
give many examples but that is not my purpose right now.
The fundamental difference between the Liberal philosophy
on social programs and the Reform philosophy, which is more a
philosophy of self-determination or looking after oneself, is
that the Liberals make the assumption that unless the
government does it, it will not be done. This is particularly true
in the area of unemployment insurance and in many of our other
social security programs. They somehow feel the government
has to be doing it. We believe it is a function of the people, the
taxpayers.
I made an observation while the hon. member was speaking. I
have the advantage of being old enough to remember enough
years and see changes over time. A way back we were very well
off. I remember we had lots of jobs. Unemployment was very
low. There were very few needy people in real need. Their needs
were all met. Yet we did not have these government programs.
Now with all the government programs and the huge rate of
taxation we find a dampening of the economy. The government
sucks everything out of us. We know that marginal tax rates are
50 per cent or more. There is very little money left for the people
to look after themselves and to help their neighbours.
I make a connection. I say that increased government
involvement in these things has added significantly to our lack
of efficiency, the downturn in the economy and the resulting
hard times many of us face.
I would like to hear the member's response to my statement
that we differ in philosophy. Would he perhaps consider
admitting at least partially that the government is also part of the
problem as opposed to thinking that it has not done enough to
find a solution?
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Elk Island is one
of the courageous people I was talking about earlier. Let me
show his last effort at courage. Having said I said nothing in 20
minutes, he now has the courage to dare to ask if I can say
7916
something substantive in 30 seconds. I am glad he was not trying
to put me down. I am sensitive these days but I take his
assurance at his word.
He tried to indicate the difference between Reformers and
Liberals. I will put it more graphically for him. We do not think
we should let poor people die because they are poor.
Mr. Epp: Neither do we.
Mr. Simmons: You could have fooled me.
There is a need for those programs. Despite the fact that by the
member's own admission he may be old, decrepit and so on, he
misinforms the House. He can remember when there were
programs. When was he born? Of course there was UI in his
youth; of course there was social security. He should not mislead
the House. These programs were not brought in by this
administration or the previous one. These programs have been
there for decades upon decades. The unemployment program
goes back nearly half a century.
(1305)
Mr. Epp: More than that.
Mr. Simmons: Slightly more. In reaching to make a point I
say to him-he is my senior so I should not be trying to coach
him in public like this-that he does not need to reach for
falsehoods to prove his thesis. For him to stand in the House and
say these programs have lately arrived is a falsehood; it is just
not true. These programs were there when he was a baby.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Burin-St.
George's described another member of the House as being old
and decrepit. I may have missed it, but was he quoting the
member who had just spoken in using those words? If he was not
quoting, I hope the member did not wish to describe any member
in the House as being old and decrepit.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I was taking some poetic licence
just to make a point in referring to one of the more virile and
youthful members of the Chamber.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the reference to my
age, mature and wise would be better than old and decrepit. In
response to what the member has just said, surely I am not so old
that I lived before these programs were in place. I guess they did
come into place about the time I was in my youth. Certainly they
were not nearly as invasive and pervasive as they are now. That
is the difference.
We used to have a very modest program for unemployment
insurance and everybody was employed. Now we have a
pervasive program of unemployment insurance and we have a 12
per cent or 10 per cent rate of unemployment.
That is what I was talking about. There has been such an
increase in government programs and such an increase in
taxation as a result that the economic balance has been seriously
tilted.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I have two points in response.
First, I agree with my friend from Elk Island that government is
much too pervasive. It is and I agree completely. The second
point which I piggyback on the first one is that too often in the
House we fall into the trap we are in again today. He felt obliged
to rise and say ``the member has said nothing; he talked ad
nauseam'' and so on. With respect, I said several things I think
the member on reflection would agree are substantive.
I talked about the basic premise for UI and the basic premise
for OAS. He may not agree with these premises, but he cannot
say they are all verbiage. They are statements. Whether he
agrees with them or not is another issue. He falls into the trap,
and I did to a degree in response, of always being obliged to
knock what the other guy said.
I tried to give as considerate a statement as I could during my
20 minutes in which I said where I am coming from on the issue
of social reform. I measured beforehand its success or failure in
terms of to what degree the government listens and how much
the government canvasses opinion.
What I have said in short, and probably could have said more
briefly, is that the jury is out on this one. I am not up here saying
this is the best thing since sliced bread because I cannot see it
yet. I do not know what it is. We should not fall into the trap of
just knocking the other guy because he sits on the other side of
the House. I happen to agree with the member for Elk Island that
the government is too pervasive. One of the goals of the reform
package ought to be to get government out of some people's hair.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for
Burin-St. George's. It is always interesting listening to him
speak.
He mentioned the UI program. I would agree there have to be
some changes for the UI program to continue. Of course the
Reform Party has been talking about making the program
actuarially sound. I would like his comments on that.
The member also raised an example of a UI situation. I would
also like to bring to the attention of the House a situation in my
own riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt which
happened recently. We had a terrible forest fire in the Penticton
region that devastated the area for quite some time over the
holidays, our peak tourism season. God bless the people who
came out to fight the forest fire. They were there to ensure the
fire did not spread much farther than it did. We lost in the
neighbourhood of a dozen homes; it could have been a lot worse.
7917
(1310)
Recently a company that does a controlled burn each year on a
contract basis in the Merritt region went to the unemployment
insurance people and said it needed some people to help with the
controlled burn. Strangely enough the same people who fought
the forest fire in Penticton were the people that year after year
participated in the controlled burn. This year he could not get
those people to come out. The UIC said that these people had
been asked and they said: ``No, we have had it with fires and
working in the forests. We can do much better if we stay on UI
for this period of time''. This is an excellent example of abuse in
the system.
What would the member do? What would be his suggestion to
alleviate this situation?
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, on his question about whether I
believe it ought to be actuarially sound, the answer is yes. I gave
that answer in other words during my speech. I think I used the
phrase that the fund ought to live within its means. I believe that.
On his example, I can give him several like it. It is another
example of how the UI scheme has been a disincentive to work.
I remember when I was a school superintendent in
Newfoundland that I used to have people coming into my office
on a number of occasions and saying: ``You are the
superintendent''. ``Yes''. ``How do you spell that?'' ``Yeah''.
``Have you got a job for me here?'' ``No''. ``You are also the
president of the Green Bay Economic Development
Association?'' ``Yeah''. ``How do you spell that?'' ``Yeah''.
``You have got another job up there, have you?'' ``No, no''.
``Now you are also involved with that park up on the highway''.
``Yeah''. ``How do you spell that?'' ``Yeah''. They had just
applied to three employers for employment. They could go back
now and fill in their forms that they had approached three
employers and they could not find work.
I also remember the day that a dear young former student of
mine refused a job as a secretary. I knew why she was refusing it
and I reported her. One of the reasons we have abuse has to do
with the abusers. Another reason is the aiders and abettors, the
employers who will not report the abuses.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will address
the House on social program review today in a slightly different
manner than is usual.
I will direct my comments to the pages in the Chamber for a
couple of reasons. I think the pages might well listen to me. I
find it sometimes frustrating to stand in the House and I do not
think I am necessarily being listened to. I should like to address
these young, enthusiastic, keen students who have come to
Parliament. They are smart. They are a good example of what
Canada should reflect upon.
They are fluently bilingual. They are from all over the
country. I notice a few of them gathering in the wings here. They
are paying attention. They are listening to the fact that
somebody wants to talk to them.
I know they are smart because they remember all our faces.
They can call us by name. They are kind to me when I speak to
them in French as I try to improve my French. They speak very
slowly so I can comprehend what they say. I am speaking to
them because what we are undertaking in this social program
review will affect them a lot more than anyone else in the
Chamber.
I will be dead and gone when the effects of the social program
review are truly on the table. I speak to the pages and only to the
pages. If others in the Chamber want to close their ears, look
down at their papers and do other things, I give them my
complete concurrence; I am not going to be upset if they do so. I
do not think the pages will heckle me either. Maybe that is
another benefit in talking to the pages.
(1315 )
Why are we undergoing a social program review in Canada
today? During the election campaign a significant number of
individuals got after me for the social program review thoughts
that I had. I laid them out on the table pretty plainly. I did not
find social program review to be a large part of the programs
from some of the candidates who ran against me.
I read a very interesting article in Maclean's magazine just
before the election. That article had a headline ``Social
Programs: The Cuts to Come''. It described a process whereby
we were going to undergo social program review no matter who
was in power. It said it would not matter if it were the NDP, it
would not matter if it were the Tories, it would not matter if it
was the communist party from somewhere else, whether
Reformers were in power or whether the Liberals were in power,
there was going to be social program review.
I said there is no way that some of the parties that conducted
this campaign could have a major social program review. I read
the platform carefully. I said there is no way that the Liberals
could have social program review. And here we are today with a
major social program review.
I said to myself: Why are we now undergoing this social
program review? Of course, the reason is staring us in the face.
The reason is our debt. The debt leaves us with unsustainable
social programs. As the article said, it would not matter who was
sitting in the government benches, we would have that review.
I have had trouble in understanding the debt. All my life I
have heard this spoken about. I am a car nut, a phrase that I bear
proudly. I love old cars. I have a hobby of old cars. I finally
figured out how I could explain the debt to the high school
students. To the pages, here is what the debt means.
7918
Each one of you young people in this chamber today owes to
the federal government a brand new Camaro. It is a basic
Camaro, not a fancy one. It has plain wheels. It does not have
radial tires, it has plain tires. It is an automatic. It does not have
electric windows, it has wind-up windows. It has a heater and it
has a good motor. It will get you from home to the Parliament
Buildings or from university to the Parliament Buildings every
day. It is brand new. That is your debt to the federal government.
Do you know what the kids in the high schools said to me?
They said: ``Grant, where is my Camaro?''
If the current mandate of this government takes place and
everything that they promise us unfolds, I say to the pages that
they will owe the federal government a Z-28 Camaro. This
Camaro will have alloy rims and an AM-FM stereo. It will not
have a CD player. We are not quite that broke yet. It will have the
big motor. Now, this motor is a hot motor, a 300 horsepower
motor, zero to 60 in about 5.4 seconds. It has electric windows.
It has nice thick upholstery in it. It is not the plain Jane model at
all. That is their debt to this federal government.
When I told that to the high school students they really were
upset because every one of them wants the Z-28 Camaro. They
are beautiful cars, every kid's ideal. They said to me: ``Where is
my Z-28?''
The answer is: Your Z-28 you will pay for and it is in the
hands of our federal government. Every single individual in
Canada owes to the federal government that Camaro; every
single infant, every single grandparent, every single member of
these chambers. That is the reason that we are undergoing social
program review.
The interest on the debt that we are paying is just paying for
the borrowing each year. What a legacy to the pages. What a
legacy my generation presents to you. Many of you, if you think
carefully of this, will say: ``Thanks a lot for the debt; thanks a lot
for that legacy.''
(1320 )
Will they look back with fond memories at their time here in
these chambers? Will they look back and say: ``I learned a lot as
I was studying in university and was present and part of the
history of these chambers?'' I believe they will. Will they feel a
part of Canadian history? We have a new Parliament. We have an
opportunity with many new backbenchers who have never been
tied to the old government ways, many individuals with bright
thoughts, on both sides of the House ready to undertake new
ideas, ready to reform the way government operates. Rookies.
They know about the dissatisfaction of the public. They went to
the doorsteps and heard the problems. Yet I see what I consider
to be a slow slide back into some of the old ways of the old
government.
I had an opportunity to sit with the HRD committee and talk
about the consultation process it has undertaken. I am fully in
agreement with the consultation process. Canadians need to
know what the government is doing, need to have input, need to
have the opportunity to reflect upon and express their viewpoint
on the consultation process.
I am very critical of 15 members of Parliament flapping
around the country like a wounded goose, going from major city
to major city looking for public input. I am profoundly critical
of the numbers of individuals who can reach them. I am
profoundly critical of the cost of that exercise. I read that even
though they have a somewhat crippled goose to fly around on, it
will cost $800,000.
There is another mechanism for this government to consult
the public on something like social program review. The
mechanism is straightforward. The HRD minister presents a
package that is very straightforward so that everyone has the
same information. I look upon the best package as being a video.
It would spread the HRD minister all over the country. I thought
he would like that idea, with his smiling face in every townhall
meeting.
Every single member of Parliament would take that video
along with the background information and have townhall
meetings throughout their constituencies; for the senior citizens
in homes who do not get to have a consultation with the Minister
of Human Resources Development and for those individuals in
the small communities who are too busy to travel to the main
cities. The cost would be very small. The taxpayers are already
paying the member of Parliament's salary and already paying
their way home. Who knows the constituency better?
That information would be gathered by the members of
Parliament. They would come back and present that information
to the committee which would look at all the input, profound
input, close input, tight input, input that I think would be much
more typical than special interest groups being paid for by the
government to step forward.
I saw those individuals come to the committee before, one
after another. I heard NIMBY, every single one of them with a
NIMBY. At the second round of consultations the same people
came back.
Mr. McClelland: Not in my backyard.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): I had an opportunity to say to them:
``Who's paying you to come here?'' I found that the government
was financing not only their way here but the studies they were
undertaking. One group had $40,000 for the brief that it came to
the committee with.
7919
We as individuals are paying not only for their trips but the
briefs. Surely interested Canadians do not need $40,000 to tell
the minister that there are specific things that they want him to
conduct in social program review.
When I was an intern I once went mountaineering. Your
pages, Mr. Speaker, are still young enough to be mountaineers.
Let me tell a mountaineering story. I wanted to climb Mount
Assiniboine, 11,870 feet, one of the really high peaks in the
Rockies, a famous peak. It looks like the Matterhorn. It is a
significant height to get to. I had a big back pack. I went with one
of my buddies.
(1325)
As we got into Assiniboia we met up with a fellow from
California, a powerful looking young man with all the fancy
equipment. I have never seen more mountaineering equipment
in my life. It was the most modern, the best. He had ropes that
were beyond our means. We had pretty inexpensive ropes and all
our climbing equipment was used, tattered I suppose you would
say.
We were going to climb Assiniboine and he asked to join us.
Well, a pretty impressive group, but mountaineering is
somewhat dangerous. We asked what his experience was. He had
climbed all over, almost everywhere. He had climbed this peak,
that peak, and had all this equipment so we said he should join
us. He did.
We climbed early in the morning. You have to cross
underneath the glacier in this particular spot. If you cross early
enough in the morning the sun does not melt the ice and snow
and there is very little risk. We crossed underneath the glacier at
three in the morning, before the sun was up. We got to the place
where the climb started to get a little bit risky, so we roped up.
My buddy was on one end of the rope, the stranger in the middle,
and myself on the end. We started to climb one at a time. The
rope was simply for security.
We reached a point where there was a gravel slope with a very
steep cliff at the end. The young man in the middle fell. He
skidded down the gravel slope and went over the cliff. Of course
the rope was designed so that we could arrest him. As I tried to
get good footing, I also skidded down on the gravel, lost my
footing completely and I was going over the cliff. This was
1,500 feet straight down. Gonzo, over the cliff. Luckily, because
he was higher up on a better more secure spot, my buddy was
able to arrest us both.
What lesson do I bring from this mountaineering story on
Assiniboine to the pages? There is a huge risk in our society and
the risk is that we will ignore our debt. The debt is going to pull
us over the cliff and there will be no arresting us if we go over.
The social programs will be gone if we go over that cliff.
We talk about review of the social programs. Forget the social
programs if we go over the cliff of the debt. There are ample
examples of this in other countries, New Zealand being the best
one. The field I am so keen on is health care. I look at what
happened to their health care system when they slammed into
the debt wall. They went from a socialized health care system to
one where every single visit to the doctor costs. Cough up, shell
out. Do we want that in Canada? Do we need that in Canada? We
do not. Social program review is necessary. Social program
review is mandatory. You pages should have a part in social
program review. I ask you, I beg you, I implore you to be
involved. Speak up. Tell my generation what matters to you in
social program review and, to the pages, thank you for listening
to me.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we should remind
the viewers of what motion we are debating. It is Motion No. 15
which says that this House take note of the progress made to date
on the government's forthcoming reform of social security
programs and of the views expressed by Canadians with regard
to this reform.
Last week when the House was not sitting I had a townhall
meeting with an excellent attendance. I would like to share some
of the views from my constituents in Toronto.
At that townhall meeting almost everyone in the audience
agreed that a strong economy is the essence of a strong society.
They also agreed with the government's two priorities, jobs and
economic growth. The Government of Canada will meet those
priorities by building a healthy fiscal climate, by getting the
federal deficit down and eventually eliminating the public debt
as some people have already stressed in this debate.
(1330 )
It will strengthen Canada's economic performance through
investment, innovation and trade; review government programs
and priorities, making sure that as a government we are
concentrating our energy on the right things in the most
effective way possible. Finally, it has the priority of reforming
social security.
Why is reforming social security part of this agenda for
growth? Because good social programs will put people and jobs
together. The programs we have now do not do that well enough.
It is time to rebuild and modernize our social security programs
to build a system that will help people get back to work, help
people get off welfare and build a better life for their families.
In education, prior to being a politician, I met families that
were second and third generation on welfare. This has to stop.
Our system will have to look squarely at the problem of child
poverty and do something about it.
It is up to all Canadians to decide how we can build a system
that works, that is fair, affordable and effective, with programs
that open doors, not close them, to opportunity for people across
our great country. The federal government has presented
Canadians with some options for discussion. Now it is inviting
all Canadians to consider how we can build such a system. How
must our social programs change to stay in touch with the needs
7920
people face today? What kind of programs make sense as
Canada prepares for the 21st century?
At the town hall meeting I was asked why do we need reform?
Because our social programs have not kept pace with the needs
of Canadians. For too many people the system does not work any
more. At this town hall meeting there was a qualified doctor who
is on welfare. Because he got his training in another country he
cannot work in Canada.
Canadian taxpayers are spending more than $38 billion a year
on employment programs, UI, welfare, post-secondary
education, child tax benefits and programs for disabled persons.
Yet too many people are unemployed or find themselves caught
in a revolving door going from UI to short term jobs and back to
UI.
Too many children are living in poverty. Too many people are
stuck on social assistance. They want to work, but under our
present system they cannot afford to go to work. They are better
off financially staying on social assistance.
Too many young people cannot get started in a career. It
breaks my heart when I get a PhD graduate or a Master's
graduate coming to my constituency office begging: ``Mr. Flis,
can you help me find work?''
In many ways the system keeps people on a treadmill instead
of helping to solve their problems. Too many Canadians fall
through the cracks. Too many Canadians find the rules stacked
against them when they try to build better lives for themselves
and for their children.
People here in Ontario know firsthand how urgent the need for
reform is. Ontario today is at a crossroads. The recession and the
effects of international competition have taken jobs we thought
were secure. It has helped push unprecedented numbers of
people on to unemployment insurance and social assistance
rolls. Now that things are beginning to improve, our social
programs do not do enough to help people to get back into the
workforce.
We have been forced to recognize that our social programs
were designed in an era that has passed into the history books. In
1993 the average unemployed worker in Ontario between the
ages of 45 and 64 had been looking for work for 34 weeks. That
figure masks the number who were facing much longer
unemployment because of their limited skills and as a result of
industrial change. For too many of them a plant shutdown meant
a career shutdown. We can no longer afford that.
Ontario recognizes the need for reform as do all governments.
Now is the time to work together. We need a system that works
for people, that brings hope, that rewards initiative, that
supports efforts to regain independence and the dignity of work.
We need a system that Canadians can afford. All governments
have to get spending under control if we are to take control of the
future.
In my region we contend with four levels of government:
federal, provincial, metro Toronto, Toronto and a lot of
unnecessary duplication. We must do a better job in putting
people and jobs together. Employment programs, things like job
counselling, training, labour market information, work
experience projects are a good investment if they help people
get off UI or welfare and back to work. But existing programs do
not work well enough.
(1335)
We need to invest more in people, focusing on better tools to
help people get jobs and better management to make sure those
tools get results.
The green paper suggests a healthy debate around possible
directions for reform, making progress more accessible to those
who need help, especially people on social assistance and
persons with disabilities. We must pay more attention to
individual needs, with more assessment and counselling to help
each person develop a practical action plan for getting a job.
People come to my constituency office complaining that they
have to wait six months before they can see a counsellor, and as a
result miss many opportunities.
We should consider giving communities, local business,
labour, education and service groups more control over what
kinds of programs are used and how they are used.
Another possible direction suggested in the green paper is
encouraging more employers to provide training on the job.
Why not? We can ensure that institutional training is relevant
and effective. We can help people get work experience, for
example by offering to supplement their wages if they are hired,
or finding opportunities for community work, something we
have not stressed enough. We can reduce duplication and waste
in programs, with better co-ordination between the federal,
provincial and local governments. We must pay more attention
to results and help people get jobs and less attention to following
rigid bureaucratic rules.
I mentioned as an example someone who came to my office
wanting a course which was to begin in a couple of weeks. That
course would have led to full time employment. So I said, great,
why don't you take it, why don't you apply? He could not
because he had to see a counsellor first. I asked him why don't
you see the counsellor? The counsellor cannot see this person
for six months because of the workload. Another opportunity is
lost where someone could have taken a course which would have
led to full time employment.
7921
We must have unemployment insurance that makes sense. For
too many people the UI program does not work any more. It does
not help them get the skills they need for new jobs. It does not
help people solve their employment problems. Too often it just
makes those problems worse because there is no incentive or
support for people to change. Canadians want a better UI
program, one that is fair and affordable and helps unemployed
people get good long term jobs.
Another constituent complained because she has been
working for six years with the same company but it has always
been on a part time basis. The employer saves all of the fringe
benefits, et cetera. This has to stop.
One way to adjust the system is to make people work longer to
qualify for UI or reduce the amount they receive. Or we could
shorten the time people could collect UI. That might help but we
need more than that. We should look at an entirely new
employment insurance program, one that really helps people
deal with employment problems. The hon. member mentions a
newly-formed party in the past that led to unemployment
instead of employment.
The discussion paper outlines one possible approach, a
program that targets special help to people who have trouble
getting a job. It would have two components; basic insurance
and adjustment insurance. Occasional UI claimants, people who
face temporary, occasional unemployment would get basic
insurance benefits. This would give them income support while
they looked for work, much as at the present time. The frequent
UI claimants, people who keep having employment problems,
would get adjustment insurance benefits. They would get much
better help finding a job than they do now through things like
better job counselling, training, or opportunities for community
work.
Adjustment insurance benefits could depend on a person's
willingness to take part in programs that would help them find
work. Reformed programs will open more doors through
learning. More than ever before the key to security for
Canadians is learning. Education, training, skills are the only
ticket to a good job.
More Canadians need opportunities for training and education
throughout their lives. We all know now that learning is a
lifetime process. While the provinces are responsible for
education, the federal government plays an important role. But
education and training cost money. How can we make sure that
individual Canadians can afford the learning they need?
(1340)
Some options outlined in the green paper include: making
more loans and grants available for students; exploring a new
form of income contingent repayment of student loans. These
loans would be repayable only after a student graduates and
enters the workforce. At that point a repayment schedule would
be based on the borrower's ability to repay, given his or her
income levels.
I am sure many of the members here receive students at their
offices who are at a breaking point mentally because the
previous government sent out collection agencies to collect the
loans that they did not repay. How can they repay the loans if
they cannot get a job? That has to change.
Another option is allowing more flexibility in registered
retirement savings plans so that people could draw on those
savings for lifelong learning. Our goal must be to preserve and
broaden access to post-secondary education. A reformed
program must provide a fair chance for all Canadians. This is a
basic commitment at the heart of our social security reform, to
protect those most in need. It is the same policy that we have in
our foreign policy, to help those most in need.
That commitment will remain firm but we have got to do a
better job. The system is not working despite the fact that
spending on welfare and social services has jumped from $2.6
billion to more than $8 billion annually since 1981. Too many
Canadian children live in poverty, more children
proportionately than any other industrialized country except the
U.S.A. Too many parents of those children spend years on
welfare even though with the right kind of help they could find
work. The problem is we do not give them the help they need.
The source of the problem is the outdated rules of the Canada
assistance plan know as CAP. The rules place strict limits on
how federal funding through CAP can be used. We have got to
start looking at new ideas to help all Canadians get a better
chance in life.
For example, how can we make the rules more flexible and put
people first, giving the provinces more leeway to design
programs that work? How can we start focusing more of our
attention on long term solutions like preventing child poverty
instead of just tinkering around with short term cures? Should
we take some of the money we spend now and use it for special
priorities like increasing the child tax benefit for low income
families, or giving people on welfare more training and more
help finding jobs, or providing more opportunities for people
with disabilities so we do not have the incidents such as we saw
yesterday on the news?
Many of the ideas behind social security reform are already
being put into action here in Ontario through creative
partnership agreements between the Ontario and federal
governments.
The first of these will create a series of local labour force
development boards across the province. The boards will give
communities a real voice in training and employment
development priority setting. It will give them the chance to put
federal and provincial dollars to work on the needs they see
around them. Real grassroots planning and action will mean that
money is spent where it has the best chance to create results.
7922
Another joint project, Joblink Ontario, will create about a
dozen resource centres in communities across the province on a
pilot basis. The $25 million that the federal government will
contribute this year will match Ontario's contribution. These
resource centres will help people on social assistance prepare
for and find jobs. It will give them one-stop shopping for
training and employment programs for all levels of government
and community agencies. It will offer real support to people who
can work and who want to work. Through counselling, labour
market information and Canada employment centre job listings
these people will gain the self-sufficiency they need to escape
the welfare trap.
By working together the ideas behind social security reform
are already becoming a reality in Ontario, but we cannot stop
here. In the past generations of Canadians have risen to the
challenge of building a society that cares, that has compassion
for the disadvantaged, that supports those in need. This is a
challenge each generation must face in turn.
(1345)
It is now our turn, and I include every member in this
Chamber. It is our turn to shape a system that works here on the
eve of a new century. We should face this challenge with
confidence. We can face this challenge knowing that as a nation
our prospects for the future are good.
The federal government is putting in place a comprehensive
agenda for economic growth and jobs for Canadians. We can
make social security reform an integral part of that agenda. As
demonstrated in my town hall meeting of last week Canadians
want a better system. By working together we will build a better
system.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, our debt is
rising at a fantastic rate since this government came into power.
Admittedly, some of it would have been the fulfilling of
obligations from the previous government. We do not know the
number but most likely we have slipped another $40 billion into
debt.
I have a question with respect to the speed with which this is
coming about. After a year we finally have a discussion paper
which we are now supposed to start talking about. Canadians
were already talking about it before the last election. By now I
would have liked to have seen a good system of cost analysis
with options on these different programs so that we could begin
making choices and start making the necessary cuts in order to
prevent us from sliding into debt so deeply that we will never get
out.
I would like the member's comment on the whole question of
speed and urgency with respect to this debate that is going on.
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question. I get the same
question from many constituents: Why is it taking so long? Why
not do it tomorrow?
If you want a true consultative process, if you honestly want
to get input from the grassroots Canadians it will be a slower
process. By listening to Canadians you have to determine what
programs are of highest priority, what programs are of the least
priority. Then as a government jointly with all parties in
opposition we have to decide which programs we must continue
funding and which programs can be dropped. Then we have to
see what kind of resources, how many public service personnel
we need to match those programs and what kind of financial
resources we need to match those programs.
We lead the public astray when we complain we are not
moving fast enough. We are moving very quickly when you
consider the kind of input that the minister, the parliamentary
secretary, and individual members from all three parties are
getting through town hall meetings. I think we are moving fairly
quickly.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a follow up comment and question to try to determine the
member's motivation for the social policy review.
He mentions in his opening remarks the reason the review is
necessary is that the programs are not working properly for
Canadians any more. Other people would argue that a financial
motivation is actually driving it. The agenda is being driven
because we must change because we cannot foot the bills.
In his opinion which is the case? Is it the case that we must
change because we are going to go over the waterfall that
another member mentioned earlier today? Or is it because they
are not just working well? I am wondering which is the priority.
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, we ran on a platform of putting our
own house in order first. When I say we, I include all of us. To
get our house in order we have to look at the programs and which
ones we can afford.
We give out $38 billion for programs and services but we
spend more than that in paying the interest on the public debt. I
know we agree on that. We see eye to eye. We are going to have
to reduce the annual deficit and bring down the public debt. I do
not think we can wait for one and then the other. All of this has to
go hand in hand.
(1350 )
I know the Reform Party would like to reduce the annual
deficit in one year and wipe out the public debt in one or two
years. If we did that we would put so many people out of work
that we would really bankrupt this country because it is jobs that
create the resources and funding that we need to carry on.
7923
Let us not forget that even with all of our deficit and public
debt, et cetera the United Nations still named Canada as the
number one country on this planet in which to live. Therefore,
we must be doing something right. We are not perfect and we
never said we were, but we must be doing something right for a
United Nations organization to put Canada that high on the map
measured against certain social protection.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will share
my time with my colleagues in this House by splitting it into
10-minute periods.
The least that can be said is that the Liberal government has
finally achieved unanimity. In every province, a mass
movement is taking shape against the proposed reform of social
programs. I predicted-and I was not the only one-that the
people would rise up against this reform whose prime objective
is very clear: to meet the finance minister's budget requirements
by slashing social programs. Yesterday, it was thousands of
angry students, as the minister's dry cleaner can attest to.
Tomorrow, it will be all the others who have nothing but whom
the government is still going after. The only objective is to cut
social programs.
The government plans to announce additional measures in its
1995 Budget, as it states on page 23 of its discussion paper. We
know that the government has prepared a secret document
specifying that the $7.5 billion in cuts announced in the last
Budget will be supplemented by another $7.5 billion in cuts over
five years.
I will now deal with the minister's proposal to address the
current unemployment problem. His favoured option will
introduce a second class of unemployed, that of workers with
precarious jobs. Women and young people, who hold the
majority of these jobs, will be the main victims of this reform.
With this proposal, the minister creates cheap labour. In
addition to compulsory employability measures, these
unemployed people will be required to participate in community
work. They also want these second-class people to pay higher
premiums in return for lower benefits. Indeed, the government
feels that some citizens are just lazy bums who lose their jobs on
purpose. It wants to treat the unemployed like thieves sentenced
to community work.
The federal government has always stressed that
unemployment insurance was a generous system aimed at
redistributing the wealth across the country. Yet, the minister's
paper states that it may-repeat, may-become necessary to put
in place special programs for seasonal workers to offset the
negative impact of reform on regions with very high
unemployment rates. If the government does not give that
assurance in its document, this is cause for serious concern.
Earlier this week, a cartoon in a Quebec daily depicted a
producer selling his corn for 75 cents a dozen, at -30 degrees.
This is what the government wants seasonal workers to do.
As regards manpower training, the federal government
continues to dismiss Quebec's claims. It wants to maintain
national standards to bypass provincial initiatives and let local
communities decide which programs they want to implement.
The government is again trying to impose its famous
single-window concept, which perpetuates overlapping and
duplication, this time under the same roof. Talk about
improvement! While all every stakeholder in Quebec agrees on
the need for an integrated provincial policy on manpower
development, the federal government persists in wanting to
control everything. Ironically, the proposal made by the
government in its report is the same one which was rejected last
summer by the former Quebec Liberal government.
(1355)
By persisting in maintaining and even increasing their
involvement in manpower training, the Liberals only contribute
to the administrative mess they know exists. In Quebec, $500
million were wasted within two years.
As we all saw, many students came here yesterday to
demonstrate. Several women called me and said: ``Can you tell
me, sir, what will happen to me with the new social program
reform? My husband earns $50,000 and I earn much less
compared to him, but I do pay unemployment insurance
premiums''.
I told this woman: ``Look, in all honesty, I think that you
should get the service for which you pay''. But this is not what
the reform will do. The reform will ensure that you pay, but that
you do not get the service.
I should tell you that one group of workers I helped at the
union level went to court because they had paid for a service
they never received. These people, who may be paying
unemployment insurance premiums, will now be able to say: ``I
contribute to the unemployment insurance fund, and my
husband earns so much money. I will no longer pay
unemployment insurance premiums, since I will not be entitled
to benefits''.
It only makes sense not to pay for a service you will not get.
We should not focus only on the negative aspects of the reform.
At one point, I asked why a reform of the unemployment
insurance program was undertaken. I was told that too many
people cheat the system. I said fine, can you tell me the
percentage these people represent. The answer was 1 per cent.
One per cent are cheaters, and because of that one percent, the 99
per cent who are honest, who have not done anything wrong, will
be penalized.
That is totally unacceptable. I entirely agree that reform is
necessary, but we should not penalize the most vulnerable in our
society and we should not penalize all women in Quebec and
7924
Canada by withholding unemployment insurance benefits
because of a tax bracket that is beyond a certain level.
There are alternatives, and I can suggest a few simple ones. I
agree that reform and cuts are necessary, but leave the most
vulnerable members of our society alone, once and for all. Go
after the multinationals that make millions of dollars in profits
and do not pay taxes.
I have had enough. I can no longer go along with this system.
There is something I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker. You saw
those young people demonstrating on Parliament Hill. I would
urge the unions, I would urge all workers to get up and come to
Ottawa to demonstrate against these measures which are
intolerable, and I can tell you I will be there on Parliament Hill
with those groups, with the most vulnerable members of our
society.
The Speaker: I believe there are five minutes remaining in
the period for questions and comments. We will continue after
Question Period.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House
will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
7924
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, among Canada's senior citizens there is a strong desire
to remain autonomous and stay in their homes as long as
possible.
Home adaptations and safer consumer products can play an
important role. Increasing the level of awareness among health,
housing and support service professionals and seniors
themselves about home adaptation resources and opportunities,
as well as information about safety in the home can help seniors
maintain their independence and remain in their homes with
greater comfort and security.
Health Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
and the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists all
support the Canada Safety Council's 1994 National Seniors
Safety Week campaign, November 12 to 18. Together we can
work to meet the safety and housing needs of this important
segment of our Canadian population.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
week Quebec emphasizes the vital contribution made to our
society by members of our cultural communities.
At a time when Quebec is preparing to choose the country it
wants, this intercultural week should not be seen as another
forum for dialogue but as an opportunity for co-operation and
for actively promoting membership in a common culture while
respecting one another's differences.
Since Monday, the unions, schools and municipalities, to
name a few, have been organizing numerous activities that
demonstrate how open Quebec is to its citizens from other
countries and other cultures. For instance, we have the
Association des droits des minorités du grand Châteauguay,
which will hold a seminar called Contact 1994, an opportunity
to celebrate these much needed intercultural ties.
Our cultural communities are important to Quebec, and the
Bloc Quebecois fully supports them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the bedrock of the
Canadian legal system is the British common law.
It is unnerving to know that our justice minister, Canada's top
lawyer, has so little regard for the common law that on May 4 in
the House he stated that the possession of personal arms is not a
right but a privilege granted by the state.
He should reread his Blackstone. This greatest of all British
jurists pointed out in his commentaries that without the
auxiliary right to have arms, the absolute rights to life, security
of person, liberty and property are illusory.
There is already more than enough regulation of firearms in
Canada. Do we really want to continue sliding inch by inch into
the Mexican model where firearms are restricted to criminals
and agents of the state?
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to say that enough is enough. I have grown sick and tired
of hearing anti-Atlantic Canadian comments coming from
members of the Reform Party. Not only are they attacking
Atlantic Canada but they are using untruths and distortions in
7925
their partisan attempts to pit region against region. This is
unacceptable.
One of the worst offenders is the member for Fraser Valley
West who has been slandering the hard working scientists and
researchers at the University of Moncton's food research centre.
Out of respect for the truth, the ACOA contribution was not to
make jam as the member suggested. It assisted in research and
development for the small fruit industry. This R and D
contributes to the development of new markets for products
from soft drinks to jellies. This is no small industry to take a
knock at. For example, the blueberry industry alone provides
10,000 direct jobs for Atlantic Canadians and generates $35
million in revenues.
The Reform Party members should tread lightly when they
attempt to slander the business efforts of hard working Atlantic
Canadians. They will never be a national party-
The Speaker: I would encourage members to use words such
as slander and untruths judiciously. We are walking a very tight
rope in using these words. I would ask all hon. members to truly
consider if and when they want to use that type of word in this
House.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Saturday, November 12, was the third anniversary
of the Dili massacre in East Timor.
Since the Indonesian armed forces invaded East Timor in
1975, one-third of the nation's population has been killed,
resulting in the worst genocide on a per capita basis since the
holocaust.
Despite two UN Security Council resolutions condemning
this invasion and requesting the withdrawal of Indonesian
troops, no action has been taken by Indonesia to withdraw or the
UN to enforce.
Since our Prime Minister in opposition said that he would take
action to support the UN resolutions, I urge the Prime Minister
to follow through on his commitment to raise this issue at the
United Nations and elsewhere and to stop all arms sales to
Indonesia.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on September 20 I stood in the House to draw
attention to the continued imprisonment of Ms. Suu Kyi, the
leader who was democratically elected by the majority of the
Burmese people. Ms. Suu Kyi has been under house arrest since
1989.
(1405)
Burma's military regime did meet with Ms. Suu Kyi on
September 20. However, during this meeting they did not give a
commitment or a time frame as to when they plan to release her.
I urge all my colleagues here today to remain vocal on the
subject of Burma. I ask all my colleagues from both sides of the
House to support a motion urging the United Nations General
Assembly to condemn the current Burmese military regime and
restore democracy to Burma.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, there are reports in the newspapers today that a
CRTC analyst did believe that the Minister of Canadian Heritage
was lending his support to the licence application submitted by
one of his constituents, and he did so long before the minister
argued publicly that he never intended to influence the decision
of the CRTC. The analyst even advised the CRTC committee
reviewing the licence application in question accordingly.
So, this was much more than simple carelessness, as the Prime
Minister claimed it was. These recent revelations show that the
minister in fact interfered with the operations of the CRTC, a
quasi-judicial organization operating at arm's length from the
government. This new information confirms that the minister
has lost all credibility by now.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday during the Senate standing committee
meeting on transport, Liberal senators defeated a planned fact
finding mission to British Columbia next week to hold public
consultations on the future of light stations.
The mandate and terms of reference were granted long before
the coast guard announced the destaffing initiative. This is
flagrant political initiative by Liberal senators to block input by
concerned citizens and associations into the future use of light
stations on the west coast.
An ad hoc parliamentary committee on light stations, jointly
chaired by Senator Pat Carney and myself, was struck today. It
will undertake this initiative and hold public hearings next week
in Richmond, Sidney and Campbell River. The hearing group
will be composed of two other senators and MPs.
7926
We welcome participation on this committee from other
federal parliamentarians.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on November
11, residents of Brant had the chance to remember the thousands
of Canadians who have paid the ultimate price for our country.
Again this year one could hear at the Brantford cenotaph the
music of the Telephone City Musical Society. In fact, the band
has played every November 11 in Brantford except two since
1919.
This year the band celebrates 75 years of providing music for
parades, concerts and ceremonies in Brant. During these years
highlights from the band include playing for the royal visit to
Brantford in 1939 and playing on the same stage as the Boston
Pops Orchestra in 1978.
Congratulations and many thanks must be extended to all
members of the band, past and present, for their contribution to
the quality of life in Brant. Special congratulations go out to Mr.
Bert Locke and Mr. Fred Nicholas who are celebrating 57 and 48
years of service to the band respectively.
On behalf of the residents of Brant, I would like to say that
their contributions are very much appreciated.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to express my concern over the disturbing increase in
anti-Atlantic Canadian sentiment coming from members of the
Reform Party.
The Reform Party does not speak for westerners on this issue.
First it was the Reform member from Capilano-Howe Sound
who made insulting comments about westerners being tired of
hearing Atlantic Canadians whine for more subsidies. Now in
the same vein the member for Fraser Valley West has attacked
entrepreneurial spirit in that region, stating that westerners are
more money wise and work harder than their Atlantic
counterparts. When will this stop?
All Canadians have benefited at some time or another from
government support, even British Columbians. As a British
Columbian I am personally ashamed of this tactic. Rather than
slander our fellow Canadians on the Atlantic coast for political
gain, we in the Pacific should be more understanding.
* * *
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on November 13 and 14, I along with several
thousand citizens of Ottawa and Toronto was fortunate to
witness the inspirational concerts given to packed houses by the
Folk of the Sea.
(1410 )
Folk of the Sea consists of 110 fisherpersons from
Newfoundland and Labrador who have come together to prepare
their gift of song and story and to proudly present this heritage to
the people of Canada. Everything that has been of consequence
to Newfoundlanders invariably centres on the necessity that
grafted us to the salt water trade. Our speech, our song, our
common memories that shape and temper what has come to be
recognized as characteristically Newfoundland was portrayed in
a powerful and moving manner.
When we in Newfoundland and Labrador face the greatest
challenge of our 500-year history in the fishery, which has been
our sustenance, our occupation and our craft, it has never been
more important to share our bounty of music and narrative with
other Canadians.
I ask this House to join me in extending heartiest
congratulations to this talented group of ordinary
Newfoundlanders achieving extraordinary results as Folk of the
Sea. We believe in Newfoundland and Labrador.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
finally finding out the real impact the cuts the HRD minister is
contemplating as part of his social reform plan.
The Quebec government announced yesterday that the
minister's cutback frenzy will force another 45,000 or so
Quebec households onto welfare. This translates into tax
increases of over $340 million for Quebec taxpayers.
That is real impact of the minister's plan cynically dubbed
``from unemployment insurance to employment insurance''.
The minister will no doubt argue that you cannot make an
omelette without breaking eggs, but he will have to come to the
realization that his reform will create unbearable poverty in
several regions. Again, this government is cutting where it hurts
the most.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, health care is
far too important to be partisan with. Last week our health
minister went on national TV and singled out Alberta's private
clinics because they charge facility fees directly to the patient
while the doctor's fee is paid by medicare.
7927
When I pointed out to her that exactly the same thing is done
in every province, stunned silence. When I asked the minister to
clarify, she waffled. When I challenged the minister to a debate,
she ran like a scared rabbit.
Private clinics are an offshoot of this country's financial
crisis. Our debt is squeezing the life out of social programs like
health care. When the health minister was in opposition she
knew this was true. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
September 20 I raised the issue of private health clinics in
Alberta with the Minister of Health. Since then she has done
nothing to enforce the Canada Health Act. Members of the
Reform Party have been raising this issue but the Reform Party
is clear in its intention to move Canada toward a two-tier health
system.
The Reform Party wants to end the national system of health
care that we have in this country. Clearly, with this kind of
opposition the government will do nothing to enforce the
Canada Health Care Act.
While the Reform and Liberal parties bicker, the province of
Alberta is allowed to continue this violation of the Canada
Health Act. I urge the minister to act today to end what is a very
clear violation of the Canada Health Act. End it before we have
two health care systems in Canada, one for the rich and one for
the poor.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Le
Soleil reported recently that the Leader of the Official
Opposition denied that his party was trying to infiltrate the
Montreal Catholic School Commission. He said that they were
not trying to infiltrate any school board or municipal council in
any way.
How can the leader of the Bloc limit himself to such a simple
explanation for the bias his members have shown for a particular
school board party, when two of his members have made public
statements flatly contradicting him.
The Canadian press reported a Bloc member as saying, ``I am
not necessarily talking about infiltration, but I am asking you to
be there in large numbers''. We ask the Leader of the Opposition
to restore discipline in his caucus and thus ensure that
Montrealers will have free and democratic school elections, not
shameless ideological infiltration for the separatist cause.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased that the report on crime cards and board games was
tabled in the House of Commons yesterday. Crime cards and
board games have no redeeming cultural value. They glorify and
commodify heinous crimes and make heroes of those who
commit those crimes. At the same time they devalue the terrible
losses experienced by the victims' families and loved ones.
Many Burlington residents, in particular Deborah Mahaffy, a
mother who lost her daughter, a victim of violent crime, have
been deeply involved and active in this issue. By writing letters,
distributing and signing petitions, acting as a witness at the
justice committee, she encouraged others to get involved in an
issue that affects the attitude of youths and adults.
(1415)
Canadians are concerned about the long term impact of the
absolute violence contained in some of our entertainment
products. Women and children are directly affected by them.
As legislators it must be our goal to work toward the day when
every person in our society lives without the threat of violence.
Members, join with me in moving this legislation forward.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, next
Monday 52 MPs of the class of '88, 46 Liberals, will be eligible
for their gold plated pensions for life, worth $53 million. This is
on top of the estimated 480 current recipients who will cost
taxpayers almost half a billion dollars. That is a lot of money for
the services of former backbenchers, former frontbenchers and
former prime ministers.
Reformers have had it. Canadians have had it and yes, even
the steelworkers in Hamilton have had it. It is time for the
Liberals to get off their high horses and reform this ridiculous
MP pension plan now before they decide to cut RRSPs.
The Prime Minister promised action one year ago but we have
seen no action. Reformers cannot even opt out. Could it be that
he is waiting for his colleagues to hit pay dirt on November 21?
Stop stalling, stop talking the talk, start walking the walk like
Reformers. Start living in the real world like the taxpayers who
pay our salaries.
7928
7928
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Major Barry Armstrong, senior medical officer of
the unit in which several members were accused of murdering
and torturing Somali civilians, said that he was ordered by
superior officers to destroy photographs showing Somali
patients who were tortured, so that these photographs would not
be used as evidence against other Canadian servicemen.
Yesterday in this House, the defence minister tried to
minimize the serious allegations of Major Armstrong, who says
that he kept some photographs, despite the order to destroy
them.
My question is for the Minister of Defence. How can the
minister continue to trust the military investigation, when
senior army officers ordered the destruction of photographs that
could be used as evidence against servicemen accused of torture
and murder?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
contrary to what the hon. Leader of the Opposition has stated, I
did not and I do not try to minimize the awful events that
occurred in 1993 in Somalia with members of the Canadian
forces serving under the UN banner.
However the hon. member must realize that a number of
charges were laid as a result of investigations conducted
concerning members of the armed forces. Those charges are
being adjudicated at present. In fact an appeal which the crown
has initiated-I believe the crown has initiated appeals on most
of the verdicts so far-will commence next Tuesday. The last of
the original charges will be heard next January or February.
Whatever I say or do and whatever the hon. member says and
does should not impinge on the rights of the accused for a fair
trial.
That having been said, the allegations that were raised
yesterday by Major Armstrong were indeed quite troubling to
me as the minister. As a result I have decided under the auspices
of the National Defence Act to have an inquiry that will continue
either after the original courts martial or after the court martial
appeals are heard. I am seeking legal advice on that. This inquiry
will be totally public. It will be totally civilian. The chair will be
a civilian. The members of the original inquiry will be invited to
participate.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister told us that the case for which a
conviction was obtained, involving only a private, has been
appealed. I ask him if he thinks that the appeal can be effective,
since it must be based on the evidence already accumulated,
without existing photographs in the possession of Major
Armstrong and other photographs that were destroyed?
So I ask him whether, in these circumstances, he can go on
trusting military justice for the case under consideration. Should
he not ask himself the troubling question as to whether the
destruction of some photographs has made it possible for other
military people to escape justice?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a basic premise of jurisprudence that a person in my position
cannot comment on the facts when a trial is ongoing.
I would like to address the question of military justice.
Military justice has a long, noble tradition in this country. It has
been upheld as being constitutional by the Supreme Court of
Canada. However, once the courts martial are completed then
the crown and individuals if they are dissatisfied with the
verdict have a right to appeal.
The court martial appeals court is headed by a member of the
Federal Court of Canada. Next Tuesday the acting head of the
court martial appeals court or the justice of the Federal Court,
perhaps himself or one of his colleagues, or with one of his
colleagues, and perhaps with members of the supreme courts of
the various provinces, perhaps even the province of Quebec,
will hear the first appeal.
I want to emphasize that what we have here is the military
justice system which has been ongoing. However the appeals
when they are deemed to be appropriate are being heard by
civilian authorities.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, given the fact that additional photographic
evidence exists in the matter of the torture of Somali civilians by
Canadian soldiers, how can the minister claim that justice has
been rendered?
What steps will he take to make sure that the evidence relating
to the pending case, now in appeal, will be enriched with
existing conviction documents which are in the hands of Major
Armstrong?
7929
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition is a matter
for the court to decide, not for me as Minister of National
Defence.
As I said yesterday, if Major Armstrong or any other person in
the Canadian Armed Forces has any evidence that may be
germane to any one of these cases, that evidence should be made
available to the military police who are conducting
investigations.
One was reopened dealing with the question of photographs
some time ago and the other deals with the other events related
to the allegations that have been made concerning the words
``cover up'' or the allegations of cover up on the part of the
Canadian Armed Forces.
I would invite Major Armstrong or any other person to make
that evidence known and then we will let the courts decide as
appropriate.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The mayor of Saint-Jean has made public the elements of his
proposal to allow a gradual transition for the military college in
Saint-Jean, which would become a university-level civilian
institution. He thinks that there should be a gradual transfer of
all officer cadets to Kingston and that the closure should not be
brutal but civilized.
Now that he has in his possession the proposal made by the
mayor of Saint-Jean, which is supported by the Quebec
government, does the minister still intend to reopen the
discussions on the closure of the college in Saint-Jean,
especially since the Kingston barracks cannot accommodate the
officer cadets from Saint-Jean?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the proposal made by the mayor of Saint-Jean
contains two elements we agree with. First, it is essential to
demilitarize the college in Saint-Jean and turn it into a co-ed
institution. Second, we need a transition period.
We now have an agreement providing for a five-year
transition period, a military presence of between 100 and 200
students who will take language training during the five-year
period and $5 million a year for a total of $25 million over the
five-year transition period.
We therefore believe that, although some of the arguments put
forward by the mayor of Saint-Jean are valid, the agreement
signed on July 19 by the governments of Quebec and Canada
provides for a more appropriate transition period and better
meets the needs of the Saint-Jean community and of keeping
the college open.
(1425)
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister said several times that the transition would occur
without problems. How can the minister continue to claim that
transferring the operations of the Royal Military College in
Saint-Jean to Kingston will occur without problems, when only
20 of the 250 employees of the college in Saint-Jean have
agreed to move to Kingston?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to forget that there are
already bilingual classes as well as francophone teachers and
students in Kingston. In fact, 17 per cent of Kingston's student
population is French-speaking, all courses will be offered in
both official languages this year, and all teachers will be
bilingual within a few years. As a result, there is no problem in
transferring military activities to Kingston with respect to
bilingualism and the accommodation capacity.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, over the last few weeks there have been allegations of
infighting, bullying, corruption and influence peddling at the
Immigration and Refugee Board. The most damning allegations
now come from William Bauer, former ambassador and
champion of human rights who resigned from the board in
disgust in March of this year.
According to this distinguished Canadian, the independence
and effectiveness of the IRB are being undermined by constant
pressure from the legal lobby and advocacy groups, in other
words by those who stand to profit from the system.
Does the minister accept the truth of Mr. Bauer's analysis?
What is the minister's position on allowing advocacy and lobby
groups, the legal lobby, to unduly influence and profit from the
activities of the IRB?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I responded to the leader of
the Reform Party yesterday by saying that if he or any other
member of his party have any evidence about any influence
peddling, whether it be at the IRB or anywhere else, it is a matter
for the Criminal Code. Rather than simply lobbying, he should
provide evidence.
7930
Second, the 211 members of the Immigration and Refugee
Board are there to adjudicate refugee asylum cases. It is not for
the minister or for members of Parliament or for NGO groups or
for lawyers to unduly influence any member. They are there to
do a job. They have an important mandate. It is an institution
that works. It is a model that is respected internationally.
Rather than tearing down the system, we should be seeking
reforms and modifications on how to make the system better and
how to build up this federal institution.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Bauer does not think it works. Obviously someone
is profiting from the IRB process. Most immigration lawyers
can earn two to three thousand dollars at least per refugee claim.
In the past the minister has appointed over 50 immigration
lawyers to the IRB. Coincidentally, the acceptance rate for
refugees has jumped from 55 per cent last year to approximately
80 per cent in recent months.
Will the minister tell the House whether the currently high
acceptance rate of 80 per cent is a reflection of his government's
policy, or is it evidence that the IRB has been captured by those
interests that stand to profit from excessively high acceptance
rates?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand the narrow,
vested interest of his questions and his party.
What we have to do is stand up in the public interest. In so far
as the public interest is concerned, he owes the House and the
public interest the evidence of those charges of profiteering and
influence peddling. It is simply not good enough that he lob over
these very serious accusations without backing them up.
Second, there is no policy of the Government of Canada or a
minister of the crown or members on the government side with
respect to what is an acceptable or non-acceptable threshold.
That is not the business of government or a member of
Parliament or the minister.
(1430 )
The individuals adjudicating who is and who is not a refugee
are the members of the refugee board. That is why they are
quasi-judicial and at arm's length. It is to protect it from such
scurrilous allegations as we see today.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's excuses, denials and half baked
measures do nothing to restore confidence in the IRB. It has
gone too far for that. The allegations are too serious and too
many. They range from influence peddling at the board to fraud
charges being laid, even to RCMP investigations.
The minister has it within his power to order a judicial inquiry
into the IRB members. Given the allegations that have come to
life over the last few weeks, will the minister stop making
excuses for inexcusable behaviour and order a judicial inquiry
into the IRB?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member continues to
make inexcusable, unfounded, serious allegations.
What do we have before us? We have before us a board
chairman's report and a response from the deputy chair which
will be considered. I mentioned to the leader of that party during
this week that the decision will be made before the week's end. I
know it does not bring him any satisfaction, but in this country
we do things according to facts and due process, not jungle
justice a la Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I
was shocked to read in the papers this morning that immigration
authorities are about to deport a woman from the Seychelles
Islands and her two children.
Immigration Canada refuses to take into consideration the
letter of threat written by the woman's husband, who was sent
back to his country, in which he says that he will kill her when
she returns to the Seychelles.
Considering that the minister has released gender guidelines
to protect refugee women who are victims of spousal abuse,
does he not think that the death threat made to Mrs. Sabadin
warrants his immediate intervention to prevent that woman and
her two children from being deported to the Seychelles
tomorrow, where she might be killed?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should know that
this morning officials gave this particular woman a two week
reprieve so that the review can take place to ensure ourselves
and officials of the humanitarian and compassionate request. I
think the hon. member should be pleased.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister guarantee that the deportation order will be quashed in
the next two weeks?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): No, I cannot guarantee that, Mr. Speaker.
One party is saying no one should come in. Another party is
saying no one should leave. What we have to say is that this
individual has been given a chance for a review to see if in fact
those gender guideline reviews are legitimate.
7931
I do not believe it would be very fair for any minister to
guarantee anything before a review takes place.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
April 29, 1993 the present Minister of Human Resources
Development in praising soldiers who came forward with public
evidence of wrongdoing in Somalia said, and I am quoting from
Hansard: ``They have taken a very courageous stand because
they saw something they thought was wrong. They deserve an
open inquiry''. I understand the Minister of National Defence is
moving toward that position.
Will the minister not agree that the actions of Major
Armstrong and others who may possess information and may be
reluctant to give it to the present system are fully justified when
they know that system has not acted upon information and when
that system asks for the destruction of the very evidence they
possess?
(1435 )
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not share the assumptions upon which the question was
based.
I did announce a few minutes ago that there will be an inquiry
under the auspices of the National Defence Act. It will be public
and will be headed by a civilian. It will be available for people
such as Major Armstrong and all others to come forward with
any information and any charges. Hopefully, they will be totally
satisfied.
I want to make it plain that this government has nothing to
hide. These are events that occurred before the 1993 election.
The Minister of Human Resources Development when he was in
opposition was fully justified in making those comments and
calling for an open inquiry. We have done that.
What I am concerned with is to act in a way that would not
prejudice the course of justice. I hope the hon. member will
understand that.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the minister indicated there are two ongoing police
investigations in addition to one suspended investigation. Yet
two months ago the department's public information officers
indicated there were no ongoing investigations into the Somali
affair.
Why are these investigations occurring 18 months after the
fact? Why is this kind of information not made public until it is
raised in the House or appears in the media? Why will the
minister not provide right away an open inquiry for information
on this to be presented to the public?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the statement to which the hon. member referred made by public
affairs officials at national defence some time ago were at that
time true. Investigations have been closed, but because there
had been allegations of cover-up the military police reopened
one investigation. Subsequently there were charges made about
photographs being concealed and another investigation was
opened up to deal with that matter.
I should raise another point. I have tried to act as
expeditiously as possible given the fact that we do want to
protect the course of justice. I would have made this
announcement yesterday, but out of courtesy to the Prime
Minister who was only informed of this matter this morning, I
felt I should not act until I had his agreement.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development. The
minister's answers to questions from the Official Opposition
and to claims from students, who held a demonstration
yesterday on Parliament Hill, only confirmed our greatest fear,
namely that he will increase the burden of students through
additional loans of $10 billion, over a ten-year period. That
money will be available because of cuts in transfer payments to
provinces for post-secondary education.
Will the minister admit that the statement he made yesterday
confirms his intention to transfer $10 billion from the federal
debt to the students?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, because that is not
what I said.
First I have pointed out to opposition members on several
occasions that the government does not intend on going back to
its February budget statement to cut the transfers to the
provinces. The transfer of over $6 billion is to be maintained
based upon our fixed 1993-94 level. I will repeat that there are
no cuts to the transfers to the provinces. The provinces will
receive exactly the same amount of money, over $6 billion of
transfers.
What we did suggest is that the cash portion of that which is
receding at the same time the revenue of the provinces is going
up to the tax revenue could be used to help lever an additional $2
billion. If you took $500 million of that savings you could
almost get a four or five to one addition. We would also have a
grants program to help students in need.
Rather than a $10 billion debt load it would mean we would be
able to add $10 billion to the existing system's contribution to
higher education for better laboratories, more classrooms, more
7932
scholarships and more accessibility for students. That really is
the choice that is being made. I would like to know why
members of the opposition are against putting more money-
(1440 )
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would appeal to you once
again to please keep the questions and answers a little bit
shorter.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the more
explaining the minister does, the more complicated it gets! The
bottom line is that the minister is only offering students the
possibility of incurring an additional $10 billion debt. Period.
Will the minister admit that this option, which consists in
getting more into debt, is the only solution he could find to make
students absorb the increase in tuition fees which will result
from his reform?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand the difficulty
the hon. member has dealing with conflict problems. He only
has simple solutions to those problems.
I would suggest to him that the best way to deal with the
problems is to sit down and have a discussion. Do not go to the
barricades, do not have angry protest, but sit down and share
information and deal with the various options and choices. Look
at the ways as a country we can bring governments together at
the federal and provincial levels, we can bring members of the
university community together. We can work together to find an
answer, not to try to create confrontation, not to try to create
disputation, but in fact to create agreement. That is the kind of
process we want to provide.
If the hon. member bothered to read the various proposals in
the book perhaps he would finally understand that what we want
to do is rebuild this country's higher education system.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
March the government received a report reviewing MP
pensions. At that time it indicated it would be introducing
legislation to overhaul this pension scam in the immediate
future. That was eight months ago, yet no action has been taken
on this matter.
Could it be that perhaps there was pressure from within the
Liberal caucus to wait until after next Monday, trough day, when
46 MPs will be eligible to collect pensions? Will the President of
the Treasury Board give us a definite deadline for the enactment
of legislation to overhaul this scandalous pension plan?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we made it clear and the Deputy Prime Minister made it
clear earlier this week that we are living up to our red book
commitment with respect to MP pensions.
I do not anticipate that the hon. member who asked the
question is planning on resigning. We are all here for a full term
that will go on substantially more years. There is lots of time to
deal with this but we will be dealing with it very soon. We will
be living up to that commitment in the red book.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
best time to deal with this would have been before next Monday
when these people qualify for an MP pension.
The deadline is next Monday. As of Tuesday next week the
member for Halifax seems pleased that she will be eligible for
$1.1 million in possible pension payouts. The Minister of Health
may well receive over $1 million. In fact, Mr. Speaker, soon-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to put her
question, please.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I am trying. Will the Deputy Prime
Minister personally take a leadership role on this issue and use
her power within cabinet with the briefing notes to change the
present pension plan so that we, myself included, will keep our
trotters out of the trough?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not need briefing
notes or the hypocrisy of the Reform Party on this issue.
Remember the great announcement of the 10 per cent pay cut?
I understand it is tough. They had a press conference. They gave
away the keys to the limo, but the leader of the Reform Party is
fighting right now to end the 10 per cent pay cut.
(1445)
Could it be that the Reform Party is finally beginning to
understand that the salary of a member of Parliament is $20,000
less than the salary of a secondary school principal in this
community?
We have promised pension reform. We will deliver pension
reform, but unlike the Reform Party we will not prop up the
notion that politicians are here at the top.
I said yesterday, and I will say it again, my father spent 16
years in public life. When he left he was unable to walk; he was
unable to go to the bathroom on his own; and his pension was
$160 a month. I will not apologize for paying politicians what
they are worth.
7933
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In their
majority report on foreign policy, Liberal members and senators
refer to Canada's principal trading partner as a problem. After
being opposed to the free trade agreement with the United States
and ultimately rallying behind NAFTA, they now wonder
whether it would not be advisable to simply abolish all trade
commissioner posts in the United States and Mexico.
Does the government intend to reject the Liberal majority's
recommendation to abolish the posts of trade commissioners,
since it knows perfectly well that this might deprive Quebec and
Canadian businesses of major benefits arising from the free
trade agreement with the United States and Mexico?
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the committee's
report was released a few days ago. The department is now
examining the recommendations contained in this report. Our
response to the recommendations in this report will be made
public as soon as possible.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
their report, the Liberal members and senators, as I said before,
see trade relations with the United States as a problem. Would it
be possible to find out from someone in this government
whether they endorse this view and whether they agree that
abolishing trade commissioner posts is hardly the way to help
small businesses break into the U.S. market?
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I may point out that
trade between Canada and the United States is worth about $280
billion in both directions. We are bound to have problems from
time to time in some areas. That is not unusual. But it is
incorrect to say that relations between Canada and the United
States are poor, which is what the Bloc Quebecois is saying.
However, when their leader was part of the government and sat
on this side of the House, he supported the free trade agreement
with the United States.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prince
Edward Island Fishermen's Association has recently expressed
great concern over proposed new fish licensing fees. I believe it
has a copy of the proposal from the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans.
I would like to ask a question of the minister. Is it true that
Island fishermen may go from paying tens of dollars for a
fishing licence to paying tens of thousands of dollars under this
new proposal? If so, how will individual costs per fisher be
determined?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I know
the leader and the members of the Reform Party are interested in
this question because of their constant request of the
government to find efficiencies in the way in which we deliver
programs.
As part of the program review exercise, DFO is looking at cost
recovery measures. I can say to the member that no decisions
have been taken at this stage of the game. There will be no
change in the licence fee structure for 1995, but we are asking
ourselves whether it is appropriate that somebody who makes on
average a $900,000 a year income from fishing certain lucrative
fisheries should pay the same fee for a licence as somebody who
makes $9,000.
(1450)
My belief is that somebody who makes $900,000 can afford a
little more than someone who makes $9,000. These fees will be
quite reasonable, quite rational, and will reflect the
circumstances of fishermen living everywhere in Atlantic
Canada.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Just yesterday a Gatineau man
was found not guilty after he severely beat and threatened to kill
his wife. His defence: A large intake of cocaine made him
unconscious of his actions.
Will the Minister of Justice now show some backbone and
some leadership and put a stop to this insanity in our justice
system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to
comment on the particular case to which the member has
referred, but I will be happy to respond to his broader point. I do
so as follows.
The cases in the Supreme Court of Canada in recent years,
including Daviault as recently as a month ago and Bernard in
1988, identified the difficulty in dealing with intoxication from
the perspective of the criminal law, primarily because
intoxication, depending on the degree, goes to the ability of the
accused person to form the intent which is an integral part of the
offence as the law is written at present.
In each of those cases the court expressed the invitation to
Parliament to consider alternative ways of expressing the law to
overcome that impediment. On Saturday last the government
accepted that invitation. We published a paper expressly for the
purpose of examining alternatives in that regard. We are solicit-
7934
ing during a decent period the opinions of Canadians including
experts on the subject. We will reformulate as necessary the
criminal law in order to ensure that people are accountable for
their conduct.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, while a whole lot of lawyers make a lot of money
from this defence and while this minister ponders his political
options, the travesty of justice continues.
Last week the Minister of Justice wasted no time to kill any
possible use of a cultural defence in criminal cases. Will the
minister now act with equal speed to immediately put a stop to
this insane use of drunkenness and drug induced defences?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the process of
developing sections of the code that will introduce
accountability while respecting constitutional rights and
judicial realities is not one that can be achieved overnight.
The process of discussion which we have undertaken will last
for a reasonable period and enable us to develop proposals and
solutions that will last.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal government has undertaken to ban
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The Minister of
Justice himself promised to change the Canadian Human Rights
Act accordingly, no later than this fall. But we are now told that
60 Liberal members are against any legislative change to ensure
that sexual orientation is considered as a prohibited ground of
discrimination.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. In light of the
opposition generated within government ranks, does the
minister still plan to table by Christmas a bill to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act so that sexual orientation is
recognized as a prohibited ground of discrimination?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our intention remains
exactly the same, to introduce legislation in that regard before
the Christmas break.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, considering that several government members are in
disagreement, will the minister confirm that he can go ahead and
table his bill, the only condition being that a free vote be held on
the issue?
(1455)
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has
made clear that this is a government commitment and that it will
be proceeded with on that basis.
I should say, in response to the member's reference to dissent
or discussion on the government side, that whatever goes on in
the caucus of this party is a private matter for us alone. I should
say as well that in this party we listen with care and respect to
different points of view, but at the end of the day we decide and
present legislation on behalf of the government.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
foreign policy review released Wednesday shockingly called for
increased spending in a number of areas.
Given Canada's tough fiscal situation, will the Minister of
Foreign Affairs assure Canadians he will stick to the deficit
reduction program of the finance minister and not ask for
increased spending in the budget?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me the
occasion, in responding to his question, to thank and
congratulate all members of the committee who did very good
work.
As is a tradition in the House we have received the report and
the dissident reports. We will, as a good government, look at
them. I want to say at the outset that there are some very good
recommendations and some that are not so good.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that was an
interesting answer.
Since the foreign affairs review did not recommend any
specific spending cuts, the Reform Party suggested cuts to
bilateral aid and international grants among many other areas.
After reflecting for the past few days on our proposal, does the
minister agree with these cuts and, if not, what spending cuts
would he suggest?
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when I testified before the parliamentary
committee, when it began its hearings, I had the opportunity to
impress upon the committee members that we will have to do
more with less in the future.
7935
We will have to come up with ingenious ideas to allow Canada
to continue to play its rightful role on the international scene,
one that all our friends and partners expect Canada to play.
There is no doubt that we will have to take into account our
increasingly limited financial resources.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
As the minister knows, VIA Rail will terminate passenger
service from Saint John, New Brunswick to Sherbrooke, Quebec
as of December 15, 1994 and CPR intends to abandon the rail
line on January 1, 1995.
The private sector seems to have taken great interest in freight
service from Saint John through the state of Maine and then
through to Sherbrooke.
Could the minister tell us if he sees an option to renew
passenger service from Saint John, New Brunswick to
Sherbrooke, Quebec?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the interest of the hon. member in this matter,
but I want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding. There
has not been a single request from VIA to abandon any service in
Canada, with the exception of this one area where it was not
through its wishes but as a result of a decision by CP to abandon
the freight activity on that line.
I would not want to give any indication of what may or may
not happen in the future. The problem of the existing line on the
basis of the freight operations has not been resolved. I would not
care to speculate other than to say that I am sure VIA will
continue to try to provide the very best service it can within the
parameters of the limited budget we are allowing it to operate
under.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on November 7, before the tenants' association in his riding, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs reiterated his party's
election commitment not to raise the contribution of families
living in social housing beyond the current level of 25 per cent
of their income.
Will the Minister of Public Works promise families living in
social housing not to raise their rents and increase their financial
contribution from 25 per cent to 30 per cent of total income?
(1500 )
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question.
He will know that that particular subject matter was the
subject of debate of ministers of the crown federally and
provincially at two housing ministers conferences which took
place in the last year.
It is a subject matter which we are presently reviewing. It is an
issue whereby in eight jurisdictions the rise from 25 per cent to
30 per cent is now in effect. The Government of Canada will
review all of the options presented to it regarding this particular
matter.
I do not want to give the hon. member the false impression
that we can continue in the social housing end without providing
the necessary kinds of revenues from a variety of different
sources in order to refurbish the existing stock which is across
this country.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today's
Treasury Board report into the deliberate financial
mismanagement at Canada Communication Group makes no
mention of the disciplinary action.
In February 1992 the Comptroller General's department said:
``Don't do this anymore''. In November 1992 the Auditor
General said it was illegal. In 1993 his own department said to
cease and desist. Yet we find these things have been ongoing.
Will the President of the Treasury Board assure this House
and all Canadians that we will never again see this type of
dishonest and illegal activity again?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
makes reference to the report which the Treasury Board minister
has tabled.
Let it be particularly clear there have been breaches if you
will of the Financial Administration Act. Treasury Board in
co-operation with other ministries has taken corrective action to
make certain this does not happen again.
With regard to my own department, management control has
been removed from that agency and transferred to another.
Second, the chief executive officer has been replaced and is no
longer in existence. Third, on the very substance of the issue and
the continuation of that operation we are at present as a result of
program review looking at the possibility of either privatizing or
discontinuing the special operating agency which it is under.
7936
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of the Environment
released a discussion paper concerning endangered species in
Canada. I too commend her for recognizing the seriousness of
the situation as well as the need for consultation in developing
federal legislation.
My question recognizes that there would have to be
co-operation between federal, provincial and aboriginal leaders
before federal legislation could be effective.
Would the minister give us some idea as to what type of
consultation she has planned and what specific date she has in
mind for the introduction of federal legislation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to
acknowledge the work of the chair of the Standing Committee
on Environment on this issue. It is a very crucial issue. We have
had some preliminary discussions with the provinces including
the province of British Columbia whose minister of
environment has expressed strong support for the initiatives we
are taking.
We hope to complete a public input process in January and
February across the country. We will be dealing on a bilateral
level with aboriginal leaders and we hope to be able to introduce
framework legislation in the spring.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of Mr. Habib Ben Yahia, Minister of
Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tunisia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
Secretary of State give us an overview of the legislative agenda
for the next few days?
[English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will take note of the
debate on social security review. Next week we will commence
report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-48, natural
resources reorganization; Bill C-52, government services
reorganization; and Bill C-55, Yukon surface rights. We will
also want to consult concerning completion of second reading
stage of Bill C-53, Canadian Heritage Reorganization. As the
House is aware there is a time factor involved with regard to Bill
C-57, the World Trade Organization.
(1505)
The House should take note that we intend to give
consideration to that bill at report stage and third reading a high
priority, as soon as it has been reported from committee.
[Translation]
Finally, Mr. Speaker, Tuesday, November 22, will be an
opposition day.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond on a point of order expressing
some concerns about the report just given by the Minister of
State for Parliamentary Affairs.
We are rather concerned that there have been a very limited
number of bills that have been eligible to go on the Order Paper.
We substituted that opportunity to debate legislation with take
note debates. I certainly do not want to express the view that we
are against take note debates. But it seems like they are being
placed in substitution for actual bills to debate.
There are only three bills to my understanding that could be
placed on the Order Paper this week. The minister did not
announce the introduction of any new bills.
Our concern is what is happening with the starvation of
legislation in the House is causing bills to be rammed through
committee stage much more quickly than members of those
committees have an opportunity to deal with those bills in a
substantial way.
In light of the indication we got earlier that committees would
have time to do their job and would receive new importance in
this House in dealing with legislation, I would urge the
government to provide more legislation for us to deal with in
this House so that bills may not be rammed through at
committee stage, but have proper time for discussion,
amendments and witnesses to appear.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me assure the
member that in due course new bills will be introduced. Also, as
he can see from my weekly business statement, there are a
certain number of bills that are in committee. As soon as the
committees report to the House they will be debated. That is
what I announced for the coming week.
I want to reassure him that it is not the customary intention in
the weekly business statement to announce new legislation. New
legislation will be announced in due course and at the right
moment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will assume that the
discussion related to the Thursday traditional question is
concluded.
7937
7937
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Lotbinière has about five minutes left for questions and
comments. The hon. member for Lévis.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
attentively to the speech given by the hon. member for
Lotbinière before Question Period. He addressed two issues, or
two client groups, of particular interest to me in the context of
this social security reform. He talked about young people and
the tuition fee problem. I would like him to clarify his position
on this.
I would also ask him, if we have enough time, to elaborate on
unemployment insurance proposals concerning women.
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to answer my colleague and also to inform all members
of this House. A secret document published in the Toronto Star
shows that with this reform, students will pay twice as much
tuition.
When the minister asks these students to put their shoulder to
the wheel, I think that is rather hard to do, since some students
will leave university with a $50,000 debt.
I would also like to answer the question about women. With
this new reform, women in Quebec and Canada, even if they
have paid into UI all their lives, will not be entitled to benefits if
their income is over a certain amount. I think it is unfortunate to
pick on women in that way.
(1510)
I must also say that the reform of social programs will cost
$170 million just in Quebec and force 40,000 households onto
welfare. We must look deeper into the reform of social
programs.
Take a family in which the father loses his job for some reason
or other or has an insecure job and winds up on welfare. Imagine
what it costs the government. First, it often causes problems like
depression, medical problems; he has to see psychologists and
psychiatrists. We must analyze the whole situation. We must not
have a reform just for the sake of having a reform. We must also
analyze the whole situation.
I often say that we must do prevention. We know that there is
$6.4 billion in unpaid taxes to collect, $6.4 billion for the
government's finances. It is out there, but it must be collected.
That is all. When we opposition members tell you about the $6.4
billion, we are not here just to make trouble. Not at all! We are
here to find solutions with the government, not just to criticize.
As politicians, we must deal with this situation. Unions have
noticed that today employers hire more and more people on
three- or four-month contracts. That is what happens more and
more. Some employment agencies do just that. They hire people
and tell them: You are hired for four or five months.
Consequently, you can expect these people to come back every
year. This is a problem.
In my region, unemployment runs very high and there are
many seasonal workers. The social program reform will be
applied uniformly everywhere, whether a province is
prosperous or not, and that creates an injustice. So, let us take a
closer look at these issues, which affect the workers and the
unemployed. Whether or not you are unionized, the problem
will surface some day. I tell unions that, at some point, the
problem will come up.
Problems will surface and some say we will perhaps need a
better immigration policy. If a reform is necessary, we should go
that far. I am not saying we should not let anybody in. What I am
saying is we have to create jobs. Thanks to modern technology, a
machine can do the work of 100 workers. But what happens to
these people? They find themselves out of work. This is what
happens. I have nothing against progress, but it is a matter of
balancing the positive against the negative. And this is what my
comments are all about.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to the motion of the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
In his social security reform package, the minister proposes to
deal with social problems and unemployment, at the expense of
the unemployed and the poorest people in this country. The
government is asking the unemployed to pay more for a solution
to their problems and asks the poor to be even poorer, if they
would enjoy the benefits of this reform which, as I said before,
will take more money from the unemployed and the poor.
Instead of looking at the underlying cause of unemployment,
instead of looking at the causes of social problems, the minister
and his experts are telling the unemployed they will have to pay
the bill. As if the unemployed and the poor were responsible for
unemployment rates and the large percentage of people living on
welfare, especially in Quebec.
(1515)
That is why this afternoon, I would prefer to discuss what
causes unemployment and the reasons for welfare. The federal
Liberals have not been very helpful in this respect. After
working for about ten years here in the House of Commons and
seeing how the government runs its affairs, I could give you a
few examples to prove that the federal government causes
unemployment, not the unemployed.
7938
My first example concerns interest rates. In 1990, the
Governor of the Bank of Canada decided to raise interest rates,
saying that there were inflationary tendencies in Canada and
that we absolutely had to raise interest rates to reduce economic
growth, although he knew perfectly well that these inflationary
tendencies were restricted to a few specific locations in Canada
and that their causes were well-known.
Inflation tended to be concentrated in the Toronto area. Why?
Because the federal government had invested too much money
in federal-provincial shared-cost programs. In 1981, 1982 and
1983, the Liberal government had set up special programs to
fight the recession. At the time, inflation was really high and
you may remember that the government had raised interest rates
up to 21 per cent. It also had to set up programs, precisely to
ensure that people on unemployment or welfare rolls would not
suffer unduly from the situation.
However, the Conservative Party, which was in office then
and of which I was a member, did not have the courage to reduce
the budgets of those programs and continued to spend more or
less the same amounts in joint cost-shared federal-provincial
programs. There was a 50-50 split.
The result of this was that Quebec, which had less money than
some other provinces and which was spending less on its joint
programs, received less money. This is why the inflation rate in
Quebec was somewhat more reasonable or acceptable. The
situation was just the opposite in Toronto, which was going full
speed ahead with the federal programs. Indeed, through these
50-50 programs, the federal government was spending a lot of
money, with the result that the economy of that region
overheated, thus generating more inflation.
It was obvious that the inflation was the direct result of this
overheating generated by the federal government. The
government of the time never wanted to use the means at its
disposal to lower inflation. Instead, it left the Governor of the
Bank of Canada on his own. And the governor had no choice but
to increase interest rates. Vancouver is the other place where
inflation was high. A lot of money was being invested by people
from Hong Kong and Far East Pacific Rim countries. The
inflation there was also very much a local phenomenon.
And what did the federal government do? Nothing. It let
interest rates go up, with the result that Quebec's small and
medium-sized businesses, which had worked tremendously
hard to survive, went bankrupt one after the other.
Unemployment went up, since workers were being laid off. All
this because the federal government did not take its
responsibility. I personally told the Governor of the Bank of
Canada then that he was creating a recession we would have
great difficulty pulling out of.
(1520)
We have been in a recession for four years, yet did not manage
to bring it under control. That is terrible. So, when I hear that the
unemployed should be the ones to pay for the problems, I find it
absolutely ridiculous. That is all the Minister of Human
Resources Development talks about in his plan.
The other event that took place was the signing, in 1989, of the
Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Quebec investors
in particular, and I am still one of them, were told: ``Invest in
your business because this is a golden opportunity to gain access
to a unique market, the US market''. We were told: ``Invest in
your businesses and life will be great. In the years to come, you
will make good money, do good business and create jobs. It is
going to be just great''.
A short time afterwards, interest rates went up, curbing
growth and killing the very businesses that had just been put in a
vulnerable position by investing in infrastructure and
equipment. They were crushed with higher interests rates,
reduced growth and reduced production capacity, at a time when
they are very vulnerable. Many had to shut down. That is
outrageous! And that is what is going on right now.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that, if we want to address
the UI and social welfare issue, instead of making a big fuss,
publishing nice green books and talking about UI and social
reform, we should start by creating favourable conditions for
our businesses. Jobs do not appear suddenly, out of thin air; they
are created by businesses and our businesses need favourable
conditions to do so. They must not be required to do what they
are currently doing on behalf of governments, namely handling
enormous amounts of money collected left and right. Let me
name a few of the tasks imposed upon our businesses.
First, they have to pay CSST premiums, UI premiums, federal
and provincial sales taxes as well as federal and provincial
income tax. They must deal with two sets of taxes: Quebec's and
Ottawa's. I could give other examples.
Each time that a business is unable, or fails, to satisfy all these
requests, which come in daily, there are additional penalties to
pay.
Our small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec have to
live in this negative environment. We think that it is terrible,
unacceptable and discouraging for those who want to go into
business, to succeed, to create, to invent and to export to have to
look after all this administration for the two levels of
government.
When I say that support to businesses must be more flexible, I
am not talking about money, but rather, at the very least, an
environment that would facilitate their growth.
7939
The government's insistence on centralizing, on trying to
control everything from here, on creating terrible
confrontations between the two levels of government, leaves our
businesses vulnerable in this sort of environment.
This is just another example. I think that the Minister of
Human Resources Development hit on it himself when he said
that there are many difficulties and problems associated with
unemployment insurance and other social programs. There are
many problems to resolve. But having read the document, I can
tell you that there are not many solutions, because he did not
really understand the cause of the problem.
We have here proof, once again, that federalism does not
work. When a government can no longer meet the basic needs of
its citizens, it is clear that federalism is not working. The debt is
now $550 billion.
(1525)
Our deficit will again be close to $40 billion. What more proof
do we need that federalism does not work?
So what is the answer? As the Premier of Quebec told the
Chamber of Commerce last Tuesday, although the federal
government siphons off our money and, as a result, our
resources are diminished, Quebecers manage to do a better job
than the federal government as far as economic development
and job creation are concerned. My view is that as far as we are
concerned, this reform is redundant. The federal government
should simply transfer full responsibility to Quebec, since it has
given us ample proof it cannot make a go of it. I can assure you
that Quebecers with their dynamic outlook will do a much better
job. I am positive about that.
That is why I look forward to the challenge of a sovereign
Quebec, where Quebecers will be able to develop their potential
and get a really good start by investing all their resources and
skills and productivity. They will be able to create jobs, reduce
unemployment and reduce the number of welfare recipients so
that this nation can live with honour and enthusiasm.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the chance to comment on the member's remarks and
on the whole social program review debate.
I wonder how seriously the government takes this whole
program. When we look back at the chronology of events
leading up to today and some of the recent statements by the
human resources development minister, it makes us wonder how
devoted the government really is to tackling the problem of
social programs, the debt in general and how to make
government run much more efficiently.
When I think back to the election campaign I remember
distinctly how our party talked quite a bit about social programs
and how they needed to be reformed. I remember Kim
Campbell, the then Prime Minister, talking about social program
reforms in so far as she said they were too important to be
discussed during an election.
I also remember the deafening silence of the Liberal Party on
this whole issue. If one looks at the government's red book it is
almost without mention of social program reform. That was one
year ago. I guess the Liberals must have been holding this close
to their vests because shortly after they became government
they started to make noises about the need to change social
programs.
What happened is they came face to face with the reality, at
that time, of about a $500 billion debt. Today it is just about
$540 billion. They realized that they were going to have to do
something to deal with the deficit and debt so they looked at
social program reform.
During the throne speech and in the days shortly thereafter
they said they would launch a task force and have an action plan
on the reform of Canada's social programs. A motion was made
to that effect at the end of January of this year if memory serves
me.
Over the course of days after that, we found that it was going
to be the same old thing, the same old way of doing politics.
First we found out that this group was going to be hearing not
from regular Canadians but instead from special interest groups
who, in most cases, were funded by the government. In fact I sat
on that committee as an associate member.
I remember as a newly minted MP how disappointed I was to
find out we were not going to hear from some of the Canadians
who have a vested interest, as taxpayers, in seeing social
programs work well. We were pretty disappointed that this was
not happening.
(1530 )
I must also comment that over the course of events we saw
that the task force the minister was going to refer to was in many
cases a bunch of hand picked patronage appointments, people
who had strong ties to the Liberal government. Over the course
of the summer we found that it lost its impetus and now the
action plan has become a discussion paper. Over the course of
events we have found that the government has failed to really
pursue this with the necessary vigour considering this country's
huge debt. Now taxpayers are running, afraid that the fat greedy
fingers of government are going to get them.
So far this government has been unable to bring forward a real
action plan. I encourage the government to move with dispatch.
Get a handle on this serious problem by dealing with the social
program review forthwith. Bring forward a real action plan that
will bring the deficit and debt to heel.
7940
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Given the general nature
of the overall comments of the hon. member, I still want to give
the member for Longueuil the opportunity to rebut.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, there was so little in
the way of questions in the hon. member's comments that I
thought he had started on a speech.
Initially, he asked whether the government was serious about
its reform proposals. I doubt it, because if you consider that
there is nothing in this document about demands Quebec has
been repeating for 30 years, I think we can hardly say that this is
a serious document, when they keep wanting to centralize and
create confrontational situations.
Another point I wanted to mention earlier, which may answer
part of his question, is that just this week, Softimage, a software
company that invested several million dollars in Quebec, was
looking for 70 computer experts but failed to find any. This
means that manpower training is not adapted to the needs of
companies. Once again, this manpower training mess is
aggravating the unemployment problem but the minister does
not seem to mention that in his report. There is a serious problem
with manpower training and as a result, a number of companies
cannot find the qualified employees they need, although we
have a high unemployment rate.
We also have scientists who are doing very advanced
research, but we do not have the companies that can
manufacture these new products. This means there is a lack of
consistency, so that a lot of time and money is wasted and we are
not as efficient as we could be. We have trouble producing a
low-cost, quality product, and at the same time we are trying to
break into international markets. These incredible
inconsistencies cost a lot of money and make us inefficient.
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my time is up. I could have gone on
for much longer because there is so much to say about this.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member
for Longueuil for his co-operation.
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I almost hate to break up this Bloc-Reform love-in on
a government motion which puts forth provisions for a
discussion paper and discussion on something that is very
important to the country.
The changing nature of employment over the past several
years has had considerable impact on the unemployment
insurance program. Since UI is the key component in social
security, it is essential that we revitalize the program to meet the
needs of all Canadians in all provinces in the 1990s and beyond.
Originally UI was intended to provide temporary financial
assistance for workers between jobs. Today people use UI for
long term support and many use the programs repeatedly. Last
year 13 per cent of unemployed Canadians had been out of work
for a year or more. Compared to 1976 that is three times the level
of long term unemployment.
Almost 40 per cent of UI recipients have claimed benefits at
least three times during the previous five years. The number of
frequent claimants has almost doubled in 13 years.
(1535 )
The problem with UI is not the claimants. The problem is the
program. It works well for people who require short term help
while looking for a job, but it does help workers who need to
adjust to the changing economic structure.
Many individuals alternate short periods of work with periods
of receiving UI benefits. It becomes a way of life. These UI
recipients need more than basic support. Their problem is more
complex. They may need skills training, even basic academic
upgrading or some counselling to get started in a new, more
stable occupation.
A recent study by StatsCanada suggests that some employers
take unfair advantage of the program. They do so by organizing
schedules around the required number of weeks people need to
qualify for UI benefits. Employers plan layoffs to coincide with
UI qualification periods and plan recalls when worker benefits
come to an end.
The business community complains that increases in UI
premiums discourage job creation. Since premiums often
increase during the latter part of a recession, we are taxing jobs
at the worst possible time. Also, due to the changes in the labour
market many more workers are not covered by UI. This is
especially true for women and young Canadians.
What we need is an effective, sustainable insurance program
that recognizes an individual's responsibility to become
self-reliant. At the same time the program must ensure an
income support system for those who truly need it.
To that end, we are recommending for discussion two
possibilities for revitalizing UI. One approach calls for a new
employment insurance program that closely integrates
assistance with employment development services, or we could
adjust the existing UI program to discourage abuse and better
serve those who genuinely need it. Some elements overlap in
both approaches. A new employment insurance program could
divide benefits into two kinds: basic insurance and adjustment
insurance.
Under basic insurance occasional users of UI could receive
help returning to work much as they do now. These claimants
could receive UI benefits and training employment programs
more or less as they do now. Basic insurance would include the
special benefits available in the current system. This insurance
7941
would be for those who are caught between two jobs or who may
need some assistance on a temporary basis.
Adjustment insurance could be available to frequent
claimants. Who is a frequent claimant would have to be
determined. For discussion we are using the example of a person
who files three or more claims in five years. As well, adjustment
insurance would consider regional differences in the workforce.
Other questions under adjustment insurance include: How
long should a claimant draw these benefits? Should adjustment
benefits be income tested? Should adjustment benefits depend
upon a claimant's willingness to participate in adjustment
programs? In considering the answers to these questions it will
be important to recognize the significance of the UI system to
many parts of the economy and in many parts of the country.
A fair approach which allows people to respond and adjust
will be important. That is one approach, a new employment
insurance program. A second approach, adjusting the current UI
program, would not distinguish between occasional and
frequent claimants.
We can increase the time a person had to work to qualify for
UI, or we could reduce benefits by shortening duration and/or
lowering the level of benefits. This approach would free up
significant resources for reinvestment in employment
programs, but it would not identify claimants who require the
most help in staying employed. Those most in need of income
support will not receive adequate assistance. Nonetheless this
approach might be taken in conjunction with the first to create
an equitable and balanced reform strategy.
(1540)
As well, UI reform must address the needs of the workers in
non-standard employment: part timers, self-employed,
temporary workers, and people with multiple jobs. Last year
more than 60 per cent of all new jobs were part time. Many of
these workers are not fully covered or not covered at all.
We also have to determine the best way to fund the renewed
insurance program. Employers and workers are concerned about
how UI premium rates are set. Higher premiums are killing jobs.
We need to think about how the burden of premiums is shared.
Options for improving funding include: building a surplus in
the insurance account during strong economic growth; requiring
employers to pay premiums on their total payroll; expanding
earnings subject to premiums; increasing premium rates for
those who use the program the most; and reducing premiums for
employers who support training.
Funds saved from a revitalized UI program could be used to
reduce premiums or to make employment development services
more effective. The two must work hand in hand.
Employment development services help the chronically
unemployed by offering them job counselling, training, labour
market information and work experience. When people move
from welfare to work, employment development services are a
good investment. Unfortunately they do not do that often
enough.
Employment development services need to be flexible, to be
tailored to individual needs and community opportunities. We
must give more UI claimants personalized job counselling that
directs them toward the specific help they require. Up to date
relevant information about job opportunities would help people
make better informed decisions about jobs, training and
education.
Millions of adults require additional training in reading,
writing and arithmetic, the basic skills essential for almost all
employment. The federal government sends UI recipients to
classroom courses but again training must fit individual needs.
Workplace training provided by employers is often the most
effective approach. To encourage this we could offer employers
tax credits, levies for training and paid educational leave.
Another consideration is to supplement wages for
unemployed workers facing specific barriers to employment
such as persons with disabilities or long term unemployed
workers who may need an extra bit of support to break into the
labour market.
Much of the success of employment development services
depends upon good management. Success should be measured
by results, not by bureaucratic enforcement of the program's
rules. We should consider setting broad goals and then inviting
local communities to decide which programs will best achieve
those goals.
Once again effective EDS will require effective partnerships.
We have invited the provinces and territories to plan many
employment development services and to manage the purchase
of institutional training. The province could manage single
window offices to bring federal-provincial programs under one
roof. This would make access easier for both UI recipients and
those on social assistance who should also have access to EDS.
We must do more to help people with disabilities overcome
barriers and become fully integrated into Canadian society.
Constructive partnerships could lead to more accessible
workplaces, flexible working conditions, appropriate training
and better management practices for persons with disabilities.
I know hon. members appreciate the complexity and
magnitude of reforming UI and adjusting employment
development
7942
services. I trust the ideas I have presented will help them prepare
input for the government's discussion paper. I look forward to
hearing the responses of my hon. colleagues.
(1545)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as you know, I
am on the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development now holding consultations on social programs.
The speech by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton made
me shudder because it seems to overlook reality. It is based on
the widely-held belief-too widely held in my opinion-that
many unemployed workers lose their jobs on purpose. His talk
of abuse almost implies that the unemployed are guilty of fraud.
There may be abusers but I will start by asking him-I will have
more questions later-if he can tell me what percentage of the
unemployed are guilty of fraud?
His arguments sound funny when we look, for instance, at the
miserly unemployment insurance fund. The human resources
committee I am on heard a forecast from the minister but when
we recently asked a senior official, he anticipated a surplus in
the order of $2 billion in the UI fund for the year.
Now, why is there a surplus? Because UI was cut this year.
The three series of cuts that he mentioned were implemented,
and the hon. member seems to say that we should go even
further. Let me refresh members' memories.
First, the amount of benefits was cut from 57 per cent to 55 per
cent of salary; then, the benefit period was reduced to a
maximum of 32 weeks.
I know that in the riding of Lévis, for example, the workers
laid off by the shipyard are not unemployed voluntarily. After
collecting benefits for 32 weeks, they will have no choice but to
turn to their provincial government, even though the federal
government picks up 50 per cent of social assistance costs, but it
is still shifting responsibilities to the provincial government.
The federal government is talking about making it even more
difficult to collect unemployment insurance.
Yesterday, I met with students who, after completing their
studies, may not be able to collect UI benefits because it would
be even more difficult for someone who has not yet managed to
join the labour force, as is now the case when after finally
landing an insecure job a person is allowed to enrol in retraining
programs.
I would ask the hon. member or another government member
a little later to give us the exact percentage of voluntary
unemployed who abuse the system.
[English]
Mr. O'Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
respond to the hon. member. He and I share something in
common. We are both concerned about the unemployment and
retraining situation in Canada. That is the reason the hon.
minister brought forward this paper for discussion. We welcome
discussion and the exchange of ideas hopefully for the benefit
of all people in Canada.
I am aware of ongoing retraining programs. I attended a
retraining program in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton the
other night. The Victoria County Training Council graduated
295 people and 75 per cent of 1,717 people it has retrained over
the last four years are actively involved in the workplace. That is
a record to be very proud of. That type of retraining program has
set the example for others to follow.
The member says that maybe I do not understand
unemployment insurance. My father was unemployed in the
fifties so I am well aware of what it is like to have
unemployment in one's family, to suffer because of it and not to
have proper funding until another job is found.
(1550)
Earlier today the member for Elk Island talked about some
dream world wherein no one here knew about the programs. All
the programs were brought in and he never had to partake of
them. He had a great time getting along in some fairyland like
Alice in Wonderland. I went through the fifties with an
unemployed father. I know what it is like to have to go through
programs when there is no work or nothing for the person who
has trained all his or her life and is all of a sudden out on the
street with nothing to do and a family to raise. I understand that
part of being unemployed. That is why I am anxious to be
involved in this program, add to the discussion and bring to the
forefront the fact that people have to retrain.
I spoke to the graduates the other night and said: ``You have
come through a training program; don't stop training''. We
talked to the pages this afternoon about always spending time
training and retraining. The days of walking into a place and
being there until one retires with a pension are over. We must
retrain. We must have a workforce that is effective in the
nineties and beyond. Retraining, unemployment and financial
assistance to people temporarily out of work are very important
to me. I want to see the ideas of all members brought forward to
make it a better program, an improved program for the people
who most need it.
There are too many single parents suffering in poverty in
Canada. They did not ask for that. They did not ask to be poor.
They do not want to be poor. They do not want handouts. They
want to be part of a productive society. That is what the
government is committed to doing. It wants to make this a more
productive society, a society that trains and retrains and looks
after the job market that becomes available, a highly technical
market in some cases.
7943
However 2,400 jobs went out of my riding over the free trade
agreement. Some of those people qualified within 15 or 20
weeks of not qualifying for certain programs of assistance.
Some compassion has to be given to a person who does not
qualify for POWA because there are not enough people working
in the factory and people are laid off. That has to be looked at
and refined so that it gives a benefit to everyone who needs it.
The member asked whether people cheated the system. I think
it is a very small percentage. I know some parties work on that
very small percentage for political gain, but I think most people
are honest. Most people are on these programs because they
need it, not because they want it. It is a program with
refinements that can work to the benefit of Canadian taxpayers
and retrain our workforce for the 1990s and into the year 2000.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
specific question for the hon. member who just spoke. I would
appreciate if I could get a direct answer to a specific question.
Does the hon. member believe that there should be unified
qualifying rules across the country such as, for example, with
regard to the period of work before qualifying for
unemployment insurance? Or, would the hon. member prefer
special treatment for certain parts of the country?
Mr. O'Reilly: Mr. Speaker, a specific answer would be that
all economic regions of the country are not the same. Whether
one is in Gaspé, Vegreville or Haliburton, there is a difference in
the areas, a difference in the needs and a difference in the
qualifications required. Some have to work in seasonal jobs in a
seasonal market in a certain area. I can go into Haliburton in my
area and find 30 per cent unemployment in the winter because it
is a seasonal, tourist oriented job market. It is improving. Winter
sports are coming on. There are some good ski hills. There are
cross-country trails. Things happen there in the winter that are
drawing more people in.
(1555)
I do not think we can compare that with the city of Toronto,
Vegreville, Elk Island, or any other area. The area has to be
taken into consideration on its needs. The program has to suit
the area, not the area suit the program. I hope that answers the
hon. member's question.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thought I was
going to be able to further interrogate the member for
Victoria-Haliburton, but I guess it is my turn now.
I would like to begin by declaring something we probably all
know. Members on this side of the House certainly are aware of
it. Members on the other side are becoming aware. We are very
happy to notice that in recent days even the Minister of Finance
has made public pronouncements admitting that our national
debt and ongoing annual deficit are problems and something we
must address.
As a matter of fact it is very important for us to remember in
all this debate when we are talking about revamping our social
programs the objective and one of the very large motivations for
us being here is that we need to reconsider the financial picture
of the country. We are in trouble. It is a matter of simple realism
to recognize that if we do not do something about it external
forces will take over and we will have it done for us. If we can do
something about it while we still have control that is much to be
desired and the highest of several different options.
In keeping with a well known couplet which probably
everyone in the House knows, the borrower is a slave to the
lender. Our debt with its required interest payments has made us
slaves in the sense that we have now lost our freedom to do the
things we want to do.
I really think it would be wonderful if we could just simply
pick up everyone who does not have a job. I think it would be
wonderful if everybody in the whole world could come to
Canada to get medical procedures done because we have a
wonderful free medicare system for everyone regardless of their
ability to pay. I think it would be wonderful if we could offer
free education to everyone, young and old alike. I think it would
be great if we could say to people who are unemployed: ``Don't
worry. We will pick up your cost of living. We will pay for your
tuition to get retrained. We will help you to get re-established in
another workplace''. Would that not be great? No one would
ever suffer at all. That would be great.
However we do not have that option because of our fiscal
situation. Right now for every $4 the government spends $1 is
borrowed. We only have income of $3 for every expenditure of
$4. A lot of that growth is not even in our control. Just adding the
interest payment this year of $40 billion, if we do nothing, will
add another $5 billion of interest payments next year because of
the interest due on the interest we paid this year and had to
borrow the money for. Unless we get a hold of it and get a hold of
it fast, we are not going to have the option.
Members opposite love to make wonderful promises. I do too.
I cannot help but use an analogy. I have a couple of sons. They
are now thankfully grown up or close to it anyway. One of them
is still at home because he needs my subsidy to go to school and
that is fine. We love him and it is great having him there. I
thought I would be considered the world's most wonderful dad if
I could say to my boys: ``Hey guys, I will buy you each a
Corvette''. They would just love it. Very frankly they would go
around bragging. They would say: ``I have the greatest dad in the
world. He is going to buy us each a Corvette''. It is an empty
promise because I do not have financial backing. I do not have
the money in the bank to buy two Corvettes to give to my boys.
My promise is empty.
7944
(1600)
It is time the Canadian people woke up to the fact that despite
the best promises that governments of the past have made and
the present government is making, unless we maintain the fiscal
backing that enables us to fulfil the promises, they become
empty promises. That is why we must discuss all of our spending
realistically, including social spending because it is such a large
portion of our total budget.
In the body of my speech I would like to concentrate on the
question of education. Since I graduated from university I have
been an educator. All of us here have been educated to some
degree or another and we have all benefited from receiving an
education.
It would not be stretching it at all to recognize that our
standard of living is based on education. Our democratic system
is based on education. If we did not have a generally educated
public we could forget about having votes and debates in public.
We could not present things for people to read. If they were not
educated and not literate we could only talk to them. We could
not appeal to their ability to compute matters to see whether we
are reasonable in our projections on the budget and government
spending. Our very democracy depends on a generally educated
public.
However, I would go beyond that. Without in any way
minimizing or marginalizing those people who do get past high
school, we also need to acknowledge that our standard of living
is greatly dependent on what happens in educational institutions
past high school.
I am not in any way minimizing or marginalizing those who
for whatever reason do not go beyond high school. I know a
number of people in that category and most of them do very well
but our standard of living, as I am going to show now, is
dependent on what happens afterward.
Think of the basis of much of our standard of living. Think of
the things that we enjoy. I guess because of my particular field of
study I would first of all thank the mathematicians, since
mathematics is the foundation of almost all science, all research
and all engineering. Without mathematics and a solid
mathematic, analytic ability we really would not have any of the
wonderful things that we enjoy in the western world. I extend
that to studies in engineering, to research scientists, to medical
practitioners, medical researchers. All of these people
contribute to what we almost take for granted in our country as a
standard of living.
We take it for granted that if we are ill we can go to the
hospital for treatment. It goes beyond just having the hospital
facility. Unless there are trained doctors and nurses, hospital
and medical technicians, respiratory people and all the other
specialities and all of the lab technicians, going to the hospital is
as useful as going out to the wood shed when you are sick. We
have to have qualified, trained people.
It is important for us to make sure that we have not only
quality education but quantity education. We need to provide a
high degree of quality control in our education right through the
years so that when our students graduate whether they are doing
surgery on us or are designing our aeroplanes, bridges, or
buildings, they will provide a highly reliable, dependable
service.
(1605)
It also has a spin-off in our economic competition in the rest
of the world. It is only when we do very well in those areas that
we can maintain our standards. We are dependent on people who
invent, who design, who plan, who build, who produce, who
organize, who maintain and operate equipment, who build and
maintain structures and systems. We need people who invent
combinations of chemicals and materials to help our agriculture
and forestry industries, to help us fight diseases with medicines.
We need all of those different aspects, which are the result of
education, if we are going to have our standard of living.
We need to have electrical engineers and others, who are
capable of learning, developing and inventing new ways of
communicating with each other via telecommunications
systems, computers and things like that. We need to constantly
be on the move forward.
So much for building the case for the need of education.
Should we as people collectively, through our tax system fund
education? I have said it in the House before. I say it again by
way of emphasizing something that has been greatly
misunderstood. Many times misinformation has gone out,
especially from members opposite, regarding our party. They
keep talking about us wanting to cut and slash and do away with
everything.
We said during the campaign and we are as deeply committed
now as ever to bringing our fiscal House into order so that we
can maintain a universal Canada-wide health care system. It is
in our policy. We have said it from the beginning. We have
always said it, notwithstanding that others have tried to
minimize our message.
Based on our very careful analysis of questionnaires of
members in our party, which we think is a very good
cross-section of the Canadian citizenry, those people have said
that health is first and education is second. Here we have two
programs. The review that the government has embarked on
does not even talk about health care, old age security and some
of the things that are so important to Canadians, but we have
talked about it.
Those are the items which are of very high priority for
Canadians. We are here to do what we can to make it more than
an empty promise. I would like to say that investment in
education is exactly that. I have already indicated that we
benefit as a society and as individuals from the positive
spin-offs of having an educated population. I would also like to
add that it is a very positive fiscal investment. We can invest our
money and actually get a monetary return.
7945
I want to go way beyond what the minister has suggested. In
fact it has already been done, as we know, in some previous
parliamentary work the government has embarked on and that is
to increase the loans to students. I do not think that is the way to
go at all. We need to give some positive support to education so
that education is within the means of students in their present
level of earnings however they earn their money in the summer
months when they are on vacation from their studies.
We need to look at it as an investment. Let me give some
numbers. I happen to love mathematics. I did a few calculations.
It is totally realistic to assume that a person with a university
degree, a college degree or a technical institute diploma could
earn in some cases $1,000 or more per month as a result of that
education.
I am going to take a very modest number. I used to use the
word conservative, but that word has now come into disrepute
around the country, so I no longer say that. I am going to use a
modest number of $400 per month. Let us say that graduate can
earn $400 per month more as a result of receiving an education.
Let us say that he graduates at age 22 and works to age 62, which
is a good 40-year life span of work.
(1610 )
During that time the $400 per month gives him an additional
$192,000 of earnings. We all know that in our tax system the
marginal rate of taxation is around 50 per cent. Governments
right now are clawing back 50 per cent of the result of that added
earning. Over the 40-year period that is $96,000. Just educating
a student gives back $96,000.
I want to be realistic. Let us think of this as an investment.
What is the present value of that, using an 8 per cent interest
rate, which is what I used to compute it. Amazingly the present
value of every educated student in terms of returned increase
income tax collected is $57,238. That is an amazing number. We
are quibbling about whether or not we should lend these students
$4,800 so that they can go to school and then graduate with a
huge personal debt load as well as the collective government
debt load we have laid on their shoulders. That is atrocious.
We ought to be looking at more creative ways of funding
education. It is a tremendous investment not only for our
standard of living but even from a straight fiscal point of view.
In the matter of direct income tax collected, it is a tremendous
benefit for us all in the economic activity in the country. The
more people we have who are educated the greater the economic
activity in our country and the greater our exports. We benefit
myriads more than just the income tax collected. That is but a
very small portion of that investment.
The question that comes next is how do we do this? How do we
provide an education system for our students so that it is
affordable and we can have all of our students going to school? I
agree with the goal that students should not be prevented from
going to school because of personal economic hindrances, just
as I agree that people should not be prevented from going to a
hospital for needed medical care because they do not have the
money to pay for it.
It is a downright shame if young people from poor families
cannot go to school because they cannot afford it. It is time that
we wake up to the fact that we have a responsibility to make sure
that education is affordable. That can only be done if we put our
fiscal house into order and stop all of the wastage in those many
other areas.
I have some suggestions. In the elementary and secondary
schools we practise the idea that education should be free.
Students generally do not pay tuition. There are some
exceptions. Unfortunately in parts of our country some people
who choose to send their children to private schools for various
personal reasons end up paying extra. They pay tuition. Others,
if they attend the public school system or, in some cases, there is
a legitimate separate school system in the province, do not pay.
That is paid for by the taxpayer.
I have a question. Why would we use that principle up to grade
12, or in Ontario grade 13, and then abandon it for education past
that? The only thing I can think of as a legitimate reason would
be that past grade 12 further education is a marked financial
advantage to the student as well. Not only do we benefit as a
society by being able to collect more income tax from them, but
they are paying more income tax because they are making more
money.
Therefore, it is fair to say that the students should pay for at
least a portion of their post-high school education, as it has been
for quite some time. However, I do not believe that we should
put the whole load, the whole burden of that education on these
students, particularly because we know that over the years they
will end up paying it back into the system anyway.
Therefore I would like to propose that we give very serious
consideration to a system whereby the students would look after
their own housing. That is more or less acceptable unless they
have to travel to a place away from home. The family should be
able to provide for housing. In most instances they can live at
home. Where they cannot of course we need to look at ways of
7946
funding that at a reasonable rate, perhaps as part of the
particular educational institution.
(1615)
Second, there are books and supplies. These too I think for the
most part could be funded by students through their summer
earnings, particularly if we had a good strong economy which
would demand that a lot of students be hired in the summer
months when they are away from their studies.
My last and most important suggestion is that we would go to
a system of vouchers for students which would essentially pay
their tuition. I would like to see the student upon graduation
from high school get a little certificate as part of his graduation
package that says the certificate may be presented to any
post-secondary institution in Canada of his choice and it will
provide for a payment of 90 per cent of the tuition at that
particular institution. I did think of putting in a fixed number.
That is another option, but we do recognize that some
institutions, some universities and some colleges have different
costs because of the kinds of programs they offer.
We know for example that in some of the engineering and
some of the physics programs the cost of the equipment is way
greater than in some other areas where the costs are mostly in
books and libraries. I think to recognize that different programs
have a slightly differentiated tuition system that certificate
could be used.
It would be a wonderful encouragement to our students to say:
``We believe in you. We don't care whether you have rich
parents. We are going to see that you have an opportunity for a
good education and we are with you all the way. Here is a
certificate from us, the taxpayers. We know that you will pay us
back. But we put our faith and our trust in you. We want to see
you be successful''.
Mr. Speaker, my time has come to an end. I really would like
to encourage the people on the government side to give serious
consideration when they are looking at this aspect of a social
program review to do it and, for the sake of our young people
and our children, do it well.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the
hon. member across the way. I must say that I am certainly
pleased to hear a member speak from the point of view of
consultation. That is what the green paper tabled by the minister
is really all about.
During the most recent break I had the opportunity to have
several public forums in my riding. I must admit there were
several suggestions on this particular point regarding education
and, from the federal perspective, how it might or should be
funded in the future.
The point that the hon. member made was one of those
comments about a voucher type of system. Another was the fact
that instead of taking this fund that currently I believe is $2.6
billion, put it in a special fund for students only, earmark it that
way and transfer it to the provinces, but with the specific outline
that it is for post-secondary education only to ensure that is
where it goes.
Having heard the hon. member and his comments regarding
the voucher system, would he agree that there probably are
several options available which could and possibly should be
looked at in addition to the one that was in the green paper as one
alternative.
I do appreciate the fact that finally the member and his party
realize that this is a consultation paper, that nothing has been
carved in stone, that we want this input not only from members
of Parliament but from Canadians from coast to coast so that we
can come up with a consensus that will be good for Canada, our
students, our youth not only today but indeed as we work toward
the 21st century and try to be a benefit to all post-secondary
students and those coming on in the next number of years.
I would ask the hon. member to comment on that.
(1620 )
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind
comments. Actually, I should be worried if I say things that
please members on the other side. Maybe I have not done a good
job.
With respect to the question of vouchers, I think it would be
better for us to take the federal government money that is now
allocated for post-secondary education, allocate it entirely
through the voucher system and allow the universities to build a
tuition system that reflects to a fair degree the cost of educating
a student in the program.
The provinces would individually be required to provide the
funding for the facilities and for any special developments there
since it is a provincial requirement. This way the students would
be the ones who would produce a level of good, healthy
academic competition between various institutions. They would
then have to attract students because of their good record and
good quality control program. Their graduates would be able to
get the top notch jobs. Through that natural competitiveness
those institutions would I think develop a better level of
research and a better level of teaching.
The provinces could go ahead and use their money as they are
now in their component in the provinces. The voucher system
would help to give students a great deal more flexibility in the
choice of which institution they attend because of the fact that
very often there are universities which specialize in their area.
For example today I was talking to a person who happens to be
a member of the chiropractic profession. There are no programs
for that particular discipline in all universities. But there are
7947
those that could provide that service and that student would not
have to face a great economic disadvantage because it may be
out of province.
Those are just some of my comments on that.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have enjoyed the analysis by the member for Elk Island.
I have just a couple of things in relation to education in
Canada and his idea that the economy is what should determine
how we relate to costs of education in elementary where it is
free, secondary where it is free and then in university where it
suddenly costs money.
In Canada education is a bargain if you compare it with any
country in the world. The one to which we are most likely to
compare it of course would be our neighbours to the south where
even the basic university courses cost roughly twice what they
do in Canada. I am talking about the state universities that
receive a government subsidy. I am not talking about private
universities. They are beyond reach unless you are quite
affluent. Private universities in the United States are very, very
expensive.
What is wrong with a student borrowing some money? Just
the exercise itself is a good one for a young person. He takes on
the responsibility of borrowing some money and having it made
available and taking that opportunity to advance himself,
investing in himself. That is not a bad exercise for a young
person to have. It would be better of course if you could graduate
and say: ``I do not owe anybody anything''.
Really, carrying a little debt within reason is a pretty good
exercise for later life. All of us I am sure have carried some debt.
The idea is to take on some responsibility, address that
responsibility seriously and repay that debt. I sometimes get
very annoyed when people take the liberty of borrowing or
taking advantage of money when it is available, but they do not
follow up with the responsibility that accompanies that, to pay it
back on time providing they are in a position to do that. I think
provision is being made now to gear the repayment plan to the
income you are getting. That seems to make sense to me. How
else would you pay it back.
(1625)
I wonder if the member would see some very worth while
benefit to a student through those years accepting the
responsibility of borrowing and of course the responsibility that
follows the borrowing, to see that it is repaid. It is really
taxpayers' money, my money, your money, and that of the rest of
us. It is our money. We want it back because we loaned it to
somebody. I think it is their responsibility to address that at the
appropriate time when they can of course.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address
that question because that is actually one of the aspects of this
proposal that bothers me the most.
I know it is good to learn when you are young that when you
borrow something you repay it. I remember growing up as a
youngster on a farm in Saskatchewan my dad taught me that
whenever we borrowed something from a neighbour we always
returned it in a condition as good as or better than we borrowed
it. That is a good principle but I do not believe it is a good
principle to set things up so that young people on graduation
have a millstone of debt hanging around their necks.
For example, a young person who has gone through a dental
program wants to open a dentist office. He now has to borrow
money in order to put up his office, get his equipment. That is
true for many different professions, even in my profession of
teaching. We need to have computer equipment and things like
that, depending on what area we are in.
Some of us on graduation get married. We set up a home. We
need to borrow money for the home. We need to borrow money
for the downpayment for the car and for the furniture. The first
thing you know, you are up to your ears in debt just like this
government is up to its ears in debt and you are totally
debilitated by it.
I really think it would be much healthier for our whole society
if our students could graduate debt free. That really is the very
best. It is not that one is a nine and the other is an eight. I really
think that one is a 10 and the other is a zero in this as far as my
feeling is concerned.
I know that is idealistic but I think it can happen. In a healthy
society where students can get a good summer job and are able to
live frugally, I believe they should be able to save enough to pay
their living expenses. If we as a society, as taxpayers, pay their
tuition directly and have them pay it back through their taxes
that would be a superior method.
I want to avoid handing them a millstone of debt with their
graduation certificate from university.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in
such a historic debate in this House, one that I think is of great
importance to all Canadians because we are talking not only
about the social security network that supports us all in times of
trouble but also about a very significant portion of the federal
government's budget.
The green paper recently released by the Minister of Human
Resources Development contains a number of interesting
proposals that have already been the subject of considerable
discussion and will continue to be the focus of that discussion in
the weeks ahead.
The government's objective in regard to the improvement of
Canada's social security programs was outlined very briefly by
the Prime Minister in a speech he gave to the Canadian Chamber
of Commerce in Quebec in September. I quote him: ``Our
objective at the end of the process is a reform system of social
security that protects the most vulnerable while enabling all
Canadians to obtain a fair and equal opportunity to exploit their
7948
talents, lead fulfilling lives and experience the dignity of
work''.
Those are words that would reflect the views of a series of
Prime Ministers of this country from Laurier to King, St.
Laurent, Pearson, Turner, Trudeau, and of course the present
Prime Minister who said the words.
They are words that come from the leader of a party that has
introduced virtually every social program this country enjoys
today. It is not a party that is in any way anxious to tear away the
fabric of the social programs that we have built for Canadians. It
is not our intent in producing this green paper to destroy in any
way or rip apart the social safety net that we as a party at various
times in government in Canada have worked to build.
(1630 )
On the other hand, there is a pressing need for social security
reform. I can only look at the figures. I have quoted them in
public meetings in my riding before and I do so again. The green
paper concerns federal expenditure of $39 billion or about 24
per cent of total federal expenditures. It does not include
pensions. It does not include expenditures in government
departments related to transport, foreign affairs, corrections and
national defence.
In other words, a huge range of federal government programs
are excluded from the $39 billion figure that is the subject of
discussion in the green paper on social security reform. It is the
only other single government expenditure that is as large as the
interest on the public debt which is at $40 billion. Some say:
``You can reduce the debt figure and that will solve your
problem''. That is complete nonsense, utter hogwash.
The government does not control interest rates in the country.
It can affect them. It can influence them. It cannot control them.
In the end Canada's interest rate, the national rate charged by
our central bank, will have to reflect world trends. It will have to
reflect those for the very simple reason that the value of our
dollar is tied to interest rates in the country. That is an
unfortunate fact of life, but Canada cannot simply go about
setting its own interest rate ignorant of world events, world
trading patterns and currency movements. We recognize that we
can influence the rate; we cannot control it.
Since the government has taken office it has influenced the
rate. Whether it was done directly or not I cannot say; I do not
know. The rate has gone down, the Canadian dollar has dropped
and Canadian exports have increased since, leading to increased
prosperity in the country. That may be one of the factors leading
to prosperity. There are others but that is a principal one. The
changes that have come about in our world economy have no
doubt improved the economic situation of Canadians, but it has
not improved to the extent that we can ignore the fiscal realities
the Minister of Finance has been discussing.
We have a particularly competent Minister of Finance who
has gone before the Standing Committee on Finance and made
what I can only describe as a brilliant exposition, describing the
state of the Canadian economy today and inviting Canadians to
address that committee to express their concerns and views
concerning tax changes in the country and how we can improve
the tax system to make it fairer and better.
He has also asked Canadians to comment on what they would
do if they were minister and were drafting a budget. Where
would they cut? Where would they increase taxes? Where would
they seek to increase revenue, and so on? Those questions are
extremely important. We have engaged in a great national
debate on this subject and we read about it daily in the media.
Unfortunately much of what we see are ideas that if we simply
cut interest rates everything will turn up roses. I do not accept
that for a moment. I do not believe it is true. I think the people
that are saying it know it is false. They are simply putting the
message out in order to distort the view of Canadians that things
can be improved in this easy way without some painful changes
in our systems.
What did the Minister of Finance say in his brilliant
exposition before the Standing Committee On Finance? First, he
indicated that the world economy has become far more
integrated than it was 40 or 50 years ago when many of the social
programs were put in place. It has become more integrated and
global and trade barriers have disappeared. We have brought
down trade barriers both through GATT and through the North
American Free Trade Agreement. Those are being extended
rapidly around the world.
Second, people from what we once called the third world are
joining the global economy. They are producing goods for sale
in this country that are inexpensive and that Canadians are
buying. We will continue to buy them in increasing numbers
because they are less expensive. They are also quite well made
in many cases. We are getting better and better products that are
made abroad.
Third, information technology is exploding. It is easily
portable and we cannot stop it from changing across borders
around the world. If we do not get on the bandwagon and
produce goods and deliver services in a less expensive and more
efficient way, we will be outpaced by others who can do it less
expensively elsewhere. The technology that allows us to deliver
the services more cheaply will move to the places where it is
being delivered cheaper, reduce costs further and leave us high
and dry. All this means is that competition is forcing companies,
states and individuals to change their method of work, their
method of dealing, and the way they interact one with the other.
7949
(1635)
I quote the Minister of Finance again:
For three entire decades after the second world war all we knew was high job
growth, high productivity growth, high income growth and low
unemployment. We ignored the fact that our unemployment rate was rising
relentlessly with every recession and staying up.
As he pointed out, the unemployment rate 25 years ago was
usually at 5 per cent. During this past decade it has been steadily
at 10 per cent. Unemployment has become more serious for
Canadians and the costs of it have risen enormously.
The Minister for Human Resources Development in his
introductory address to the House when he produced the green
paper and led off this debate pointed out that workers and
employers finance unemployment insurance through their
contributions. He said:
It is simply costing too much. In 1980 the program cost $4.4 billion. Last
year it cost $19.7 billion. In other words, in about 13 years the costs
quadrupled. We cannot allow this escalation in UI costs to continue.
The minister was right. For that reason we have to look at the
unemployment system to see what can be done to improve it. It
is very important that the green paper which has made some
proposals be thoroughly discussed and I have aimed to do that.
The minister outlined two basic proposals for change in UI.
He is willing to receive others. He has made that very clear. That
is what the public debate is about. He said we could have a new
unemployment insurance program or we could tighten the rules
of the existing UI program further.
We have been tightening the rules ever since I got elected in
1988. We watched the Conservative government tighten the
rules right, left and centre, causing pain and anxiety to a lot of
Canadians. In the last budget there was further tightening of
those rules. I do not think that continuing to tighten them is
really helping the unemployed. It is not.
We need to find a new scheme that encourages people to work
rather than encourage them to remain on unemployment
insurance. The minister pointed out that because the program
has been in place for so long and because it has some fairly
generous rules here and there it is easily abused both by workers
and by employers. They schedule work around UI instead of the
other way around.
We are not taking out unemployment insurance against the
day we are unemployed. We are taking it out and receiving it
because we know there will be a period of unemployment. It is
planned for in employment contracts today. That is not what the
system was designed for. Canadians are paying a great deal of
money for this system through the charges that are put on them,
especially if they are ones who are in places where they are
regularly employed and paying the new higher premiums.
The day after the tabling of the green paper I met with
members of the construction industry in my community. They
were very much concerned that unemployment insurance would
be changed as we know it. They are not seasonal workers, but
they are people employed in the construction industry who are
unemployed from time to time, not at any particular time of year
but whenever there is not work available for them. As they
pointed out to me, many of them travel great distances to get
work. They are quite prepared to travel to Windsor to work on a
construction project there, or to New Brunswick to work on a
construction project there if that is necessary. They will travel
great distances to get work. However, if there is no work
available, they depend on and need unemployment insurance.
The indication to me was that they would pay higher
premiums if they could continue to receive unemployment
insurance. They did not mean higher premiums in terms of the
employer's share. They meant in terms of the employees' share.
The employees would pay more if they could keep UI in
something like its existing format.
I invited them to make a submission to the minister, send a
letter to the minister or prepare some kind of brief through their
union-and some union leaders were at the meeting-to let the
minister know what they could do in their view to make the
system work for them.
I have stressed to the minister in my discussions with him the
importance of UI to people in that particular job category. In the
green paper there are suggestions that perhaps UI will have to be
tailored to fit the needs of different areas of our workforce. That
would be worthwhile. It is a sensible idea. I hope that there are
suggestions forthcoming from members of the construction
industry in Kingston and the Islands.
(1640 )
Another thing the Minister of Finance said that I think is
important is that we missed the signals with these rising
unemployment rates. I quote him again:
And as we were missing those signals what did we do? We borrowed to paper
over the problem, borrowing first from ourselves, then from foreigners and
always from the future.
The hon. member for Elk Island in his remarks referred to the
fiscal crisis facing Canada today. Most members of the House
acknowledge that is a serious problem facing us. For the years
from 1988 to 1993 I sat here and watched while Brian Mulroney
and Michael Wilson fiddled. They did absolutely nothing to
solve the deficit problem in Canada. Indeed it got worse and
worse the longer they were in office. They were elected in 1983
with promises to fix this problem. They were going to bring the
deficit under control within two or three years-I have forgotten
the promise now-from 1984. We all know what Mr. Mulroney's
promises were worth.
7950
We sat on the other side of the House, some of my colleagues
for the full nine painful years, but me for only five, and watched
the government do absolutely nothing to make the situation
better. I know members of the Reform Party who are here missed
this, but we heard budgets presented that indicated that within
three years the deficit would be down to, I think the low figure
we heard was $16 billion. It never got anywhere near $16
billion. The projections were always wrong. They were revised
in every budget and the promised pay off was always deferred
another two or three years. It was really quite nauseating.
The minister kept insisting with every budget every year that
this time his projections were going to stick, that he had made
the right decision, that everything was going to be fine in
another two or three years, and that we should just hold on to our
seats and wait and see what happened. They did not hold on to
their seats, thank goodness. We have the remnants of the party
sitting over there, all two of them. It was a string of broken
promises that really deflated and disappointed Canadians.
We have heard repeatedly from the Prime Minister and from
the Minister of Finance the proposal he has put forward to
reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of the gross national product by
the end of the third year of our mandate. That gives us two years
to reach that figure.
It is not going to be the annus mirabilis when we get there, but
it does signify that at least the Government of Canada is willing
to make a commitment and stick to it. The Prime Minister has
indicated his commitment to that figure repeatedly in the House
and elsewhere. I believe it is important that the government
achieve this.
The critics of social reform, and I point specifically to the
Bloc Quebecois, all sit and howl and scream and say: ``You are
eliminating this; you are going to hurt everybody''. Yet they
know perfectly well that the government is not seeking to reduce
all its expenditures through this one package alone.
I have no doubt in the ability of the Minister of Finance and in
his sense of fairness that when he seeks to achieve that goal of
reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP in another two years, he
will achieve it by making reductions across a very wide range of
government services and government programs. It will not all be
done through reductions in social programs, which is what the
Reform Party would like us to do.
[Translation]
On the one hand, the Bloc Quebecois wants everything to
remain the same, unchanged, exactly as it is right now.
Unfortunately, this is no longer an option. There is no way status
quo can be allowed to continue. This is just impossible.
[English]
On the other hand, the Reform Party wants to cut all the social
programs and let Canadians suffer on their own, abandoned by
their government, abandoned by the social programs they have
paid for with their taxes lo these many years.
An hon. member: All from rich provinces.
Mr. Milliken: And as my colleague says: ``All from rich
provinces''.
I do not care where the money comes from. The fact is that
Canadians expect there will be social programs in place. They
may not be the same as they are today, but they want social
programs and they want a voice in how those social programs
will be shaped.
That brings me to the significant and important thing about
this discussion. The Minister of Human Resources Development
has produced a plan for discussion. He has invited Canadians to
participate in this national debate to express to him and to one
another what they think the social programs of the country
should be like.
(1645 )
We are not going to have unanimity on the point. I know the
hon. members of the Bloc do not agree with anything the
government has put forward. They fulfil the traditional role of
an opposition and that is, oppose, oppose, oppose. I can
understand that. I am not surprised by that. On the other hand I
would hope they would engage in a dialogue with the
government and put forward their ideas on how the social
programs of this country could be improved.
As for the Reform Party, it was refreshing to hear the hon.
member for Elk Island. However I am sure that if his leader had
heard all his remarks he would have been horrified by what he
was saying. I know his leader would not have agreed with
everything the hon. member for Elk Island said. I can only hope
that the hon. member is here tomorrow. I am worried that he is
going to be shut up and gagged.
What he said about the importance of this program spending
on students was correct. I am sure that in an ideal world it would
be wonderful if students could come out of university debt free.
I do not think that is the case for many students today and I do
not believe it will be the case tomorrow. I think the situation can
only get worse, not better, at least for a while.
That is the fiscal reality we are going to have to face,
notwithstanding the demonstration yesterday and
notwithstanding the demagoguery of the hon. member for
Roberval who was out there saying that students deserved free
tuition and all that sort of nonsense. That was considered when I
was a student in the sixties. It was not adopted by governments
then and they had a lot more money to spend than governments
have today. It is simply not a realistic approach to the tuition
issue.
7951
I did not want to get into that. I am prepared today to deal with
unemployment insurance and I will stick with that.
The Reform Party must acknowledge that we cannot bring the
deficit of the Government of Canada under control simply by
eliminating social programs. If members of the Reform Party-
Mr. Hermanson: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The
parliamentary secretary just made some allegations about a
member who is not even present in the House regarding another
member in our caucus. He talked about being gagged. I would
appreciate it if the hon. parliamentary secretary would withdraw
those comments. They were out of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I think the point raised by
the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster is more a
matter of debate than a point of order. Like himself I have
followed the debate attentively. In fact I do not believe I can
attribute the inference to the parliamentary secretary. I think
there is a debate going on between the parliamentary secretary
and the previous spokesperson from the Reform Party as to
whether that member would be here tomorrow or not and no one
else who is here or not here at the present time in the Chamber.
I am prepared to return to debate. Unless the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster wishes to add something else, I will
return the debate to the parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I hope that silly interruption will
not be taken off my time. Even the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster was huffing and puffing on that one.
Members of the Reform Party would do well to reconsider
their ill advised stance with respect to Canada's social programs
and get on board with the government to make the social
programs better instead of just chopping and cutting the way
they want to do.
I recall during the last election campaign I had many requests
from electors as I went door to door asking what the Reform
Party was really doing with its proposals to cut the deficit. Of
course it had this great scheme for eliminating Canada's deficit
by cutting $18 billion or $15 billion or something like that. We
all know the deficit is $40 billion and so $18 billion was barely
half of it. Yet that was the cut they were proposing during the
election campaign. They were telling Canadians that was going
to eliminate the deficit.
Most people could see that was hogwash. The people in
Kingston and the Islands certainly saw that it was hogwash. I
hope the Reform Party members who were elected running on
that bowl of hogwash will be able to realize that it is time to
change their tune, get into dialogue with the government in
respect of what social programs could and should be and try to
work with the government to make them better.
The hon. member for Elk Island in his very able speech spoke
about one aspect of it. He did not tell us of any proposals from
his party to improve the current proposals put forward by the
government or suggest changes to the current system that would
make the system one that we could afford or would be more
workable or better for Canadians. That is the government's aim.
That is what we would like to do.
(1650)
I encourage hon. members opposite to engage in that
dialogue. Work with the members on this side of the House in
committee and in this House to come up with proposals that will
better Canadians' lot in life and provide the income security for
all that we so earnestly desire in this country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Questions or comments. I
take note of the interest of a number of members who want to
speak. I would ask that questions and replies be rather brief and I
will get as many on the record as possible.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, of course there is always a great response from
Reform MPs when they are being unfairly represented by
members on the other side of the House.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands talked a bit
about discussing with his constituents the Reform position on
social programs and on reducing the deficit. It is true that
Reform has consulted extensively with Canadians. In fact while
the hon. member was part of a party that was involved in rat
packing and some very unproductive activities, Reformers were
consulting.
I might add our leader led the way in consulting with
Canadians and hearing the views of everyone, not gagging
anyone I might add, but being very considerate of all opinions
expressed by Canadians. Reformers found a consensus that they
took to the electorate last year. That consensus was that
spending needed to be reduced to save social programs that were
most needed by the Canadian public.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and his party
did not undertake that consultation. We did not see that proposal
in the red book. They did not have a plan. They still do not have a
plan. They cannot even put out an action plan. They have a
discussion paper.
How does the hon. member have the audacity and the nerve to
make these allegations in the House when in fact there is no
political party in Canada that has consulted more with
Canadians and knows more about the wishes of Canadians on the
deficit and on the reform of social programs than the Reform
Party of Canada?
7952
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have no trouble answering that
question. We just heard the answer from the hon. member for
Elk Island. If the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster
had been in the House he would have heard it.
The hon. member for Elk Island said that yes, the leader of the
Reform Party consulted with all the members of the Reform
Party and that was a great cross-section of Canadians. What
utter rubbish. If he thinks so, I wish he had gone to the meeting
last night that the hon. leader of the Reform Party was at in
Quebec. I understand all of 50 people showed up to hear him at
Cowansville, Quebec, members of the Reform Party. That was a
cross-section of Canadians? Be serious.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as we all know in this House from time to time there are
those who take liberties with exactitude of what might have been
said, otherwise known as nose stretchers. I think we have just
heard one.
As the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands knows full
well, our presentation during the last election campaign was $18
billion in spending reductions and $20 billion in growth. At that
time the Liberals opposite were going all around the country like
Johnny Appleseed saying: ``Do not worry, everything is just
fine. Those terrible Reformers are going to have to cut spending
but we are not. We have never done it in the past. We are not
likely to do it in the future. Do not worry. Vote for us. Everything
is going to be okay''. However, we are all in this boat together.
They are finding that they have to do the very things that would
not be done or we are going to destroy the country. All of a
sudden, they are faced with the fact that they have to do it.
Since the hon. member does not think the Reform Party has a
plan, what is his plan for reducing the deficit to zero? That is not
a low hurdle. We all know the member opposite is part of the
Liberal olympic low hurdle team. If you make the hurdle low
enough anybody can stumble over it. Before he hurts his shins
getting over this 3 per cent hurdle let us hear how he is going to
get to nothing.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have not said, nor has the
government said, that it is going to reduce the deficit to zero.
What it did say is in the red book, and the hon. member says he
did not see it. Of course I am sure he did not read the red book
during the election campaign. He should have. He might have
joined the Liberal Party instead and he would be much happier
than he is today.
(1655)
The red book made it very clear that the government was
committed to reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of gross national
product by year three of its mandate. That is the promise the
government is going to keep. That is the promise I was
discussing earlier in my speech. I believe it is a reasonable
promise. We have two more years to do that. By the end of the
two years the government will have plans for reducing the
deficit further I have no doubt. I am optimistic that with the
great policies the government is pursuing we will have
phenomenal growth in this country throughout the period that
will reduce it further.
I invite the hon. member to wait for the budget. See what is in
it and rejoice when it comes out.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is always an interesting discussion when the hon. member
opposite begins to wax eloquent, especially if the wax is not
fully hardened yet. I have particularly enjoyed some of his
diatribe. It has been quite good.
I would like to add to what one of our hon. members just
mentioned. This mutatis mutandis attitude the Liberal
government has: Do not worry, be happy, everything will be
okay. I wonder if those watching have heard enough yet from the
Liberal side of the House that they will somehow, hopefully with
about a 6 or 7 per cent growth rate, be able to balance the budget.
I suppose sometime into their grandchildren's funeral party they
will somehow be able to bring together a government plan that
will bring the deficit down to zero.
Canadians are not fooled by the idea that if we set the
boundary so low we can never be disappointed, if we just say
that some illusive day we will be able to balance the budget.
Canadians have had enough of this. That is why the green book,
the red book, the mauve book, the pink book, the grey book, the
flurry of studies this government has brought forward, not one
of them has any idea that is ever going to solve this deficit
problem. They are discussion papers. The latest one is another
discussion paper. The Liberals put a nice title on it: ``Jobs and
Growth''. It sounds good, but in the body of it there are no
details, no goals, no dollar figures and no costing of the options.
The people watching are not fooled by this. Certainly on this
side of the House we are not fooled by government proposals
that continue to leave the dollar figures off the bottom line. The
Canadian people are not fooled. It is time for action. The
Liberals have wasted and squirrelled away a year. It has been the
best year to take advantage of economic growth.
Why does this member and the government not move now
while they have some political capital left to move and address
this deficit problem? It is not going to get easier with the passing
days. I encourage the member to grab the bull by the horns and
come forward with some solid suggestions, not more discussion
points.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fraser
Valley East has raised a number of points. I am delighted that he
enjoyed my speech and feels that it provoked him to rise in the
House and ask questions. I will try to make speeches more often
to elucidate matters for him. I regret I cannot speak as often as I
did when I was in opposition. I would have certainly enjoyed
debates with him, although I suspect he would have been on the
same side of the House just in one of the smaller parties.
7953
The hon. member suggested that Canadians were being fooled
by government proposals. They are not being fooled by any
proposals by this government. He said that Canadians are fed up
with the things they are getting from this government. Well the
polls do not indicate that. Seventy-three per cent was the latest
figure I read of satisfaction with the government, the highest
ever. No government since polling began has done such a great
job as this government has done in the eyes of the Canadian
electorate who voted us in.
Mr. Strahl: You have not done anything.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says we have not done one
thing. The other day I listened to a litany of complaints from one
of his colleagues about things the government had done that he
disagreed with. We have done all kinds of things and Canadians
appreciate what we have done. It shows up in the polls when a
government can get a 73 per cent satisfaction rating. It must
make the hon. member and his colleagues green with envy.
I should also say that this party does not fool Canadians. We
have not fooled Canadians in this debate. We have presented
proposals. We have invited discussion. We have told Canadians
what we are doing in an open and forthright manner. The only
party that has fooled Canadians is the one headed by the hon.
member for Calgary Southwest. I suspect he has fooled the
members of his own party.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands for certainly raising so much attention
to this great issue. I also want to thank him for reminding the
Reform members that the Canadian people voted for the Liberal
Party and its policies in the red book. They did not vote in favour
of Reform Party policies.
(1700)
I would ask the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands,
what would be the impact today if the Reform Party policies
were actually in place? How would they differ from the actual
policies that are going into place by the Liberal Party right here
in this House of Commons? We never promised what the Reform
Party is talking about, so we do not have to deliver that. What we
have to deliver is what we promised.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has been very
explicit in what he has said. He held up the books which
contained the discussion papers. But the Reform Party is talking
about figures. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
knows very well that when you have a discussion paper you do
not have bottom line figures. If you had bottom line figures to go
on to begin with, why would you even have a discussion paper?
I want to ask the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
what is the purpose of the discussion paper? Would he explain
that. I know, but I want him to explain to these people across the
way who seem to think that the Canadian public voted them into
office instead of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why members
opposite think they were voted into office instead of us. I used to
think that too when we sat on the other side. Canadians now wish
they had voted us in and they would not have gone through five
years of anguish they did from 1988 to 1993. Unfortunately,
they did not. They were cajoled into voting for Mr. Mulroney
and his gang and we all suffered as a result. The members of the
Reform Party all acknowledge that and they know it is true.
In fact, because of the suffering imposed by that government
many of the Reformers were elected in western Canada
primarily. To my recollection they got one in Ontario and
spoiled a perfect record for this party. But we did fine in Ontario
and the hon. member knows that.
I thank the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke
for a very sensible question. The purpose of this particular series
of proposals was ``Agenda, Jobs and Growth, Improving Social
Security in Canada'' to elicit the views of Canadians on
improving the social security system in Canada. It was intended
as a discussion paper. It is being used as a discussion paper. I had
a public meeting in my constituency where members of the
public were invited to make presentations and submit their
views and there was discussion.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development was there as a special guest and he
provided great illumination for all present. It was an excellent
meeting. That is the purpose of the release of this paper.
I see my time has expired. I apologize.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty pursuant to
Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The
hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, VIA Rail; the hon.
member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, Grain
Transportation.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are
having fun here this afternoon.
I rise in the House today to talk about a very important and I
think a very serious subject that affects all Canadians. That of
course is social program reform.
I was in my constituency this past week. I attended several
townhall meetings, coffee shop meetings, meetings with
chambers of commerce and other meetings. It proved to be a
very difficult week because I was continually preparing my
constitu-
7954
ents for very depressing news. I laid out and explained the
situation and the difficulties we face in the years to come in
regard to dealing with reform of the social programs.
It was tough talking to people about cutting spending to social
programs. It was tough talking about the $10 billion of federal
government cuts that must take place other than cuts to social
program areas.
It was difficult telling Canadians and having those people
agree with me that we need to cut somewhere between $12
billion and $16 billion from social program spending otherwise
these programs will collapse and we will lose them entirely.
(1705 )
In an attempt to lighten things in the evening and to make a
very important point, I would start by relating a story about a
neighbour of mine. This farmer was the frustrated type. He was
the anxious type. To relieve the anxiety he would go out every
Sunday morning on his road. He called it his road because he
was the one who pushed to have it built and he was the one who
pushed to have it paved. He would go out in his five speed car.
He would go up the straightaway, get his car up to about 100 and
go into a sharp curve and come out of the curve at 140. That
made him feel good. That helped relieve his anxiety.
One Sunday morning he drove out to the end of his driveway.
He just started accelerating up the straightaway and he saw
around the corner someone on his road. As the car moved closer
he saw it swerve. He thought: ``My God, a drunk on my road on a
Sunday morning''. As the car came even closer he saw that it
was a lady driver. He thought: ``A lady driver on my road on
Sunday morning, this is ridiculous''.
He started accelerating but as he started to do that, the lady
driver slowed her car down and quickly cranked the window
open. He was not going to stop but he slowed down. As he went
by he opened his window. And as the car passed he heard the
lady shout: ``Pig''. He was really angry and really anxious. He
accelerated down the straightaway, went into the corner at 120
and slammed, right into the pig''.
I use this story to demonstrate that people with an attitude
problem, as this farmer clearly had, often miss the signals that
would help them avoid problems that are in the road. Because
this farmer missed the signals he hit the pig. Because of his
attitude problem he hit the pig.
I suggest that governments over the past 30 years have missed
the signals. They have had attitude problems when it comes to
cutting spending to preserve the social programs that people in
this country value.
I want to talk today about spending, in fact overspending. It is
the biggest problem the government faces today. To start this
topic off at the meetings over the past week I presented a quote
by P.J. O'Rourke which states: ``Giving government money and
power is like giving teenagers liquor and the keys to the car''.
That quote really hit home with people. They really could
identify with that quote. Giving government money and power is
like giving teenagers liquor and the keys to the car.
If we think about what has happened in the area of spending
over this past 30 years or so with one government after
another-Liberal, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative,
Liberal-it has been the same problem, a problem that seems to
be similar to giving teenagers liquor and the keys to the car.
My constituents one after another at one meeting after another
just simply could not believe how this government operates. By
that I mean how it is constantly overspending. They like to relate
the overspending of this government to what would happen if
they overspent in their personal budgets in running their homes.
The question came up again and again. How can they get away
with spending more than they have? In my home if I was
spending more than I have my family would eventually be
without a home and they would be hungry. This was a common
comment made by people in the constituency over this time.
What these people did understand very well is that the deficit,
which is the amount that government spends more than it takes
in over any one year, last year about $36 billion, cannot
continue. These people did understand very clearly that the
federal government debt, which is about $534 billion now,
increasing at about $110 million per day or about $1,500 a
second, cannot be continued.
I just want to put this debt and deficit into perspective by
talking about how that relates to my family personally.
(1710 )
My wife, my five children, and myself own about $140,000 of
this federal debt. We have to pay off about $140,000 of this
federal debt. That is on top of my house mortgage and my farm
debt, another $140,000 to pay off. Not only that but my family's
share is being added to at a rate of about $10,000 per year. I am
very concerned that it is going to be extremely difficult for my
family as it is going to be very difficult for other Canadian
families to pay their share of this debt.
Where does the federal government get its money? Where
does the money come from? First of all about $58 billion a year
comes from personal income tax, about $8.3 billion from
corporate tax, about $17.5 billion from unemployment
insurance contributions, about $15 billion from the GST, $11
billion from excise taxes, and about $11 billion from other
spending.
7955
Where does the other $40 billion to $41 billion come from? The
sad truth is that the other $40 billion comes from borrowing.
Who does this Canadian government borrow the money from?
It used to be that a majority of the money borrowed came from
Canadians. Now, and I think this makes our situation even more
difficult, almost 45 per cent of new borrowing comes from
outside Canada.
Should the time come, and it almost certainly will if our
government does not change its attitude so it can avoid this pig,
it almost certainly will be cut off very soon. Lenders from
outside the country will just stop lending. When that day comes
we will face a situation that is every bit as serious as the
situation that New Zealand has faced and the situation that Italy
has faced, very difficult indeed.
Some say it is easy to get more revenue. All we have to do is
increase corporate taxes. We have certainly heard from the NDP
and from members of the Liberal Party over the past years: just
increase the corporate tax.
I have a cartoon here that I think demonstrates very well the
problem with that. It is a picture of people in a coffee shop who
are saying ``Well, this new tax plan sounds pretty good. We get a
cut of 9 per cent and business picks up the burden''. In the very
next frame of this cartoon is a picture of their local grocery store
and of course prices have gone up by 9 per cent. If corporate
taxes are increased consumers pick up the full tab. There is no
magic to it.
There just is no more room for increasing revenues. This
government and past governments have had a spending problem.
I think to demonstrate this it is important to look at spending
over the past years.
I have a graph that shows spending from 1975 to the present.
This graph shows in 1986 constant dollars, so inflation is taken
out of the picture. Real spending has increased from $73 billion
in 1975 to about $135 billion, again in 1986 dollars, in the most
recent figures, an incredible increase in spending and it is not
caused by inflation.
Where does the federal government spend its money? The
first part of spending, the discretionary part, the part that
government can change, is in a variety of government services.
It is about $43 billion of services to operate government and
various programs other than social program spending.
The social program spending makes up almost half of the total
spending. The social program spending of about $80 billion per
year along with other government services of about $43 billion
per year make up all of the discretionary spending. The rest of
the spending is interest payments, almost $40 billion a year in
interest payments. To continue to carry the debt there is no
discretion on spending in this area.
Interest payments can only decrease if the debt decreases.
This large chunk, almost a quarter of total spending made up of
interest payments is making it extremely difficult to fund our
social programs. If we are going to maintain these programs,
clearly we are going to have to stop adding to the debt. We are
going to have to spend less on providing social programs in a
way that is acceptable to Canadians.
(1715)
When I am talking about social programs I am talking mainly
about old age security, the Canada pension plan, payments that
go to compensate or to carry people through unemployment and
the child tax benefits. These are called program payments to
persons.
The other portion of federal government spending is transfers
to provinces. The transfers to provinces go to cover welfare.
Established programs financing also covers health, advanced
education and equalization payments.
Just before I get into the area I want to talk most about, which
is old age security, I would just like to talk a little bit about
equalization payments.
Equalization payments are meant to transfer money from the
wealthy provinces, the so-called have provinces, to the have not
provinces. How many have provinces are there in Canada? What
would you guess, six or seven? No, there are three have
provinces when it comes to calculating equalization payments.
They are British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. Ontario is
getting very close to the line. In fact, two years ago part way
through the year it appeared it had become a have not province
under the calculations. Three provinces are paying and seven
receiving. Who receives? All of the other seven receive. But the
interesting thing is that Quebec, the fourth wealthiest province
receives by far the largest portion of equalization payments.
I would like to spend the rest of my time talking about old age
security. Old age security is the universal pension program
which is made up of three separate programs. First is the old age
pension which makes up about $14 billion per year in federal
government spending. The second area is guaranteed income
supplement, about $4 billion per year. These figures are for
1992-93. The third area is spousal allowance, which is half a
billion dollars a year.
When people saw these figures on the overheads I used during
my presentations over the past week, they looked at that half a
billion dollars as nothing compared to the rest. When they
thought of it as $500 million they realized it was not
insignificant. Spousal allowance made up that other half a
billion dollars. The total on old age security spending is about
$19 billion a year.
Before I get into my presentation on old age security and other
pensions, I would like to set the stage. A couple of points that I
brought out really shocked people who were at these meetings.
Again we are talking about the reality of the present situation in
social program spending and what is going to happen as the
population ages over the next years.
7956
As a percentage of Canada's population, the increase is from
about 7 per cent in 1951 to an increase of almost 23 per cent by
2030. I would like Canadians to think about this. Are there any
of you who are on pensions? Or any of you who will be on
pensions if we are around a few years down the road? I would
like you to think about these funny looking kids with the baggy
pants. You know the kind of pants, they hang halfway down. Do
you want to depend on these funny looking kids to provide your
pension in the future? That is exactly what we are counting on.
On the other hand these funny looking kids are not stupid. Let
us look at the other side. These funny looking kids are very
intelligent. These are the kids who are going to have to pick up
the huge debt we are continually building and laying at their
feet. Do you think these funny looking kids in the baggy pants
are going to be so stupid as to pay the debt down and as well
continue the pension, especially considering the fact that in
1951 there were about 14 working Canadians to pay for every
person on a pension. By 2030 there will be only two working
Canadians to pay for each person on pension. Do you think these
kids with the funny looking pants are going to be willing to pay
the full debt we have built and pay for our pensions? I would
suggest not. These funny looking kids are smart and
unfortunately we have laid an unfair burden at their feet.
(1720)
That was old age security. I will quickly lay out a few points in
regard to the Canada pension plan. First, this plan is now funded
by a 5 per cent payroll tax. The Canada pension plan pays about
25 per cent of former salary up to about $8,000 per year. The
Canada pension plan currently pays out about $13 billion per
year.
The sad thing is that right now the Canada pension plan fund is
about $500 billion short. The accrued liability is about $500
billion and this $500 billion does not show up in the government
figures when it is talking about debt? This is another debt on top
of the federal and provincial governments debts. This is an
incredible amount and is going to be very difficult to deal with.
To sustain the Canada pension plan, for which the funding is
now about 5 per cent, year to year we would have to pay off the
top about 13 per cent of earnings. Every Canadian would pay off
the top about 13 per cent of earnings by the year 2040 just to
sustain the plan.
As I wind down today I would like to talk a little bit about the
need to build incentive into our social program spending and the
key role that reintroducing incentives will play in making these
plans manageable and sustainable.
I was at a farmer's place over this past week and he talked
about how he offered a big part of a field which was cultivated to
people who were on welfare in the town. He advertised it around
town. He has done a lot of work with people on welfare and is
very concerned about them. He offered this land to these people
at no cost. How many do you think came out and took advantage
of his offer? None.
He planted the garden, took care of it, and when it was harvest
time he went to the people on welfare and told them they could
go out and take what they wanted from the garden. How much
produce do you think they took from the garden? The answer is
absolutely zero.
We need incentives. There has to be incentive in a system to
make sure that people who are receiving money are only those
who need the money.
Look at what has happened with unemployment insurance
over the past few years. The unemployment insurance rate has
fluctuated but over time it has continued on an upward trend.
The interesting thing is that when you look at unemployment
insurance and you compare it to the consumer price index you
will find that the consumer price index has not gone up nearly as
fast as the unemployment insurance payments have.
What is the incentive for people who are looking at pensions?
For unemployment insurance, for welfare, we know what kind
of incentives we can put in place. It was very encouraging that at
these meetings people who are on pension said they knew that
maybe it was fair that they should take a cut in pension if they
could afford it. Philosophically, I have a problem with that. But
these pensioners said they were willing to make that sacrifice.
The people who made the point with me the best are those who
were veterans. At the ceremony on November 11 and at the 50th
anniversary ceremonies over the past year veterans have been
the people who have impressed me with their sacrifice and their
commitment.
The wife of a veteran at one of our meetings said: ``You mean
my husband fought to preserve this country and I sacrificed in
the war effort to preserve the country and now, rather than the
enemy from without destroying our country, the enemy from
within will destroy our country?'' She was saddened by this and
so was I.
(1725 )
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make
a few comments. I understand the member had meetings in his
riding and that he said he had difficulty preparing his
constituents for the massive cuts. He also mentioned that
governments have developed an attitude problem.
I suggest to the hon. member the present government's
attitude is positive and inclusive. In fact the green paper really
provides Canadians with an opportunity to participate in the
reform of these social programs. The process itself has been to
address the inefficiencies of the social security system so that
we can protect those who are most vulnerable and provide every
opportunity for Canadians to experience the dignity of work.
7957
The hon. member mentioned his farmer's offer. This is a good
reason to look again at these social programs so we can look at
the incentives and disincentives. I had a workshop this past
Sunday where constituents in my riding of Lincoln pointed out
some inefficiencies. One of them was that government must
remove the disincentives to work.
We need to stop duplicating training programs. We need to
look at more effective ways to have different levels of
government work together. The member's whole talk was about
spending cuts. This whole process of social security reform is to
look at aspects of that program that may not be working
efficiently.
Canadians have an opportunity to provide solutions and look
at these inefficiencies. The member must agree with the process
in having Canadians speak to these inefficiencies. It is only one
aspect of government we are talking about here today. We
certainly have an overall objective of meeting our target of 3 per
cent of GDP. I would like to hear some comments. The member
is talking about massive cuts. The purpose of this whole reform
is to give Canadians an opportunity to speak to the inefficiencies
of social security reform.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and
question from the hon. member. I would like to start with a little
point of clarification. The hon. member said that I had difficulty
preparing constituents for cuts. That is not the case at all. In fact
they recognized the need for these cuts because they know that is
the only way these social programs can be preserved. That was
not the problem.
It was not a problem but it was very difficult for me and
painful for them to lay the situation out, having them realize
there is no other place to make the cuts other than in social
program spending and in other areas of federal government
spending. In other areas $10 billion would be about the
maximum. It would be very difficult to cut $10 billion from the
$43 billion in other spending.
That means there have to be spending cuts of between $12
billion and $16 billion from social program spending. I was
asking them as they went along: ``Does this make sense to you?''
They told me: ``Yes, we know this has to happen and your
presentation has really made it that much more clear, especially
in regard to the aging population and the number of people on
pension''.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened as the
hon. member from the Reform Party outlined his party policy
and we heard the government member's argument in reply. Of
course, we have a position of our own, a third position. We agree
in part with what was just said in reply about the need to proceed
cautiously instead of cutting blindly.
The hon. member says that we should think about the future of
Canadian youth, so that they can find jobs and eventually
contribute to the pension fund. I am in full agreement with him
on the objective, but I do not think that blind cuts are the right
way to go about it. I think we should be looking at job
development, joint action and regional development policies
instead. To provide employment, that is what it boils down to in
the end.
Cuts are necessary, but I think that we should look to cut in
other programs, not in social programs. As a member from the
Reform Party indicated, you do not eliminate unemployment by
eliminating unemployment insurance. Some solutions may be
too drastic. As if the unemployed were responsible for their
misfortune.
So, I would like the hon. member to comment on my general
remarks. As today's debate draws to an end, I wanted to raise a
somewhat conflicting view.
[English]
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. opposition member
talks about blind cuts, I agree with him. This is not the time for
blind cuts. That is why as Reformers we have been going across
our constituencies and across the country. We are presenting
several different options.
I also presented the government's discussion paper. People's
comments on it were: ``Where are the options?'' We have one or
two options in most areas at best and they are only to discuss.
Reform presented a series of possible options.
Blind cuts, no. We presented a real picture to the people in our
constituencies. That is what I did in my constituency. Then we
presented options and were saying: ``You tell us where you want
the cuts to come from''. No blind cuts. I could not agree more.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m. the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
7957
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament and crown agencies should
be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today
to talk to my Motion No. 304 which argues that Parliament and
crown agencies should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to
Information Act.
This topic is one which is of vital interest to Canadians and
because of its importance Motion No. 304 was made a votable
item. This will give members of Parliament a great opportunity
7958
to go on the public record to show that they care about opening
up the political system and that they think our citizens should
have the right to use the Access to Information Act in a more
modern and inclusive way than is currently possible.
The motion is not a partisan political football which Reform is
bringing forward to make life tough for the government. In fact
we very much hope the government and official opposition will
see the motion as one which is constructive and in the greater
interest of all Canadians.
As we all know, under the nine-year Tory regime Canadians
desperately wanted a more accountable and transparent
government. The wishes of the people were dashed by the
Mulroney and Campbell governments whose grossly
unaccountable behaviour caused public cynicism to grow to an
all time high.
Compounding this frustration billions of tax dollars were
funnelled through crown agencies such as the CBC, Canada Post
and the Canadian Wheat Board which were even less
accountable than the government. At least we could vote the
Tories out of office but crown agencies are another matter
altogether.
As long as crown agencies are going to be run in the way they
are, Canadians deserve to know what they are up to. Obviously
sensitive information that is vital to their ability to compete in
the marketplace would be exempt under the provisions of the
Access to Information Act. More general information about
their spending and business practices should be fair game. As
crown agencies all Canadians have a stake in how they are run.
Therefore they must be subject to public scrutiny.
All this I say by way of introduction. I am saying that
Canadians are facing a problem. It is summed up by a quote from
the public policy forum of 1993 which stated:
Given the sustained and often angry criticism that has been widely expressed
by the public in recent years, it is remarkable how little has been done by way
of reform.
Of all the grounds on which successive governments, together with MPs,
could be charged with being unresponsive, none is more striking than the lack
of response to unmistakable expressions of public dislike of the manner in
which Parliament goes about its business.
(1735)
I believe this statement is an accurate reflection of what
Canadians are thinking. I also believe this line of logic can be
extended to their perceptions about crown corporations.
Therefore I have suggested that Motion No. 304 be adopted by
the House to send a clear sign from Gander to Victoria that the
Parliament of the Tories is gone and a truly new day has broken.
Gone are the days when back room politics were acceptable.
Gone are the days when Canadians would remain quiet as
politicians and crown agencies acted unilaterally and without
accountability. I hope that Motion No. 304 will give members of
Parliament a clear opportunity to break with the old way of
doing things and show they care about the wishes of the
Canadian public.
As we are well aware, Reformers were elected to open up the
political process and seek out greater involvement from the
Canadian grassroots. We want to bring about constructive
change and ensure that our political institutions and crown
agencies operate with honesty and integrity.
I do not think we are alone, however, in calling for these
changes. I am certainly aware that the Liberals found the same
matters to be very important at least while they were in
opposition. I would only hope to believe that their desire for
openness, accountability and integrity is still intact.
Let me remind our Liberal friends about the values which they
claimed to believe in during the election campaign. To do this I
think I will quote from the red book since it is often referred to
by my friends in government on the other side. The following
are a number of statements which make their position crystal
clear. The first statement reads:
Canadians have always prided themselves on the quality of their democratic
institutions-If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must,
honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored.
The second statement reads:
The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the
citizens to whom it is accountable. There is evidence today of considerable
dissatisfaction with government and a steady erosion of confidence in the
people and institutions of the public sector.
These statements are all from the red book. The last statement
reads:
A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in
the institutions of government. We will introduce reforms to Parliament-Open
government will be the watchword of the Liberal program.
Clearly the Liberal position must approve of the spirit of this
motion. Motion No. 304 is precisely the type of initiative that
will restore the confidence of Canadians. I implore members of
the Liberal caucus to consult with their House leader and whip to
confirm that they should all stand behind the motion 100 per
cent.
Over the coming months I look forward to speaking
personally with my colleagues on the government side and in the
Bloc. I encourage any member to call my office to let me know
so that we can work together on this proposal.
Reform members of Parliament such as myself do not need to
always find a fight. While we will never agree with members of
the government on all accounts, on issues such as this one where
there is a natural alliance I think we should co-operate. In fact if
we take this co-operative approach it will go further still toward
restoring the confidence of Canadians that Parliament is truly
undergoing constructive change to make it more accountable,
transparent and responsive to the wishes of the electorate.
7959
If I can move on to members of the BQ, while you do not have
a red book to quote from I know that openness, integrity and
accountability are important to you as well. As I have sat in the
House for the past year I have witnessed your complaints about
the secretive and unresponsive government on many occasions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I hesitate to interrupt the
member, but I would like to remind members of the House to
direct their comments through the chair and not in such an
informal and familiar way as to use ``you'' and ``your''.
(1740 )
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I would simply make
them aware that they have talked about these crown corporations
and crown agencies. I know they are concerned about the veil of
secrecy that seems to enshroud them.
The desire of the people of Quebec for open and accountable
institutions is just as great as in Alberta, Ontario, the maritimes,
or for that matter anywhere else. I would therefore ask members
of the Bloc to join us in supporting Motion No. 304. I am sure it
is one example where they will not get in trouble for voting with
the Reform Party.
Let me just quote briefly from the 1991-92 annual report of
the information commissioner to further illustrate my point. The
information commissioner wrote:
The access law has attained a maturity of political whim. It is a law which
cuts across and goes beyond party politics. It should appeal as much to the
conservative as to the liberal or the social democrat. The Access to Information
Act is ideologically neutral, without party coloration.
Conservatives who worry about the state growing too powerful should
applaud the empowerment, that indispensable trendy word, of the individual by
information rights; liberals and socialists in Parliament and elsewhere will
welcome the sharing of the government's information better to challenge those
in authority and effect changes in society.
In my speech I have tried to express the universal nature of the
motion to expand the Access to Information Act. This is not a
partisan bill. I firmly believe we can get all party support for the
motion. If we get this support we will send a strong, positive
message of change to the people of the country. The people of
Canada are waiting. It is time for us to act.
Now that the House has heard my speech on unity and the
universality of the motion, I want to talk a bit about the Access
to Information Act in case people have some concern that we are
trying to open up everything and cause the system not to work
any longer.
To quote from the act, its purpose is to extend the ``laws of
Canada to provide a right of access to information in records
under the control of a government institution in accordance with
the principles that government information should be available
to the public''.
For those of my colleagues who may worry about the
consequences of extending the act to Parliament, I assure them
this would not force members to open up their own private files
on constituency business or matters relating to their positions in
their respective parties.
The motion would allow the opening of the business of the
House to public scrutiny. This would include financial matters
which are currently handled by our respected Speaker of the
House, the expenditures of the Senate, the Sergeant-at-Arms
and the Black Rod.
For example, the House will be undergoing a 12-year
renovation projected to cost over $250 million. This kind of
expenditure is massive so the details surrounding the contracts
and spending should be available to the public. Certainly
reading some recently published books about government
contracts being handed out will make that more of a
consideration for the public.
While I am certain the Speaker of the House will do
everything in his power to make sure that the renovation goes
properly, all Canadians will feel better about the project and
those like it if they have access to documents. If citizens know
they are getting the straight goods they may just begin to trust us
a little more.
For members concerned that extending the scope of the
Access to Information Act will be too much of a good thing, I
point out a comment of the information commissioner who
wrote:
Of course access to rights are not absolute. They are subject to specific and
limited exemptions, balancing freedom of information against individual
privacy, commercial confidentiality, national security and the frank
communications needed for effective policy making''.
This limitation would apply to Motion No. 304. Any members
of this House who are concerned that they would somehow be
opening up Pandora's box by voting for this motion should rest
assured. In fact those who are particularly nervous about
exposing themselves to an unreasonable amount of crime need
only look through the Access to Information Act itself. They
will find there are a full 16 pages of exemptions which will
guarantee that their legitimate right will not be breached.
(1745)
Nonetheless Canadians need to know that they do have the
right to ask certain questions. These questions are not only
legitimate but they are essential to the proper working of our
7960
democracy. Beyond this, if there is clarification which is
required as to the exact implications of M-304, I am certain that
the parliamentary justice committee which is responsible for
this would do an excellent job.
As members can see, there is no reason to be concerned about
this motion and every reason to expect that it will be exactly the
kind of initiative that the Canadian people have been waiting for
from this Parliament.
I would like to conclude by once again referring to the words
of the information commissioner in the 1991-92 annual report
who made an interesting point that I think all parliamentarians
should listen to. He said: ``The Access to Information Act lacks
visible champions of openness in Parliament. It matters not
whether parliamentary access advocates come from either
government or opposition benches. Preferably they should come
from both sides of the House and, in particular, from the
members of the justice and solicitor general committee. The
information commissioner is a voice from the outside.
Parliament should have some inside voices preaching for and
defending the access to rights. A note to members of the next
Parliament'', and that is us, ``anyone looking to be identified
with a good issue should consider freedom of information. Any
such champions will quickly receive attention''.
I am asking all members here to get behind an act like this and
a motion like this. This basically, above all, is going to send that
message of openness, accountability, and transparency that all
of us have been talking about and working toward.
One other thing the hon. member gives me as an example, if I
can just add one more piece to this as I think I do have another
minute or so.
Talking about access to information, I have just received
information from the hon. member for Calgary Centre. Last
night he was told about a meeting in Kingston and the Islands
which 65 people attended. Five were media, 30 per cent were
anglophones and 70 per cent were francophones. They were
curious and interested in Reform. They were fed up with the
over-government of the PCs and are now fed up with the
under-government currently being offered by the Liberals.
As a point of information, the first Reform meeting held by
the member for Edmonton Southwest only had 11 people and
today he is a member of Parliament.
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to address this motion. I am pleased the hon. member for
Red Deer so vigorously supports the principles exemplified by
the Access to Information Act that he wishes to see its coverage
expanded. Such enthusiasm is to be commended.
I am happy to say that this government remains firmly
committed to the principles of openness contained in the Access
to Information Act. Such openness assists in debate on national
issues, provides background for the development of public
policy and allows more in depth explanation of government
processes and decision making.
[Translation]
This is why our government is always prepared to look at
ways to improve public access to information held by these
Crown agencies, this in order to promote government
accountability. Currently, the legislation applies to government
institutions listed in the schedule to the act. If a department, an
agency or a board is not mentioned in the schedule, the
legislation does not apply to it. It is that simple.
(1750)
[English]
At the time the act was passed in 1982 there was careful
consideration given to which institutions should be included in
the coverage of the act and which should not. There are ways in
which the act could be updated to reflect the new information
age. It may also be that the sorting of the institutions into the
categories of those covered and those not covered could also be
reviewed and updated. I do not believe that this is something
which should be done in a casual or haphazard manner.
In considering the suggestion that the Access to Information
Act be expanded to cover Parliament and crown agencies, as
with all proposals for amendment to the Access to Information
Act, the government is guided by the need to ensure that all
amendments to the act and to its schedule are in the public
interest.
While on the face of it providing access to government-held
information may be seen as obviously in the public interest it is
not necessarily the case. If it were the Access to Information Act
would contain no exclusions or exemptions. We would just
throw the information doors wide open.
[Translation]
There are competing public interests which must be taken into
consideration. In the same way that exceptions serve public
interest by protecting personal information on taxpayers, or
information received in confidence from our government, it
may be in the public interest to protect some information held by
Crown agencies or by Parliament.
[English]
We must consider these competing interests before making
such a sweeping recommendation.
When the motion refers to crown agencies it is unclear
whether the term should be taken to refer to crown corporations
or if it is intended to include a much broader range of
institutions. After all many institutions which would normally
fall under the heading of crown agencies are already covered by
the act. CIDA, the Canadian International Development
Agency, is already covered, as are national museums, the
Federal Business Development Bank, the Space Agency, the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and so on. On the other
hand the act does
7961
not currently apply to Canada Post or the National Arts Centre
Corporation. We cannot assume that these were frivolous
decisions as to who was included and who was excluded.
When considering expanding the coverage of the Access to
Information Act to crown corporations the concern for a long
time now has been that making all crown corporations subject to
the act could for some of them result in harm to their
competitive position relative to their private sector counterparts
which are of course subject to no comparative requirements for
openness. The hon. member for Red Deer alluded to this.
What might be required to mitigate such potential for harm
would be additional amendments to the act which would provide
crown corporations with an exemption tailor-made to protect
information that if disclosed would result in injury to the
competitive position of the crown corporation. The private
sector corporations have such an exemption to protect
commercially sensitive information in the financial information
that they are presently required to file and no less protection
should be provided to crown corporations.
[Translation]
While expanding the act to cover crown corporations is not a
bad idea in itself, it must be examined in its proper context. In
fact, the whole framework of the act must be examined from that
perspective.
[English]
If the motion is intended to cover a broader range of
institutions then careful consideration must be given to the
implications for each type and for each institution. There is not
enough room for that in the motion.
Much the same thing can be said concerning the suggestion
that the act be expanded to cover Parliament. While in principle
this is a laudable idea there are more than a few practical issues
to consider. Just what coverage would the act have? When this
issue was considered previously it was generally believed that it
would be unwise to cover the personal offices of members of the
House of Commons and senators but I think Canadians want to
understand why that is.
[Translation]
The problems which could result from a decision to include
the offices of MP's in the coverage of the act will have to be
taken into consideration before such a measure can be taken. On
the other hand, if members' offices are not to be covered by the
act, then we will have to define very explicitly the precise scope
of the act.
[English]
Where would responsibility for the application of the act by
Parliament lie? Who would be considered to be the head of the
institution for the purposes of the act with the authority to
release requested information or deny access on the basis of
exemptions contained in the act? If there was a complaint
concerning the handling of a request made to Parliament under
the act would it be a conflict of interest for the information
commissioner as a parliamentary agent to investigate such a
complaint? Would Parliament report to itself on its own
administration of the act? These are not simple questions.
(1755 )
When considering possible amendments to the Access to
Information Act or its schedule of institutions, consideration
would also normally be given to the Privacy Act and its schedule
of institutions.
Generally speaking, there are more government institutions
covered by the Privacy Act than the Access to Information Act
since the principle of providing individuals with access to their
own personal information is seen as even more widely
applicable than the principle of open access to general
information.
[Translation]
If we were to extend the application of the Privacy Act to
Crown corporations, it seems that there would be less obvious
risk of harming the institutions' competitive position.
[English]
In the case of Parliament there remains the question of
whether the Privacy Act would cover the personnel records
contained in the offices of members and senators. It is clear that
it would be beneficial for employees of the House and the
Senate. Even in relation to the Privacy Act it is clear that
expanding the coverage of the act must not be done in a
haphazard manner but must be done in full consideration of the
public interest in the possible outcome.
To summarize, while the idea of expanding the coverage of
the Access to Information Act to Parliament and to crown
agencies is surely based on a concept of openness which this
government wholeheartedly supports, the practical implications
of such an expansion of coverage cannot be disregarded.
[Translation]
For now, the most logical solution would be to keep these
suggestions in reserve so that they can be considered as part of
another process to amend the act for which the Minister of
Justice and the President of the Treasury Board will initiate
consultations.
[English]
At that point every member will have the opportunity to make
suggestions for amendments to either the Access to Information
Act or the Privacy Act or both. Possible amendments to these
7962
acts will be open to full debate as pieces of an amendment
package instead of as a separate patchwork proposal.
We do not wish to interfere in that process or to prejudge any
of its outcome. We want the Canadian people to have input into
this process.
All this is to say that while I very much support the principle
which I believe lies behind this motion, I cannot support the
motion itself at this time.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the Official Opposition, I have the pleasure to speak
on this motion from the member for Red Deer:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament and Crown Agencies
should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act.
I must say to the member for Red Deer that in his speech, he of
course mentioned that his objectives were similar to those of the
Bloc and the Official Opposition. Yes, this is in line with our
objectives of openness and clarity in the management of public
affairs and it is also in line with the taxpayers' right to know, as
it is called in a democracy.
Remember that the Access to Information Act was passed in
1982 and implemented the following year. This law gives a right
to access federal government documents. Under it, government
institutions must make their documents available. However,
there are exceptions to access to information. For various
reasons that I want to deal with in this speech today, several
Crown corporations like farm product marketing boards, the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, government bodies like the
House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament,
office holders who report directly to Parliament such as the
Chief Returning Officer, the Commissioner of Official
Languages and the Auditor General are not subject to the Access
to Information Act.
The Bloc Quebecois deeply believes that in a democratic
system, public affairs must be conducted as openly as possible.
Nevertheless, the everyday reality of running the affairs of state
shows us that any system of access to information must balance
various divergent interests.
On the one hand, the government must be accountable to the
voters for what it does, as is the case in all western democracies,
so that these voters can evaluate the government for its
achievements, integrity and honesty. On the other hand, we
agree that in reality some affairs of state must remain
confidential.
(1800)
This confidentiality was recognized in the exceptions listed in
the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. These laws
protect information whose confidentiality is crucial to the
security and integrity of territory under state jurisdiction.
These laws also protect private interests related to personal
and commercial information. A Crown corporation like the CBC
should, in our opinion, be subject to the Access to Information
Act, but there should be some exemptions because otherwise
competitors could benefit, thus threatening this corporation's
commercial balance.
Atomic Energy of Canada is another glaring example. How
could this agency be subject to scrutiny under the Access to
Information Act, when the Canadian government stubbornly
promotes the development of such a dangerous and polluting
energy source? For the current government, certainly not. But it
should be possible in the name of quality of life and the
environment.
As we can see, the problem underlying any system aimed at
opening up public administration goes far beyond the motion
tabled by the hon. member for Red Deer. It is not enough to say,
as stated in the motion, that the Parliament and Crown Agencies
should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information
Act. As we have seen, the issue is twofold: how to improve the
right to know while strengthening privacy measures.
On the other hand, arguing that the Canadian Parliament
should not be subject to the Access to Information Act, as this
institution is a symbol of democracy in the Canadian federal
system, would be questionable.
Committed as it is to the principles of democracy and to
promoting increased transparency in the present system, the
Bloc Quebecois just has to support the report tabled in March
1987 in which the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs recommended that the Access to Information Act apply
to all federal institutions, including administrative tribunals, the
Senate and the House of Commons. The Bloc lays particular
emphasis on the need for much transparency, in the other place
in particular, because, as I am on record as saying in this House,
the public must be allowed to scrutinize the wild imaginings of a
body that is undemocratic because non-elected.
Incidentally, one wonders about the need for an organization
like the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons
-and this is another important example- to be subject to
public scrutiny under the Access to Information Act, since such
a provision promotes in no way better democratic process or
greater transparency in this institution.
To conclude, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the essence of
Motion 304 and is in favour of the Access to Information Act
applying to every government institution funded from the public
purse. The main goal, as far as we are concerned, is to promote
accessibility and transparency throughout the Canadian federal
administration, and given the political climate that has set in
within the federation since the 1970s, when the Liberal Party of
Canada was in power, we emphasize the need to establish as a
mater of urgency this openness, this transparency that the
7963
Liberals themselves praise so much in quoting from their red
book all the time.
So, let us act and implement a real access to information
legislation, a meaningful legislation that reflects a justice and
truth-conscious democracy.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to this
motion put forth by my Reform colleague, the hon. member for
Red Deer.
Since its introduction just over 10 years ago, the Access to
Information Act has had a tremendous effect in opening up
government. Government has been forced to be much more
careful in the way it conducts business not only by the Access to
Information Act but the Privacy Act as well. These two pieces of
legislation have probably made for more open and honest
government than any other government proclamation.
(1805)
Countless scandals have been uncovered through the Access
to Information Act. Questionable contracts, leases and
patronage appointments have all been uncovered through this
legislation. The legislation has given substance to some
accusations letting the whole country see what really transpired
in some questionable deals.
One might even suggest that the very make up of the House of
Commons is due in part to the access legislation. Scandal after
scandal in the previous government was uncovered or confirmed
by this legislation. The public's contempt for the previous
administration's lack of honesty and integrity was the main
reason that party was reduced to only two seats in this House. It
is a legacy that all members of this House have to live with.
Respect for politicians is extremely low. It is up to the members
of this Parliament to regain that respect.
The one thing I constantly hear from my constituents is that I
must strive to make government more accountable. We have to
open up the political process and show Canadians that we really
are working on their behalf. We do this by making government
as transparent as possible. We must start with our own House.
The mere fact that the operations of Parliament are exempt
from the Access to Information Act gives the public the
perception that we are trying to hide something. The 35th
Parliament has taken some steps to be more open. The fact that
the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Internal Economy
are now being published is a move in the right direction.
We have to ensure that Parliament is not only conducting its
business in an appropriate manner, but that it is seen to be
conducting itself in an appropriate manner. By making
Parliament itself accountable to the Access to Information Act,
the public would no longer have to speculate what we are hiding.
Yes, taxpayers may be outraged about the extent that they are
subsidizing the parliamentary dining room. If they are outraged,
they would have every right to be. After all, it is their money. If
we cannot justify the subsidy to the dining room, or any other
perk that we receive, then perhaps we should not be receiving it.
If, on the other hand, we believe the taxpayers are getting good
value for their money then we should not be embarrassed to
receive it. Either way we should not be denying the Canadian
taxpayers the opportunity to learn how we are spending their
money.
Some may suggest that we as parliamentarians would be
sacrificing the confidentiality of our constituents by making our
information available under access to information. In fact, the
confidentiality of our files would be protected as our files would
be exempt. The Privacy Act provides a great deal of protection
by ensuring that the access request cannot be used to obtain
information about individuals. However the way we conduct our
business should and must be made available to the public. It is
the only way that we can try and regain some of the respect for
our position.
Another complaint I frequently receive from my constituents
is about how their money is spent by crown corporations. Crown
corporations claim that their competitiveness would be
adversely affected if they were required to respond to access
requests. Competitiveness is a legitimate concern.
The Canadian Wheat Board should not have to reveal in
advance what it projects its buying and selling rates are going to
be. This information would be of tremendous benefit to its
competitors in foreign lands and would end up putting Canadian
farmers at a severe disadvantage. The act calls for a specific
exemption for information of a competitive nature and this data
would not have to be released in any event.
Let us look at a couple of different examples starting with
Canada Post. A number of my constituents were concerned
about their subsidizing the courier facility with revenue from
their mail delivery. They believe that Canada Post would be able
to undercut the rates charged by other courier companies
because of this subsidy. Access to information would let
Canadians know if this is what Canada Post would be doing.
However, it is possible that Canada Post would be able to declare
a competitiveness exemption. The question arises, should this
be allowed? I think the question could best be answered by the
access commissioner, and he should be able to respond to it.
7964
However he needs the mandate and this motion would provide
him exactly with that.
(1810)
In a similar situation, officials at CTV recently questioned the
validity of CBC bidding on major events. Does the $1 billion
taxpayer subsidy permit CBC to outbid private broadcasters for
such events? Should CBC's competitors be allowed to utilize
access legislation to look at CBC's books?
Some questions about access to information requests as they
pertain to crown corporations are easy to respond to. Canadians
should have an unfettered right to determine if any government
department, agency or crown corporation is wasting taxpayers'
money.
Should Canadians be able to decide if the CBC is spending too
much of their money on a top heavy bureaucracy? Yes, no
question. Should CBC be able to declare an exemption on the
basis of competitiveness? Perhaps, but these types of requests
can always be resolved by the independent access
commissioner.
If this Parliament is to recapture a measure of respect lost by
past wrongdoings it must make every effort to provide
accountability and transparency in government. This will only
occur if we can convince Canadians that we have nothing to
hide. Let us start with making our own house open to the people
who pay the bills, the Canadian taxpayers.
I call upon all members of this House to support this motion.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this motion proposed by the
hon. member for Red Deer.
The objective of seeking ways to make government
operations more open and accountable to Canadian citizens is a
very good one. The hon. member is to be congratulated for
bringing this motion before the House. This idea is something
that should be pursued vigorously by all members of this House.
As the previous speaker said, accountability is something we
need more of and something the Canadian public wants more of.
In fact the Liberal Party's policy as stated in ``Creating
Opportunities'' otherwise known as the red book, is to promote
more open and accountable government. This is a promise all
members of government are taking very seriously and are
striving to implement in various ways.
As I have said, I agree with the objectives that motivated the
member for Red Deer to propose this motion. However, I have
three main concerns.
The first is that I believe the Access to Information Act should
be given a complete review. The best way to do this is to let the
Minister of Justice proceed with his publicly stated plans to do
this. Second, I am concerned that the motion suggests that this
House thinks the most important reform that can be made is to
make more institutions subject to the present act rather than
changing the present act to create greater access to information
from institutions already subject to the act. The third area is that
the motion is perhaps a little too vague in certain areas.
I want to explain each one of the three areas because I think
they are important. This subject matter is of very great
importance. It is one all members should hold the government to
be accountable for in this Parliament.
Since this act was created in 1982 there have been two
information commissioners who have made numerous
recommendations for reforms to the act. There was a 1986
parliamentary committee report entitled: ``Open and Shut'', a
1987 response from the former government called: ``Steps
Ahead'', many court cases and a lot of administrative
experience with this act.
(1815 )
In addition, many institutions have adopted access legislation
in recent years. The first was in Nova Scotia in 1977. Since then
the federal government, as we have stated, the governments of
Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, British Columbia and the Yukon have all adopted
access legislation. Alberta's access law is waiting to be
proclaimed. Outside Canada, Australia and New Zealand have
recently adopted access legislation and the United States
amended its freedom of information act in 1986.
In addition to various access laws being adopted, the federal
government has issued a blueprint for improving government
services with new technologies. There is an Information
Highway Advisory Council. One of the advisory council's
subcommittees is called access and social impacts. Access to
information must be considered in light of past experience and
the new technologies that are before us today.
Given all of this activity on recent issues, it is important that
we ensure full consideration is given to the various
recommendations in recent years and experiences under the
access laws.
We also need to call on the collective experiences of federal
government officials in determining the lessons to be learned
from the first decade of experience with the act and from other
jurisdictions.
The Minister of Justice stated in a media interview last July
that he believes the act is in need of an overhaul. He stated
unequivocally that it reflects the state of the art of the
mid-1970s rather than the 1990s. To me this is quite a
commentary from the Minister of Justice on this act. He says
there is a need to catch up with new technologies and a need for
more openness.
We should give the minister the time to do his job and to
consider the various suggestions for reform carefully before
pushing amendments into the House.
7965
The second reason for opposing this motion is that it suggests
that the House thinks the most important reform to this act is to
add institutions to be covered by the act rather than improving
access to government information that is already subject to the
act. More than 132 institutions at the present time are subject to
this act. The most recent report of the information commissioner
as well as the parliamentary committee report in 1986, ``Open
and Shut'' made numerous recommendations for improving the
act.
A motion of the House to extend the application of this act to
other institutions I think would detract from these other
proposals. It could be argued that the main purpose of the Access
to Information Act is to hold the government accountable. An
amendment to extend the act to agencies that are independent of
government is not likely to address the issue of the
accountability of government.
I agree that independent crown agencies need scrutiny and
that scrutiny is provided in various ways. I am not saying that
making more institutions subject to the act is a bad idea.
However, I do not necessarily agree that we should be telling the
Minister of Justice that the priority of the House is adding to the
list of institutions covered by the act rather than improving
access to the 90 per cent of government information already
subject to the act.
The third point relates to the motion stating that Parliament
and crown agencies should be subject to the act. We know that
more than 130 crown agencies are already subject to the act as I
have stated. Presumably the motion calls for more crown
agencies to be subject to it. It is important to be more definitive
and to say which ones should be subject to the act.
(1820)
When we have something of this importance, with the good
intentions of parliamentarians and the good intentions of the
people of Canada, we have to be definitive. We have to show
people that it works. We can best show people how it works by
being definitive and straightforward in what we want to achieve.
The motion states that the Access to Information Act should
apply to crown agencies. This seems to suggest that the act
should not list precisely which agencies are subject to the act but
instead should provide a general definition of what is a crown
agency. It is difficult to say if this is the intent of the motion but
it is an ambiguity which may make it difficult for the minister to
know how to respond to the motion if it passes.
I want to cite just one example of where the general
requirement that all crown corporations be subject to the access
law may be too broad. I use an example in Ontario. Under the
Ontario access law Ontario Hydro, the Ontario Liquor Control
Board and the Ontario GO Transit Authority are subject to the
act, while TV Ontario is not subject to it. This is because
broadcasting, freedom of expression, confidential news sources
and independence from government may raise different issues
than those affecting other types of crown corporations. A one
size fits all approach is not necessarily the best way to go.
There are two advantages to using what I would call a list
approach rather than a general definition of crown assets
approach. First, the list approach ensures we consider each
agency on an institution by institution basis, taking into account
any special circumstances that might apply to these institutions.
There may be good reasons why one government agency should
be subject to the act while another one is not.
A second advantage to this list approach is that there is
certainty over which crown agencies are subject to the act and
which are not. If we simply create a broad general definition of
crown agency some agencies are likely to interpret whatever
words are used in that definition to say the definition does not
include them.
Undoubtedly this will lead to litigation with all the increased
time and cost to request the government definition in question.
This will use valuable court time in a system that is already
overburdened.
In summary I would want to say that it is important to talk
about this issue. This is an important issue. I want to thank the
hon. member for Red Deer for bringing it before the House. I
support the hon. member's desire for increased openness and
accountability in government. I want to say to him that I am
confident the Minister of Justice will address this important
issue during the life of the government. It is important that we as
members of Parliament support him in the act of looking into
this question and bringing forward a greater accountability.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today in support of Motion M-304. The motion is put
forward by my Reform colleague from Red Deer. I would like to
congratulate him on it.
The motion deals with extending the realm of the present
Access to Information Act to include Parliament and crown
corporations.
I begin by paraphrasing the purpose of the act. The passage
will help to outline the true essence and principles behind the
creation of the act and how the present motion before the House
will only enhance those principles. ``The purpose of this act is to
extend the present laws of Canada to provide a right of access to
information in records under the control of a government
institution in accordance with the principles that government
information should be available to the public''. This is an
explanation of the act's intent to foster accountability within
government and its institutions.
7966
(1825)
The motion before the House embodies the same principles
and expresses them in a form in which Canadian people deserve
to have access to, namely Parliament and crown corporations. It
serves to ensure that the business of government is and remains
open to the public. It represents the public's desire for
Parliament to be accountable for its actions. It embodies the
need Canadians have to know that their government and its
institutions are not hiding from them. If government has nothing
to hide, and it should have nothing to hide, why not open up
Parliament and crown corporations to public scrutiny?
We in the Reform Party have been listening to the outraged
cries of our fellow Canadians and understand their desire to hold
Parliament accountable for its actions. This understanding was
shown through our efforts to pass Bill C-210, the bill on recall.
It was recently voted down by both the Liberal and Bloc parties.
We are trying again.
The motion will allow the public access to financial matters
handled by the Speakers of the House and the Senate. However
the motion will not sacrifice the confidentiality of MPs' files or
cabinet documents. It will, though, for such crown agencies as
the CBC and Canada Post, open up their files to public scrutiny.
In this day of incredible national debt and financial strain on
the taxpayer, such a motion grants true meaning to open
government, something we have been hearing a lot about. After
all, do Canadians not have a right to know where their money is
being spent?
The Liberal government states on page 91 of its red book
which we hear so often quoted in the House: ``If government is
to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and
integrity in our political institutions must be restored''. The
motion will help to ensure that both Parliament and crown
corporations are accountable to the public and hence will be
viewed as capturing the honesty and integrity it once had.
On page 91 the Liberal book goes on to state: ``The most
important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the
citizens to whom it is accountable''.
The motion stresses the need Canadians have for a more open
process of government. They are tired of being told what to do
by the government while not having a government that invokes a
sense of trust or integrity among the people it governs.
We hear all too often about more open and honest
government, about integrity, about credibility. We hear the talk
but we do not see the Liberals walking the walk. That is what this
motion is all about. We hear speakers on the other side telling us
that they support the motion in principle but that it is too broad
in scope and that perhaps there is going to be some Pandora's
box opened as a result of the motion passing.
I suggest that what we ought to be doing is making the access
to information law as broad as possible with limitations set in
areas where appropriate rather than the other way around. What
we are hearing from members opposite is exactly that. They
want to limit. They are so concerned about having information
out there in the general public they want to make sure they have
as many limitations as possible in place. That is counter to the
whole theme of access to information.
An example of closed, elitist and top down government is the
land claim negotiations currently going on in my riding of
Skeena. These negotiations are the epitome of backroom, closed
to the public input, government deals. These negotiations
between the federal and provincial governments and native
groups in my province are completely performed behind closed
doors without any direct public input whatsoever.
Is this not the kind of process the Liberal government
condemns in its red book on page 91? It states: ``The people are
irritated with governments that do not consult them or that
disregard their views or that try to conduct key parts of the
public business behind closed doors''.
I suggest that is what the government is doing and it can
change by supporting Motion M-304. I would call settling a
major land claim affecting a large piece of land and a great
number of people public business. It is definitely irritating my
constituents.
(1830)
Bring back integrity and trust to this Parliament and its
agencies. Allow Canadians to feel proud as they once did of their
parliamentary institution. Give Parliament back to the people.
Allow them the access they deserve and put confidence in
government back in the minds and hearts of Canadians.
In conclusion, this motion M-304 will help Canadians to trust
Parliament and its agencies once again. It is essential for the
political stability of this country that Canadians trust their
elected officials and feel a sense of integrity when proudly
telling others in the world that they are Canadians.
There is nothing to fear in this motion. It is straightforward
common sense. Let Canadians have the right to an open
Parliament and the right to hold their politicians accountable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
7967
7967
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is
deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 13 VIA Rail announced that it was cutting a
further 478 jobs, half of them in Montreal, and that it would be
doing this without any cut in service to the public.
On October 18 I asked the Minister of Transport how VIA Rail
could cut 478 jobs without reducing service to the public and
why VIA was still pursuing a downsizing policy introduced by
the Conservative government in 1993.
In answer to my question, the Minister of Transport said that
the cuts were necessary because there had to be a cut in the
subsidies to VIA Rail. He said it could not continue with the
subsidies at the same level. He went on to say again that there
would be no cut in service. By that he meant there would be no
cut in trains or no cut in VIA Rail routes.
I guess it all comes down to what you mean by service to the
public. Some of these cuts involve cuts in the maintenance staff
for VIA Rail. Some of them involve cuts in the sales staff for
VIA Rail. Let me state some things that have happened to me on
VIA Rail trains. If there is no proper maintenance and the train is
breaking down halfway through the trip, as it has done on
several occasions, and arrival at your destination is delayed by
half an hour or an hour and if the heating system breaks down in
the winter and you freeze in the coach, that all has to do with
service to the public.
It is also service to the public when you try to get a sales
representative on the phone and all you get is a run-around with
push one, push two and push three. It is very difficult to get the
type of service you need to buy a ticket for VIA Rail.
In fact, these are cuts in service that will affect the public.
Sooner or later because of the poor service in sales promotion or
the purchase of tickets or in maintenance, people will stop using
the train. When they stop using the train because of the poor
service in these aspects, then VIA Rail will say: ``Nobody is
using the route to London or to Quebec City or Sherbrooke. Let's
close it down''. Of course the reason people are not using it
starts at the beginning with the cuts that were made in
maintenance, sales, public relations, research and so on.
I maintain that these cuts will lead to a cut in service. I see
these cuts by VIA Rail as a lack of long range commitment to
passenger rail service in this country.
In Canada we have always had subsidies for our
transportation system. We have it for buses, trucks and airlines.
The airlines are being subsidized indirectly by the airports, the
air traffic control. The highways are subsdized by the fact that
they are built for the public by the provinces and the buses and
trucks are using them to a great extent. All this is happening in
this country while in Europe they are building high speed, very
efficient trains. The chunnel train service from Paris to London
began just the other day. You can go from Paris to London I think
in about three to four hours. It is very efficient and very fast.
Here we are in Canada ripping up the rails.
(1835)
It is very difficult to understand why in our country, when we
had a great railway system and a great seaway system, we are
letting these things go down the drain. When one drives down
Highway 401 to Toronto there are so many trucks and buses on
the road one takes his or her life in danger. A lot of that freight
traffic should be on trains and on shipping. I just do not
understand what VIA is doing or what the government is doing.
Furthermore, the minister says he is reducing the subsidies by
$100 million a year in accordance with the 1993 budget. The
1993 budget was a Conservative Tory budget. We are a new
Liberal government. Why are we continuing to allow VIA Rail
to operate on a budget that was introduced by a Tory government
that we helped to defeat last September?
Once again I will put my question to the government. Where
is the commitment to good passenger service in this country?
Why was the money saved by these cuts not redirected into
better rail service? What assurance do we have that these cuts
will not lead to a further deterioration in service and to more
cuts in routes for our trains in this country?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the question raised by my
colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce,
regarding the impact of service resulting from VIA's recently
announced job cuts.
As he mentioned, these job cuts are part of VIA's strategy to
improve its operating efficiency and bring the costs of its
operations in line with its reduced funding levels. In itself, this
objective is no different from that of any other crown
corporation or company in the private sector.
The challenge that VIA faces is it has to reduce its operating
costs by $100 million by the end of 1996-97 while maintaining
as much of the existing rail passenger services network as
possible. This is no ordinary feat. To meet that challenge VIA
management must rethink the way it does business. All work
practices that have been the mainstay of past railway operations
7968
have to be re-evaluated and streamlined throughout the
organization.
The job cuts announced on October 13 affected people at all
levels of the corporation from senior management positions to
the workshop level. The minister mentioned that in his answer
on the day of the question. This provides an indication that VIA
management is serious about taking the necessary steps to
assure its long term viability.
The review on the future of VIA services is not yet completed.
It is part of the recognition by the government that we must
address our national deficit, the size of which makes it a
problem for all Canadians and not just an item on the previous
government's agenda. For its part, VIA management has
demonstrated that it is ready to meet its current challenge.
With the co-operation of its employees, its chances of
succeeding are significantly improved as, hopefully, will
service to the travelling public.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am rising tonight as frustrated as I am angry.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, because I am a New Democrat I do
not have the opportunities to ask questions of ministers in this
Chamber as often as I would like. I consider it an honour and a
privilege when I am called upon to raise matters with ministers
of the crown on behalf of my constituents and Canadians
everywhere who share my views.
However, when a minister refuses to respond with a correct
answer when he has it at his fingertips, he is not only wasting my
valuable time, he is also wasting the time of the Chair and he is
insulting the Canadian people.
On Tuesday, November 15, I asked the Minister of
Agriculture to clarify his position with respect to grain
transportation financing in Canada. There were conflicting
reports from government printed in the media. Because the issue
of the Crow benefit is of incredible importance to the farmers
and the communities that they support in northwest
Saskatchewan as well as across the prairies, I thought it was
appropriate to clear the air and let farmers who are now just
starting to plan next year's crop know where they stand going
into that crop year.
Those conflicting reports were numerous. During the month
of October when he was touring Asia, the Minister for
International Trade said he wanted Canada to eliminate all farm
export subsidies including the Crow benefit and indeed prohibit
any new ones.
At the same time, the federal Minister of Transport said he
was looking for ways to reduce spending within his department
and the Crow benefit appeared to be on the block. Late last week
the minister's deputy minister, Mr. Nick Mulder, told the
semi-annual meeting of the Canadian Grains Council that it is
time to update Canada's railway policy, including the grain
subsidies. In fact he said that if Transport Canada had its way a
new transportation policy would include a significant change in
the Crow benefit method of payment. To quote Mr. Mulder, he
said:
The view is that we ought to make a method of payment change sooner rather
than later; we have to move in another direction.
(1840)
During the recent political convention of the Saskatchewan
Liberal Party in Saskatoon, the delegates voted on a
transportation motion and decided it was time to pay the farmer
rather than the railway. Therefore I thought, since the minister
of agriculture had been saying that as far as he was concerned
the issue was one to be resolved in consultation with farm
groups, that it was time the minister came forward with his own
thoughts on the matter.
On Tuesday afternoon of this week I asked the minister if he
was the defender of the Crow benefit and if it was the federal
government's intention to keep grain moving by rail by ensuring
that the Crow benefit remained in place. The minister did not
surprise me by saying once again:
Over the course of the next couple of months the Minister of Transport and I
will be canvassing all the major farm organizations in the country so that we
might present recommendations to our current cabinet colleagues early in the
new year.
The minister did not answer my question but at least he was
consistent in his answer. Mr. Speaker, you can understand my
surprise and my anger when I picked up the newspaper on
Wednesday morning to read that on Tuesday night, barely five
hours after the minister of agriculture had answered my
question, he met with prairie ministers of agriculture and told
them that the Crow benefit was on its deathbed. The federal
government will betray the commitment to thousands of prairie
farmers and introduce legislation early in the new year to end
payments to the railways in favour of payments made directly to
producers.
A great number of farmers in northwest Saskatchewan and I
continue to support the Crow benefit. We want the federal
government to maintain the current method of payment. It
would appear the minister, the cabinet and the Liberals across
the way are not prepared to listen or even understand our
concerns. We are also appalled that when he had a chance to put
his position on the table in the House of Commons where it
belonged, the minister of agriculture chose to conceal that
information until he was in a private meeting later that day.
7969
An issue of this importance deserves the attention of the
House. Our time in question period is too valuable to be ignored,
and it appears that is exactly what this minister of agriculture
did on Tuesday.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question on the Crow
benefit raised by my hon. colleague, the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
It is not as simple as he makes it sound. The Minister of
Transport and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
together are currently in the process of meeting with
shareholders in the grains and oilseeds industry regarding
changes to the Western Grain Transportation Act, which I will
call WGTA for short.
Under the new GATT regulations the WGTA on shipments
through the west coast and Churchill fall within the definition of
an export subsidy. These subsidies must be reduced, as he
knows, under the terms of the new GATT. This means that we
have choices. We can change the WGTA so that it is no longer an
expert subsidy, or we can pay the railways but only within the
new GATT rules.
The second option would lead to an immediate and severe
restriction on the volume of grain shipped through the west
coast and Churchill that would be eligible for subsidies. In other
words as volume limits for products were reached, shippers
would suddenly be saddled with the full WGTA rates on
shipments.
Given this context there are now two proposals which have
been put forward as alternatives to paying the railways. The
first, presented by the producer payment panel last June,
recommends payments to producers based on cultivated acres
and then gradually phasing into payments based on arable acres.
It also recommends some of the WGTA be put into safety nets
and research.
However the second proposal put forward by the Government
of Alberta and endorsed by the present Saskatchewan
government recommended provincial variations in the program
within a set a principles. It also recommended against putting
WGTA money into safety nets.
After their current discussion with all interested parties about
these two options, and perhaps other suggestions may come up,
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of
Transport will make a comprehensive set of recommendations
to cabinet about the overall reform to the Canadian grain
handling and transportation system.
These recommendations must be fiscally responsible and
consistent with our international trading obligation, as the hon.
member knows. They must also reflect the concern of all those
in the grains and oilseeds industry. In finalizing the
government's position with respect to the WGTA we must
ensure that Canadian agriculture and Canadian farmers are
positioned to take on the world and to win.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38 the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted.
[Translation]
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.46 p.m.)