CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 1, 1995
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 10185
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10187
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10187
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10187
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10187
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10188
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10188
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10188
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10188
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10188
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10189
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10189
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10189
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 10189
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10189
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 10189
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10190
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10190
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10190
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10190
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10191
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10191
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10191
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10191
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10193
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10193
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 10195
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 10196
Bill C-314. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 10196
Bill C-315. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 10196
Motion for concurrence in 64th report 10196
(Motion agreed to.) 10196
Motion moved and agreed to 10196
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10197
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10198
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10198
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10199
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10200
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10200
Consideration resumed of budget motion 10202
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 10202
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10206
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 10209
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 10211
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 10214
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 10217
Amendment to the amendment negatived ondivision: Yeas, 41; Nays, 186 10224
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 10226
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10227
10183
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 1, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, March 5 to 11 is ``Save your vision week'' in Canada.
This is an annual event to foster public awareness sponsored by
the Canadian Association of Optometrists.
This year's theme is: ``Hope is in sight. Good vision and
literacy: There is a clear connection''.
Many Canadians are unable to read simply because they do
not see well. Children do not learn to read if they cannot focus on
the blackboard or on the words in a book. One child in six has a
vision problem, which makes it hard for him or her to learn and
to read. The key is prevention. Early detection of vision
problems really helps improve literacy. It has been established
that three quarters of adults with literacy problems also have
vision problems.
I join, therefore, with the 2,800 optometrists in Canada to
remind Canadians that good vision is a must for good reading.
* * *
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the president
of the Public Service Alliance called upon his members
yesterday to make a decision on a work-to-rule action and other
pressure tactics to protest the public service cuts.
The Liberal government refuses to enter into a constructive
dialogue with the Public Service Alliance. Yet the alliance has
stated its willingness to join forces with the government to
ensure better management of staff reductions and to maintain
services to the public. In deciding against negotiations and
partnership, the Liberal government is in essence denying the
very principle of collective bargaining.
With a work-to-rule action by civil servants on its hands, the
government is now reaping what it has sown. All Canadians and
Quebecers will pay for the contempt displayed by the Liberal
government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to recognize the mayor of Dauphin,
Manitoba, Mr. Inky Mark.
This gentleman took upon himself to compile resolutions
from approximately 200 municipal governments from all
provinces and territories. These resolutions support the
principle that all Canadians now and in the future shall continue
to enjoy the lawful, responsible and safe use of all firearms.
He took these efforts upon himself because he felt the voice of
the tax-paying, law-abiding citizen was seldom heard. He has
consistently asked for the establishment of a national firearms
advisory council whose members would be made up of a
cross-section of non-partisan people.
I would like his message to be heard loud and clear and to pay
tribute to his tireless efforts on behalf of responsible
recreational firearms users.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has finally admitted with his budget that his
government has no intention of maintaining national standards
in our health care system. Today the Prime Minister was quoted
as saying: ``Social programs such as medicare will revert to
meeting more basic needs as they did when they were started
half a century ago''.
Fifty years ago someone in my family suffered from a major
illness. We were fortunate as a family that it only took us 10
years to pay off the bill. Fifty years ago others lost their farms
and businesses for reasons of health and health expenses.
Because of that they also lost hope for the future.
It is clear now that this government is intent on doing away
with national standards with the national health care system. In
fact rather than building Canada, the Prime Minister has con-
10184
firmed today the government has set us on a course to dismantle
this country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to announce to the House that, as of next
September, the Simcoe County Board of Education's intensive
French language program will be offered at Bradford West
Gwillimbury elementary school.
Five out of the six major centres in Simcoe county now offer a
bilingual curriculum to their English speaking students. This
year, over 500 elementary and secondary school students
registered for the program, which is in its sixth year. I wish to
congratulate the school board, its staff, and above all, the
parents of Simcoe county for participating in this program and
for their contribution to bilingualism in Canada.
The intensive French language program is another example of
the importance placed on the French language in Ontario and
elsewhere in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I rise in the House to congratulate Mr. Michael
Barnes, a constituent from my riding of Timiskaming-French
River.
Mr. Barnes is a teacher and historian who has chronicled the
history of northern Ontario. This region is as rich in exciting
history as any other in Canada but is often ignored by the
majority of Canadians.
Mr. Barnes has researched our history from the early days of
the gold camps and the construction of the railways. In all his
works Mr. Barnes has celebrated the resilient and rugged people
who came from across Canada and the world to settle and
prosper in this bountiful region of our great nation.
Northern Ontario and indeed Canada should be proud of
Michael Barnes. I call upon all members of Parliament to join
me in congratulating him today as he rightly becomes a member
of the Order of Canada.
* * *
(1405 )
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I would like to bring to the attention of this House a long and
storied Canadian tradition, that of the lighthouse keeper.
Recently, Transport Canada announced that the remaining
lighthouse keepers in Canada would be replaced by an
automated system.
Today I would like to speak about two historic and treasured
stations located at Cape Spear and Cape Race in my riding.
Cape Spear, Newfoundland is the most easterly point in North
America. It is where man meets the sea. The lighthouse station
at Cape Spear, in operation since 1835, is still manned by a
lighthouse keeper. Yet on the 160th birthday of this lighthouse,
Transport Canada wants to have machine meet the sea at this
historic point.
The second lighthouse, Cape Race located in southeast
Newfoundland, has for decades been the reference point for
European ships bound for the Americas. Since 1856 European
ships have approached a manned lighthouse station at Cape
Race.
I urge Transport Canada to re-examine its decision regarding
the demanning of these lighthouses. One hundred and sixty
years of history and tradition-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a
move of extraordinary cynicism, the Liberal government has
decided to impose what amounts to an immigration tax. The
members of the Bloc Quebecois deplore this virtual tripling of
the fees required upon submission of an immigration
application. In addition to the basic $500, an adult immigrant
will have to pay a tax of $975 to have his application considered.
This government, which has loudly proclaimed its openness
to immigration, which wants to boost its citizenship profile,
which produces one overblown speech after another on Canada
as the country of choice for immigrants, is practicing the exact
opposite of what it preaches.
The message sent by this fee hike could not be clearer: Canada
is no longer interested in taking in immigrants, and is
particularly uninterested in those with low incomes. It has
decided to close the door and exclude those whose contribution
has been and is still so important for Quebec and Canadian
society.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, next week is Vision Awareness Week in Canada. It is an
annual public awareness campaign sponsored by Canadian
optometrists. This year's theme is ``Hope is in sight. Good
vision and literacy: There is a clear connection''.
10185
Can you imagine if all of us who wear glasses went without
them for a day or even half a day? That would put us in the
position of those I am addressing today.
Many Canadians cannot read well because they cannot see
well. Children will not learn to read if they cannot focus on the
chalkboard or on the words in a book. One in six children has a
vision problem.
Not all vision problems are easy to detect, therefore the
earlier problems are detected and corrected, the better.
Prevention is the key. The fact is that three-quarters of adults
with poor literacy skills also have problems with their vision.
As literacy critic for the Reform Party, I join Canada's 2,800
optometrists in reminding Canadians that good vision is
necessary to become a good reader.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now that the federal government has
tabled its 1995 budget, a tough budget that will suit the wishes of
international investors, it is time to get down to the serious
business of controlling our financial destiny.
The federal government must instruct the Bank of Canada to
bring the effective interest rate down from the present
superficially high level. A lower interest rate will result in
increased job growth for Canadians. It will greatly assist small
and medium sized businesses.
Interest rates should be brought down by at least 2 percentage
points. One result of this move would be lower interest
payments to foreign investors. Another would be that small and
medium sized businesses could afford to borrow money for
expansion, thereby creating jobs.
We need a made in Canada interest rate. We have to control
our interest rates in order to achieve a balanced budget in the
long run.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
year, International Women's Day falls during our week off. That
is why I rise today to pay tribute to all Canadian women from
coast to coast.
Let us look around us. There are now 54 women sitting in the
House of Commons. We have come a long way since Agnes
McPhail became the first woman elected to the House of
Commons in 1921; since the judiciary committee of the Privy
Council finally recognized, in 1929, that women were persons in
the eyes of the law; since Carine Wilson became the first woman
appointed to the Senate in 1930.
Women have left their mark in all their fields of activity
despite the obstacles that keep springing up in their way, simply
because our society is still tainted by widespread and offensive
sexism.
To our mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, colleagues and
friends, to all women in Canada, I say thank you.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to pay tribute today in the House to Mr. Rodger Dusky from
my riding in London, Ontario.
On February 16, Mr. Dusky received the Prime Minister's
award for teaching excellence in science, technology and
mathematics. This award recognizes teachers across Canada
who have had a major proven impact on student performance
and interest in these areas. Mr. Dusky was nominated for this
award by one of his former students.
Mr. Dusky has been a teacher for 32 years and has been
teaching science and chemistry at London Central Secondary
School since 1987. Most notable in his achievements is ``The
Mentor Connection''. This program twins high school students
with professionals from the community in order to support and
enhance the autonomous learning projects of the students.
This program has been a tremendous success locally. Mr.
Dusky is presently in the process of trying to expand the
program so more students can benefit from this unique
opportunity. It is through these types of initiatives and teachers
such as Mr. Dusky that our children have the skills and
knowledge to effectively compete in the constantly changing
workplace.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the past two days, the Bloc member for Louis-Hébert and his
colleague from Chicoutimi have missed their chance to make
amends for the racist and discriminatory remarks they made
about Quebec's cultural communities.
After their leader had rebuked them, these two members
found nothing better to do than issue releases stating that they
regret any embarrassment their remarks caused the Leader of the
Opposition and any harm they have caused their colleagues in
the Bloc Quebecois or those involved in building a sovereign,
open and profoundly democratic Quebec.
10186
The truth of the matter is that the two Bloc members are
probably not sorry they made such blatantly racist and
discriminatory remarks about our cultural communities; they
are just sorry their party and the separatist cause may have been
hurt by their remarks.
How can the people of Quebec believe in their plan for an
independent, supposedly open and profoundly democratic
Quebec, when in fact the very people responsible for promoting
this plan, like the two hon. members opposite, have no regard for
the most fundamental of principles?
We demand no less than formal apologies to be made in this
House to our fellow citizens newly established in la Belle
Province de Québec.
* * *
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when he
tabled his budget, the Minister of Finance said, with a smile on
his face, that the era of flexible federalism had now arrived.
However, we had to be suspicious of that smile, which was more
akin to the kiss of Judas.
How can the minister be serious about flexible federalism
when he is considerably limiting the financial margin of the
provinces by reducing transfers, while at the same time
maintaining national standards for welfare, health and
post-secondary education?
After promising to reduce overlap and duplication between
the two levels of government, the minister has now decided,
despite all the opposition, to keep control over a sector as vital
as manpower training.
In its editorial of today, Le Devoir says that current federalism
``manages without us and clearly declares itself to be imperial''.
This is what federalism has become.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present the third instalment of the Liberal's copy
Reform awards.
Today's winner is the member for Vancouver Quadra whose
personal proposals for pension reform are suspiciously similar
to the Reform blue book. At a time when the cabinet has
approved a two tier pension plan that will make millionaires out
of defeated politicians, it is indeed outstanding to have a
government backbench MP suggest that the treasured gold
plated pension plan be based on the principle of matching funds.
Imagine a Liberal actually saying that MPs should live by the
same rules as other Canadians, collecting their pensions at age
65, or that they should be forced to tighten their belts like those
living outside planet Ottawa. Reformers have been calling for
these changes for four years.
I commend the member for Vancouver Quadra for joining our
cause. I call on the Prime Minister to stop comparing his salary
and pension with professional hockey players and start
comparing it to those who actually pay his salary and pension,
the Canadian taxpayers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Bloc member for Roberval was
concerned by the decision of the American rating agency
Moody's to put Canada's credit rating under review.
(1415)
The opposition member said in this House, and I quote: ``The
pressure from the financial community is a signal that the
Minister of Finance should tackle the deficit problem by making
massive cuts in government spending, which has to be the
preferred approach, rather than raise the taxes of the middle
class''.
I am pleased to see that the wish of the hon. member for
Roberval was largely met in Monday's budget.
I want to further reassure the member by reminding him of the
comments made by his colleague, the official opposition critic
for finance, on the CBC'S French radio network yesterday
morning: ``The economists and the financial community seem
relatively pleased with this budget -and rightly so since, from a
strictly financial point of view, Mr. Martin seems to be willing
or able to reach his objectives-''.
The Speaker: Regrettably, I must interrupt the hon. member.
The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Monday the Minister of Finance brought forth a trustworthy
budget that will put our country in a new era of financial
responsibility.
Not only do we feel this is a good budget for Canada, even the
international community approved. Within two hours of the
budget the dollar began to rise and the interest rates began to
fall. These are signs of recognition that we are indeed on the
right track. I am happy to add that most reasonable citizens have
10187
come to realize this and have accepted the budget as truly a
progressive budget.
One reasonable citizen, I am pleased to note, is the Reform
Party's financial critic who was so approving he led the applause
in the House. In fact at one time he gave the finance minister a
standing ovation, an act earning him reproval from his Reform
Party colleagues.
Reform Party members accused us of smoke and mirrors
during our prebudget consultations while they spread false
information throughout the country. Yet the budget shows
Canadian citizens that we were listening.
_____________________________________________
10187
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in its budget, the federal government is
downloading part of its deficit to the provinces by cutting $7
billion from transfer payments for social programs. As a result,
Quebec alone will lose $650 million next year and $1.9 billion in
1997-98. The Quebec Minister of Finance roundly criticized the
negative impact of a budget that will force the Quebec
government to reduce services or raise taxes or both.
Will the Minister of Finance have the basic honesty to admit
to the House that cuts in transfer payments mean that Quebec
will have a shortfall of $2.5 billion three years from now,
including $1.9 billion for 1997 alone, which is 41.7 per cent of
total transfer payments for that year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we intend to sit
down with the provinces to discuss how we will approach the
changes in transfer payments. There is only one correct figure:
In 1996-97, compared with this year, there will be a cut of $350
million.
If we consider the potential for eliminating duplication and
overlap, I think this can be absorbed.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the minister on a matter as basic
and simple as arithmetic. If the budget had not interfered with
transfer payments this year, Quebec would have received $300
million more, according to the estimates for transfer payments.
The minister cancelled the $300 million increase and cut an
additional $350 million. According to what I learned in school,
300 plus 350 equals 650 million.
Mr. Loubier: The Minister of Finance cannot count.
Mr. Bouchard: The minister tells us that as far as the $2.2
billion over a three year period is concerned, there is some
uncertainty, since the $4.5 billion that will be cut in the third
year will have to be distributed among the provinces, after
negotiations with the federal government.
If there is any uncertainty, and in fact there is not, since the
technical document published by the Department of Human
Resources Development says this will be done on a per capita
basis, and the minister says, on page 17 of the budget speech,
that he will apply the same criterion-if there is any uncertainty,
then it should be cleared up.
(1420)
Yesterday and again today, the minister said that he was ready
to meet the provinces the very next day. Perhaps the minister
would like to tell us whether he agrees the provinces should be
summoned immediately to a formal federal-provincial
conference, where he would clarify the issues and tell us what
the repercussions will be for Quebec?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I met the
provincial finance ministers before the budget and we discussed
the changes in transfer payments, I told them I would be ready to
meet them as soon as the budget was brought down.
So the answer to your question is yes. In fact, I have already
made that clear to the finance ministers. The Leader of the
Opposition mentioned arithmetic. Well, there is a difference of
at least one billion dollars between the figures quoted by the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois and those quoted by the Quebec
finance minister, so you will have to check with headquarters.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate a clear answer. I would like the
minister to tell us whether he will immediately call a
federal-provincial conference to discuss how the cuts in transfer
payments will be distributed.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend
to schedule a meeting with the finance ministers. They asked me
to wait until they had all tabled their own budgets, so let me
know when Mr. Campeau tables his, and I will tell you when we
will have this meeting.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the
Minister of Transport having problems? I think this is my
question and not his. If the Minister of Transport misses being in
the opposition, he will be back here soon enough. In the budget
speech, the Minister of Finance proposed that the funds paid into
the Canada Assistance-
An hon. member: Give him his valium.
10188
The Speaker: Order. I realize today is Wednesday, but,
nevertheless, it is the hon. member for Roberval's turn to ask
a question.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in the budget speech, the
Minister of Finance proposed that transfers under the Canada
assistance plan for social assistance now be allocated among
provinces in the same way as established program financing
transfers for health and post-secondary education-by
combining, in 1997, all transfers into a single one: the Canadian
social transfer.
Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that his
government's intention to pay the amounts involved in the
Canada assistance plan according to the criteria for the
established programs will deprive Quebec, in 1997, of several
hundreds of millions of dollars in social assistance, in favour of
Ontario?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is as follows. In his budget, the
Minister of Finance announced that he will change the bases, the
criteria for allocating money under the Canada assistance plan.
He said himself that the transfer will be on the same basis as for
the other programs, that population will be the criterion for
allocation.
If the Minister of Finance is using population as the Canada
assistance plan allocation criterion in order to transfer to
Quebec the money involved as a lump sum, will he acknowledge
that this approach will take hundreds of millions of dollars away
from Quebec in favour of a province like Ontario? If he will not
acknowledge this, will he tell us what basis he is using?
(1425)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I indicated very
clearly that we intend to sit down and negotiate with the
provinces. We are bringing about changes in federalism. I think
that this will require face to face discussions. I have a hard time
understanding the questions. I think the hon. member has been
briefed by Bob Rae.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday officials of the Department of Finance were
telling investors that Canada would balance its budget by the
year 2000. Today they are reassuring those investors that even a
downturn in the American economy will not stop the
government from balancing the budget because the effects will
be offset by cuts to social programs and transfers to the
provinces.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why were
Canadians not given more details about the impending social
cuts in Monday's budget? Will the minister reveal his real
agenda for social spending reductions, a hidden agenda which
must exist if the budget is to be balanced by the year 2000?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the second
day in a row on which the leader of the third party has referred to
apparent briefings or statements by unnamed Department of
Finance officials.
I think we should make the record clear. I do not know what
the leader of the Reform Party is talking about. That makes me a
fairly typical Canadian.
The fact is that I am really not able to respond. I would like to
respond to the leader of the third party's statement, but I do not
know about the briefings that he is raising and that he raised
yesterday.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I refer to stories in a number of the financial papers
about assurances being given-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Manning: There are also broad hints in the budget that
the minister is obviously contemplating deeper cuts in social
spending and transfers if he is going to balance the budget.
If these plans are in progress they are being developed behind
closed doors, without Canadians knowing. We even wonder
whether the Minister of Human Resources Development knows
about them. The finance department is planning major cuts. The
human resources minister yesterday said that what they were
going to do was reshuffle existing funds to his department.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. Is that minister personally aware of the changes
the finance department has in store for social programs? If so,
will he share that agenda with the Canadian people and with the
House?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have read very carefully
the document that was tabled in the House on Monday. I am
prepared to share it with the hon. member for Calgary Southwest
because obviously he has not read it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the chief financial officer of a publicly traded
company put out a prospectus on Monday and it was found out
on Wednesday that they had hidden plans which affected the
bottom line and all the shareholders, that CFO could go to jail
under Ontario securities law.
None of us would like the Minister of Finance to go to jail, so
my question is: Will he come clean and tell Canadians what
social program cuts the government is planning in order to
balance the budget after 1997?
10189
(1430 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): It is somewhat incongruous
watching the Reform Party trying to defend social programs. It
is like watching an elephant tap dance.
The Reform Party has to be very desperate and it is quite clear
it is so disconcerted by the very favourable reaction that the
financial markets have given to this budget but it has lost its
issue and is trying to make one up.
There is no hidden agenda. The only agenda that people are
looking for today is the Reform Party's and they cannot find it.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister announced in his budget that he
intends to tackle old age pensions. One of the budget documents
states that the reform of old age security will be based primarily
on the following principle: old age security benefits will be
calculated on the basis of family income, as is the case with the
guaranteed income supplement.
Can the finance minister confirm that calculating old age
security benefits on the basis of family income will mean that, in
the future, old age pensions will no longer be the same for
everyone and that thousands of senior citizens will see their
pensions drop?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to answer the
question directly, the exact opposite is true.
Having said this, the federal government and indeed the
provincial governments are duty bound to protect old age
pensions, the Canada and Quebec pension plans. We intend to sit
down no later than this fall to work out a sustainable system. You
have seen the actuarial report on this subject.
So I cannot understand the position of the hon. member who
would not protect Canadian seniors' old age pensions.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the finance minister protects old age pensions the
way he has protected unemployment insurance, we are not out of
the woods yet.
Will the finance minister admit that calculating old age
pensions on the basis of family income will directly penalize for
the most part women whose financial independence will be
compromised?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no firm decision
has been made on this matter. We intend to consult, and it is
indeed our duty to do so, but nevertheless let me answer your
question directly.
According to the study by the Caledon Institute of Social
Policy, women are not only protected, their pensions are in fact
increased. It is a good thing for women.
I put the following question to the hon. member: He is against
seniors, is he also against women? The hon. member should get
his numbers right before asking questions.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
centrepiece of the government's budget is the creation of
something called the Canada social transfer.
The government's motive for creating this transfer is that this
government was planning to make larger and bigger cuts to
sacred cows like health, post-secondary education and welfare
in this and possible future budgets.
To clarify the situation and to clarify the answers that the
minister just gave, will there be any additional cuts to this new
super transfer beyond those announced in the current 1995-96
budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we set out a very
clear plan to preserve our social programs. The Canada social
transfer provides us with a basis to do that. It provides us with
the basis to do that in very straightened circumstances.
(1435 )
I continue to have some difficulty understanding the nature of
the question. I have a great deal of respect for the member but he
must understand that he is with a party that recommended two
weeks ago that we take $15 billion out of those social programs
which would effectively gut them. We are certainly entitled to
have a little consistency on economic policy in this country by at
least one of the two opposition parties.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly appreciate the answer by the hon. minister.
The Reform Party was up front. We laid it out that we would
reduce by $15 billion the social program spending.
What I am asking the minister and the government of this
country to do is to lay it out for Canadians and tell them the truth
about what is going to happen. That is what we want.
If we look at this 1995-96 budget, the government's transfer
proposals provide no additional tax points and actually cut cash
transfers to provinces by 20 per cent to 25 per cent. What else is
going to happen?
10190
Is this one of the ways that the government is planning to
decentralize the deficit but there is a hidden agenda that
provinces do not understand?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have had
numerous meetings with the ministers of finance of the
provinces. The minister of HRD has had numerous meetings
with his counterparts in the provinces. The provinces
understand full well the nature of the federal fiscal dilemma.
They understand also that it is very important that the federal
government get its fiscal house in order because that has
enormous benefits for them.
What the provinces said to us was no surprises and there are
no surprises. They said hit yourselves first and we have. They
have said hit yourself harder than you hit us and we have. We
have lived up to every one of our commitments. There is no
hidden agenda. There is one very public agenda and that is that
we are going to preserve the social programs of this country and
clean up the nation's finances.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
In the budget speech, the federal government announced that
it will be setting up a human resources investment fund of
several hundreds of millions of dollars, which the federal
government will use to meddle in the area of job training.
Will the minister concede that this fund infringes on the
powers of the provinces, does nothing to decentralize
government and, in fact, increases even more overlap and
duplication between governments?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon.
member arrived at that conclusion because what we are
proposing to do is eliminate many of the old programs that were
under the Canadian job strategy which no longer are relevant to
the kind of situation we face.
By consolidating our existing resources into one human
investment we can then sit down with the provinces, as we are
doing now on issues of child care and literacy, and work out new
partnerships and new arrangements with the provinces, the
municipalities and private sector partners. It gives us the
flexibility we need to now engage in a new generation of social
programming that really fits both the reality and the changed
circumstances the country finds itself in.
That is the same kind of flexibility we are achieving through
the new form of Canada's social transfer. We are also achieving
this by putting up a new form of funding resource in our own
department so that we can undertake those kinds of partnerships
I just outlined.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, will the minister also admit that the human
resources investment fund goes in the opposite direction of
where Quebec wants to go regarding job training, since, instead
of withdrawing from this sector, the federal government plans to
infringe more and more on Quebec's jurisdiction?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is in some
strange vapour today. He is drawing a conclusion that has no
basis in any kind of fact. I have just told the hon. member that
creating a new kind of investment fund puts us in a position of
being able to start with a clean slate to sit down with the
provinces and other stakeholders and work out new partnership
arrangements.
I would remind the hon. member that we have already tabled
with the provinces, including the province of Quebec, offers for
serious transfer responsibilities in the area of training and the
province of Quebec has not responded in a positive way.
Certainly other provinces have and I would issue the invitation
again to sit down and we are prepared to turn over responsibility
for managing institutional training. I would hope that the hon.
member would use his good offices with his colleagues in
Quebec to say come back to us with a good offer.
* * *
(1440)
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Yesterday Tony Manera, the president of the CBC, resigned
because the Liberals broke their red book promise for stable
multi-year funding to the CBC. Manera says that in the next
three years the government plans to cut $120 million more from
the CBC than the $45 million that was stated in the budget.
The minister has a secret agenda about the future of the CBC
which he has failed to disclose. Why has the minister failed to
provide this information to Canadians?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our colleague is out of luck. Her assistant is
no better as a researcher than he was as a candidate in
Ottawa-Vanier.
10191
The information she put forward is false. The government has
given a clear indication of what it will do in the budget and that
is to fix the CBC budget for next year. All the rest is invention.
Mr. Manera has resigned because of personal reasons.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
with all due respect to the minister, cheap political shots against
an honourable and professional candidate in an election are
clearly out of order in this House.
The Department of Canadian Heritage did send a secret
document to the president of the CBC confirming its plans to cut
the CBC over the next three years. That includes $120 million in
the cuts that the minister has failed to report.
How can the minister justify wasting more taxpayers' dollars
on another review as stated in the budget plan when according to
the president of the CBC the government has already made up its
mind?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, talking about cheap shots, let me quote the
hon. member: ``Mr. Manera is not staying to fight. It is an
abdication of leadership which means that he is not up to the
challenge of developing a blueprint for changing broadcasting''.
The only figures that have been passed on by my department
to Mr. Manera and the CBC are the figures of the program
review. The government established one year of budget for the
CBC, the next fiscal year. The other figures amount to 15 to 10
per cent for the next three years. They were contained in the
program review of last August.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the minister of heritage.Mr. Manera agreed to become president of the CBC after the
minister had assured him that there would not be any cuts to the
CBC's budget.
(1445)
Instead of claiming that Mr. Manera resigned for personal
reasons, would the minister be honest enough to admit-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, it must be taken for granted
that questions and responses will be honest. I would therefore
ask the hon. member to withdraw the expression she used.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of honesty.
Could the minister admit that this resignation is directly
related-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to put her
question, please.
Mrs. Tremblay: Instead of claiming that Mr. Manera
resigned for personal reasons, will the minister admit that this
resignation is directly related to his failure to honour his
commitment as heritage minister not to make further cuts to the
CBC's budget?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a passage in the Gospel-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Dupuy: -about ``whited sepulchres''. Only a few weeks
ago, our colleague rose in this House, loudly demanding that Mr.
Manera resign. Did she undergo a conversion? She is now
defending him. Did she undergo a conversion and decide to
defend the CBC, this great federalist, national institution?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, does the heritage minister admit that he is no
longer either a friend of the corporation, as he himself claimed,
nor, as heritage minister, a friend of cultural organizations and
the arts community, whose interests he has been unable to
protect, since culture is one of the sectors hardest hit by the
federal budget?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition referred to the
fact that arithmetic is taught in grade school. I am surprised that
a former teacher cannot do simple arithmetic and realize that if
there is one sector that was not hit hard, it is the cultural sector.
I therefore categorically deny our colleague's allegations and
I can reiterate that Mr. Manera did not resign because of the
budget. He said so himself in writing. She is in fact questioning
the good faith of the former President of the CBC.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Since Monday's fiscally responsible and fair budget we have
heard speculative statements about how the budget impacts on
Ontario. After four and a half years, the current premier of
Ontario will soon have to do his own accounting to the people of
Ontario.
Would the Minister of Finance please clarify how the budget
affects Ontario, a province with 37.5 per cent of the nation's
population?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the member for London West for her question because it
gives me the opportunity to correct the exaggerated claims
being made by the Government of Ontario.
10192
We have gone to great lengths, we have taken great pain
within the budget to make sure that it is fair and equitable and
does not impact disproportionately on any single region of the
country.
Ontario's share of the downsizing of the public service is in
line with its share of the national population. We could go one
step further. Nearly 161,000 jobs were created in Ontario last
year. We are going to maintain this recovery with a good budget
so we can create jobs in Ontario at the same level next year. That
is why we acted the way we did.
(1450)
The member has asked me to deal with the facts. Ontario's
share of budgetary actions is in the same range as its current
share of federal spending and it is actually less than its share of
Canada's population. If Bob Rae wants to play politics, he can
do it. However, he should stop playing politics with the facts
because he will never get re-elected that way.
The Speaker: May I appeal to hon. members once again? All
questions put in the House are deemed to be reasonable
questions. I believe that all hon. members should have the
chance to hear reasonable answers. I would ask please, when
questions are put to give enough time for the answer to be given.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the
Prime Minister, when speaking of the budget changes said:
``Social programs such as medicare will revert to meeting more
basic needs as it did when it was started a half century ago''.
What exactly does the Prime Minister mean by basic
services?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
means what he said this morning and what he has repeated. He
intends to support and maintain a universal, accessible system
of health care across the country where treatment is based not on
the size of your pocket book but on the serious illness you face.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Reform has
stated time and time again that what health care needs is
flexibility. We do not need the solutions of 50 years ago. We do
not need poor technology. We do not need poor innovation.
Will the Prime Minister recognize in front of all Canadians
that his budget will gut health care?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the absolute hypocrisy
of the Reform Party is never more evident than when its
members rise to defend the benefits of universal health care.
This is the very party that would have cut the heart and soul out
of the health care system.
We are not going to let them do it because they will never form
the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. In the budget tabled on
Monday, the minister decreed that a $975 fee will now be
charged to every person who wishes to immigrate to Canada.
This large amount of money is on top of the $500 processing fee
all immigrants already have to pay.
Does the minister not realize that it makes no sense to ask
prospective immigrants to pay $975, as this may represent up to
a year's salary or more in their countries of origin?
[English]
Why do future immigrants have to pay for the government's
deficit?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon.
member is in any position to lecture the government on how it
treats immigrants when members of his party in the PQ would
not even extend democratic rights to immigrants in Quebec.
The Minister of Finance said on Monday that all Canadians,
fishermen, farmers, public servants, business people, Canadian
families had to sacrifice for nation building and to maintain
Canada's prosperity. We have chosen to extend that invitation to
those wishing to join the Canadian family and also to recover
some of the costs for immigration settlement.
(1455)
There are two options. Immigrants either share with us in the
cost of settlement or we go the route of the United States of
America where there is no settlement. Like the commercial
says: ``You can pay now or you can pay much more later''. We
prefer settlement because it is the best way of integrating
immigrants. We also believe that the landing fee is worth the
price to come to the best country in the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister not realize that the message of openness Canada is
trying to convey to future immigrants to this country is greatly
compromised by this immigration tax, which can represent more
than $3,000 for a family of four?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member did not mention
that the Minister of Finance has also instituted a loan program
that would allow those individuals who believe that the $975
would be a hardship to apply for a loan.
10193
Just like refugees since 1951 have been able to absorb a
transportation loan, we believe that this fee will not cause
hardship. We are prepared to implement the loan program.
With respect to other countries that ask immigrants to help
shoulder the costs, Canada is in the middle of the spectrum
where it ought to be.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
In the budget the government announced the elimination of
the public utilities transfer tax rebate. Since 88 per cent of the
$250 million tax grab hits Alberta, the elimination of this rebate
is a discriminatory tax hike aimed directly at Albertans and will
cost them at least $170 million.
As the senior federal minister representing Alberta, does the
minister support this measure?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this nation has a
very large deficit and a very large debt. It was incumbent upon
the government to deal with it in the fairest and most
expeditious way possible. That is what we have done.
In this case we have followed the lead of a number of
provincial governments, including the Government of Alberta. I
believe the member for Lethbridge was a member of the
Government of Alberta when it took away the equivalent tax
exemption for the public utilities in that province.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in view
of the discriminatory nature of this tax grab and the fact that the
socialist power companies of Ontario and Quebec get away scot
free, does the finance minister view this as fair and equitable?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would simply
refer the member to the statement by the premier of Alberta, in
which he said that the federal government had to face up to its
responsibilities. We did so and basically this is a good budget.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The infrastructure program has been very successful and
encouraged all levels of government to work together. In my
riding of Vancouver East the projects were enthusiastically
received and put many people to work.
Could the Minister responsible for Infrastructure inform the
House of the status of the programs following Monday's
budget?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the program on infrastructure is being extended from a
three-year to a five-year period. This comes about as a result of
two things: first, many municipalities with major projects have
asked for extra construction time to be able to complete their
projects and, second, the fiscal needs of the Minister of Finance
as announced in the budget.
(1500)
I am pleased to say that this coming construction season will
be the biggest by far in terms of the infrastructure program.
Sixty per cent of all the funds under the program will be
allocated within the two years. The $2 billion from the federal
level and the $6 billion in total will stay intact over that
five-year period of time. It will lead to even more jobs than we
had predicted: over 100,000.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister for a
clear answer about his government's intentions on a question he
was asked yesterday in the House.
Will women 65 years of age and older lose their OAS because
of their spouse's income as implied on page 58 of the budget
plan? Yes or no.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the single most damaging element of this week's
federal budget will be the devastating effect on the regional
economy of the prairies, that is the elimination of the Crow rate
including declining land values and the lack of investment for
value added production.
Has the minister given any thought at all to the long term
implications for the prairie economy of the decision to end the
transport subsidy? If so, could he identify the sources in which
he has so substantially misplaced his optimism?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I note that a number of farmers
in western Canada over the course of the last two days in
commenting on the budget have noted that the change with
respect to freight rates in western Canada has the potential to
encourage diversification and value added production in the
west.
I would point out that the hon. gentleman, coming from
Saskatchewan, should perhaps know with respect to the $1.6
billion ex gratia capital payment that something in the order of
$800 million or more of that total will find its way into the
province of Saskatchewan because of that province's historical
share of grain movement.
10194
It does not include Saskatchewan's share of the $300 million
adjustment fund. It does not include the capital gains tax
advantage. It does not include the time cost of money that will
accrue to the recipients of those payments and not to the
government. It does not include the impact on efficiency in the
transportation system.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Dr. Christos Lazaris, Governor of
Lefkada in Greece.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to a point of order raised by the hon.
member for Skeena on February 9, the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development stated that I held a meeting in my
riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley entitled ``Let the
people speak'' and that natives were neither notified nor asked
to sit on a panel at the meeting.
I held no such meeting in my riding. The minister has
confused my riding with another and I would ask him to
withdraw these remarks.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stand as a minister but first
I stand as a member of Parliament who does not pick and choose
which constituents I speak for.
One of the purposes of the House is for the views of those who
have the least voice, who are the most oppressed and who need
our help the most to come before Parliament. The silence of the
Reform Party on aboriginal issues is so profound that it is
deserving of respect.
There have been four critics; I have gone through four critics.
They sit there like a Greek chorus.
Some hon. members: Order.
(1505 )
Mr. Speaker: In my view the point of order is a dispute as to
facts. From time to time in the course of debate-and I am not
saying this happened here-sometimes errors are made. I would
hope hon. members would give each other enough latitude in
debate so that if errors are made inadvertently they are accepted
as such.
Mr. Irwin: Mr. Speaker, I accept the explanation of the hon.
member but of the two critics one represents the Nishga-
Some hon. members: Order.
Mr. Speaker: I take it from the acceptance of the statement
that perhaps an error was made. I am hopeful this will close the
matter as of now. I would like the matter to be closed as of now.
This point of order is finished. If the member has another
point of order I would like to hear it. Is this on the same point of
order?
On a point of clarification, the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of all members of the House, would
you clarify whether or not it is in order for a member to ask for a
retraction and either the member retracts the statement or
refuses to retract the statement and then, I suggest from my
understanding of the standing orders, you, Mr. Speaker, make a
decision on which member had the right position?
Mr. Speaker: Sometimes the Chair is faced with both
positions being correct.
In this particular instance we had an hon. member saying that
it was said that he held a meeting of some kind in his riding. I
now have the minister involved who says he accepts that it was
an error.
I accept the minister's statement and I consider the matter to
be closed.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
different point of order. I think you would agree that one very
controversial issue facing the House at the moment is the gun
control legislation.
Because of the imprecise nature of the discussion a lot of my
constituents are wanting access to the legislation. I have been
told that I am only allowed to get 10 copies. Could you indicate
that this is not true and where my constituents can go to get more
copies of the legislation?
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the spokesman for the Board of Internal
Economy I informed the House last Friday that in addition to the
copies being made available by the minister, the House had
taken it upon itself to purchase an additional five copies per hon.
member according to a decision taken last week unanimously by
the Board of Internal Economy.
Mr. Speaker: This then is the response. I do not want to get
into a debate about the matter but I will hear the hon. member for
Kamloops.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to get into a debate on
the issue. I appreciate the decision that has been made. I am
seeking confirmation though.
In the words of the member who just spoke, he said that it was
a unanimous decision. Does that mean that all political parties
represented on the Board of Internal Economy agreed to limit
10195
the amounts of information given to our constituents on this
critical issue?
(1510)
Mr. Boudria: Members of the Board of Internal Economy are
well known; those appointed to the board are well known. It was
unanimous among members of the board as are all decisions of
the board.
I believe the hon. member once sat on the board. I think he is
familiar with the procedure.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, just to add briefly to this information session in the
House, last week when I raised the issue in the Chamber and the
member speaking on behalf of the board responded to me, he
gave information about additional copies being available should
I wish to purchase them out of my office budget.
I inquired about the purchase price and discovered that
although I was willing to purchase copies from my office there
were not enough printed in any case for me to purchase them.
Then I found that the price itself would be exorbitant to absorb
within my budget.
I approached the printing office on Parliament Hill and asked
how much it would cost to print that number of pages,
double-sided, one staple in the top, and I was informed the cost
was roughly one-third the cost of buying it from the
government.
I can print through the House of Commons. I have a quote
from the House printing unit to print enough copies to satisfy my
demands in my constituency for close to $400. I am prepared to
pay that amount if the House will allow me to ask printing to
produce that copy.
The Speaker: With regard to the copies that are made
available to members of Parliament, these copies are available
at distribution. They are for legislative use, not for general
distribution.
However the point the hon. member raises might be of interest
to all hon. members in terms of the costs. I would ask the House
spokesperson to the Board of Internal Economy if it might be
possible to have that discussion raised at the next meeting of the
Board of Internal Economy.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we could bring the issue to the
attention of the board. If the member would correspond with the
board, I am sure we would be pleased to receive his
representation.
I have a point of order on another issue.
The Speaker: The point will be brought up at the next
meeting of the Board of Internal Economy.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period today an hon. member
asked a question of a minister in relation to the responsibility of
the minister being responsible for a province.
I want to refer members to article 412 of Beauchesne's which
reads as follows:
A question may not be asked of a Minister in another capacity, such as being
responsible for a province, or part of a province, or as spokesman for a racial or
religious group.
That is a 1968 decision of the Speaker. I would submit the
question was in fact out of order. I believe there were a number
of cries across the way as to why the minister did not respond to
a question that was clearly out of order.
The Speaker: It is also clear that any question put is directed
to the government. As such, it is my understanding and has been
the practice for years in the House that any minister of the crown
can answer the question.
Although the question may be put to a specific minister,
another minister who so desires can answer the question.
(1515 )
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would just note for the Chair's enlightenment that in this case
the question was put to the Minister of Natural Resources. This
matter is a natural resource matter, broadly speaking.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I repeat that it is the
longstanding tradition of this house that any question that is put
to the government per se can be answered by any minister on the
government side. I would like to let that rest at this point.
_____________________________________________
10195
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the
Canadian section of the International Assembly of
French-Speaking Parliamentarians, on the meeting of the
assembly in Porto-Novo, Benin, on January 19 and 20, 1995.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table the 64th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which
concerns the list of the associate members of the Standing
Committee on Government Operations. With leave of the
House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later this
day.
10196
[English]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eighth
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development concerning Bill C-54 which was adopted with
amendments.
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-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve
certain federal agencies, with amendments.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-314, an act to amend the Parliament of
Canada Act (other pension income).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill which I am introducing today is
entitled an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (other
pension income). It will require all pension or retiring
allowance payments received by a member of Parliament that
are paid from public funds to be deducted from the member's
sessional allowance.
This bill will deal with another dimension of the issue of
double dipping. Members of Parliament who receive publicly
funded pensions while at the same time receiving a full member
of Parliament salary will be affected. The bill asks that the
House of Commons subtract pension income from a sitting MP's
salary, thus preventing double dipping, or receiving two
incomes from only one taxpayer. This bill would make all MPs
declare all public pension income they receive while sitting as
an elected member of Parliament.
Those members with publicly funded pensions for previous
service in: provincial legislatures; municipal governments; the
public service at the federal, provincial and municipal levels; or
as former judges; members of the Canadian forces; former peace
officers; crown corporation employees; and former employees
of school boards, hospital boards or any other publicly funded
organization will forgo receiving two incomes for doing one job
as a member of Parliament.
Canadians believe it is unfair to the tax paying public that a
member of Parliament receive a full salary while also receiving
a public pension.
This bill treats municipal, provincial and federal
government-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. A succinct explanation
of the bill is all that members are allowed to have.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1520 )
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-315, an act to complement the present
laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals with
respect to personal information about themselves obtained by
certain corporations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table my first private member's
bill, an act to complement the present laws of Canada that
protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal
information about themselves obtained by certain corporations.
For several years Canadians have enjoyed the protection
offered under the Privacy Act giving them better access to the
federally held personal information. Yet in the private sector the
use and abuse of personal information continues.
In 1994 the Quebec government passed a historic privacy law,
Bill 68. It gave Quebecers greater control over their personal
information. My private member's bill would complement, not
compete with Quebec's bill by extending privacy protection to
businesses under federal jurisdiction. For the rest of Canada,
citizens for the first time would be given the control they need
over their privately held personal information as we speed
toward the creation of an information highway.
I look forward to discussing this bill with my fellow members
of Parliament in the weeks and months to come.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the 64th report of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier
this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) Mr.
Speaker, I move:
10197
That members of the Standing Committee on Health be authorized to travel to hold
hearings and community visits in relation to the committee's study on mental health
and the aboriginal peoples of Canada, in Kuujjuaq, Povungnituk, Rigolet, Northwest
River, Eskasoni, Halifax, Rexton, Big Cove, Pikangikum, Winnipeg, Fort Alexander,
Edmonton, Hobbema, Buffalo Lake, Vancouver and Gwa-Sala-Nakwaxda-xw, from
March 19 to 24, 1995, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition signed by my constituents, more precisely from
the town of Saint-Hubert, that I would like to table today, in the
hope of obtaining a favourable response.
The petitioners ask the government to abandon its plan to
introduce voice mail for seniors. The petitioners point out that
seniors are naturally more at a loss when faced with voice mail
technology. That is why I hope that the government will take
into consideration the requests of seniors, who have a right to
receive services that are geared to their needs.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my honour to
present petitions today on behalf of my constituents asking that
Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with section 718 as presently
written, especially not to include the phrase of sexual
orientation.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a series of petitions. I will name them
off by title only. The first petition supports the government to
overturn the intoxication defence for sexual assault.
(1525 )
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is against assisted
suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this petition supports the ban of BST.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this petition is in support of child care
expenses for stay at home mothers.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this petition is against lap dancing.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this petition is for the protection of the
unborn child.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this final petition is against same sex
relationships.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents. They request
that Parliament consider their plea to enact such amendments to
the Criminal Code of Canada or such other legislation as
necessary to permit local municipal councils to define their own
community standards and thereby to permit municipal councils
to pass bylaws to prohibit the establishment of adult
entertainment parlours within their municipalities.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again I table hundreds of petitions to the House of
Commons concerning the CBC.
The petitioners state that the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation is Canada's national public broadcasting service
and an agent of Her Majesty. The CBC is funded by the federal
government with taxpayers' dollars. The CBC has applied to
televise the proceedings of the Paul Bernardo trial. Therefore,
the petitioners call upon Parliament to condemn the actions of
the CBC and to request that in accordance with its
responsibilities as a national broadcaster that the CBC withdraw
its application to televise the Paul Bernardo trial.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present a
petition on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources dealing
with discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have several petitions.
The first one is from the men and women of Saskatchewan.
They wish to draw to the attention of the House of Commons that
the Canadian Wheat Board is vitally important to the grain
producers of western Canada. A large majority want to maintain
the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, despite a vocal
minority. They therefore request that Parliament continue to
give the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers in the
marketing and export of wheat and barley.
10198
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is also from various people in and
around Saskatchewan. It asks that Parliament ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament
make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
I concur with these petitioners.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, finally, these 44 or 45 petitions are all rather similar.
They come from residents in southern Ontario, the Toronto area
and areas surrounding Ottawa.
The petitioners ask that Parliament support laws which
severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the
commission of a crime. They support new Criminal Code
firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the
right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational
firearms. Lastly they support legislation which will repeal and
modify existing gun control laws which have not improved
public safety, have not proven to be cost effective or are overly
complex.
I concur with these petitioners.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to
table a petition signed by members of seniors' clubs or AFEAS
and by other constituents from the municipalities of
Saint-Ambroise-de-Kildare, Sainte-Julienne, Saint-Jacques,
Saint-Jean-de-Matha, Maskinongé, Rawdon,
Saint-Barthélemy, Saint-Édouard, Berthierville,
Saint-Esprit-de-Montcalm, Saint-Thomas-de-Joliette and
Lanoraie. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament
to abandon its plan to introduce voice mail systems.
Given that seniors are naturally more at a loss when faced
with voice mail technology and that it is unconscionable that
they be forced to use this communication medium, as you can
understand, Mr. Speaker, I unconditionally support the request
contained in this petition, which it is my pleasure to table.
[English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present this afternoon a number of petitions, pursuant
to Standing Order 36.
The first has to do with the societal disapproval of same sex
orientation. The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not
amend the human rights code and not give approval to same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
(1530 )
The next petition has to do with same sex relationships. The
petitioners pray that Parliament not amend the Canadian human
rights code.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in this
petition the petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament
make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the
abetting or aiding of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
another petition 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.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
petition relates to the gun control issue.
The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to refrain from
making further changes to existing firearm control legislation
and direct the judicial system to enforce existing penalties more
stringently in the effort to deliver effective crime deterrents.
I support these petitions.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
one further petition in which the petitioners call upon
Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect
individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to present five petitions from the Vancouver
area. The first one signed by 288 members of the community
deals with the practice of female circumcision.
The petitioners feel that education is a priority for those who
practice female circumcision and for those unaware of its
prevalence. They therefore request that the Criminal Code of
Canada be amended to penalize those involved in the practice.
10199
[Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition, signed by 54 people, is on the subject of
euthanasia. The petitioners say that the majority of Canadians
respect the law and the sanctity of human life and believe that
doctors should try to save lives, not end them.
The petitioners also ask Parliament to ensure that the
provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be rigorously upheld, that Parliament not amend the
current laws and that assisted suicide and active or passive
euthanasia remain illegal.
[English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the third fourth and final petitions, containing 72, 25, and 462
signatures respectively, deal with the issue of sexual
orientation.
They state that one of the core values of Canadian society is
the strong belief in equality, that equality for all Canadians
includes freedom from hatred, harassment and discrimination,
that all Canadians regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual
orientation must be treated equitably under the same
circumstances and that great misunderstandings still exist in
Canada resulting in discrimination.
The final petition also requests that Parliament amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a
basis for protection against discrimination.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House again today to present petition No. 18. This
course of action is undertaken on behalf of constituents who
wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul
Thompson.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens and they are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murders.
I have another petition to present. I am honoured to do this on
behalf of Albertans. I understand that there are several petitions
being presented that equal approximately 64,000 names.
These petitioners pray that the Criminal Code of Canada and
the Young Offenders Act of 1992 be amended to allow for
tougher sentences to deter people from committing crimes and
tough enough to provide real justice.
I am pleased to state that I endorse the contents of this
petition.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to present a petition on behalf of 2,359 Albertans. I
understand that there are several petitions being presented that
equal approximately 64,000 names.
These petitioners pray that the Criminal Code of Canada and
the Young Offenders Act of 1992 be amended to allow for
tougher sentences to deter people from committing crimes and
tough enough to provide real justice.
I am pleased to state that I endorse the contents of this
petition.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am presenting a petition signed by
approximately 3,400 people, mostly from the riding of Elk
Island.
I understand that this is part of a larger petition which will
total some 64,000 names.
(1535)
The petitioners express a serious concern about and call for
changes to the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act to
make them serious enough to deter young people from
committing crimes and tough enough to provide for real justice.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions this afternoon. The first one prays 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.
It is signed by approximately 150 people in the Toronto area.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the next petition is signed by constituents of mine in
Scarborough West and environs.
It prays 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 that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide
or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another petition from constituents of mine praying that
Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
10200
homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human
Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
I support all three petitions.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my duty as a member of Parliament to present three
petitions today which oppose including the phrase sexual
orientation in various pieces of federal legislation.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting 13 petitions on seven
different topics all bearing signatures of my constituents and
duly certified by the clerk of petitions.
I present three petitions with over 700 signatures requesting
that the government take action that will keep mining in Canada
by increasing employment in this sector, promoting exploration
and rebuilding mineral reserves.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I present two petitions signed by 100 people praying
that Parliament continue to reject euthanasia and physical
assisted suicide and that Parliament consider expanding
palliative care for dying persons.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions signed by 66 people in my riding
requesting that in no case may a father or mother without serious
cause place obstacles between the child and grandparents and
further that grandparents with access to a child be given the right
to acquire information as to the health, education and welfare of
the child.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I also present a petition with 346 signatures urging
Parliament to enact legislation that addresses crime control and
not firearm control.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a single petition with 35 signatures requesting
protection for the unborn child.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions with 332 signatures urging
Parliament not to amend the Human Rights Act in any way that
would indicate societal approval of same sex relationships,
including any amendment using the phrase sexual orientation as
prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I present a petition signed by 37 people in my riding
asking Parliament to consider a referendum on accepting or
rejecting two official languages.
I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of my riding
through these petitions.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions today, one signed by 260 people. This is part of a
64,000 person petition.
The petitioners are calling for changes to the Young Offenders
Act and want an act serious enough to deter young people from
committing crimes. They feel the Young Offenders Act is not
meeting the objectives set forth in a satisfactory manner.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my second
petition is the second for this week on gun control now totalling
over 5,000 names.
The petitioners express their concern that the control of
law-abiding citizens and responsible gun owners is more than
enough to ensure public safety and that the current and proposed
laws criminalizing certain firearm activities are not necessary.
The petitioners humbly pray and request that Parliament
support laws that will severely punish all violent criminals who
use weapons in the commission of crimes and that Parliament
support legislation that will repeal and modify existing gun
control laws which have not improved public safety or have not
proven to be cost effective.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have two petitions to present today pursuant to Standing Order
36.
I have one petition signed by approximately 400 members of
the United Steel Workers of America, Local 5890 working at
IPSCO Inc. in my constituency. This petition pertains to the
Canadian Income Tax Act which states that a pension plan
member cannot accrue more than one year of pensionable
service in a year, thereby eliminating any way to make up
pensionable service time accrued.
(1540 )
This petition calls upon Parliament to urge the government to
change the appropriate regulations to allow for pensionable
service to be accrued over 1,800 hours based on straight time
hours worked.
It is my pleasure to present that petition to the House.
10201
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the final petition I wish to present is on behalf of a number of
citizens in mining communities in western Canada who call
upon Parliament to take action to create growth in employment
in the mining sector, to promote exploration, to rebuild
Canada's mineral reserves, to sustain mining communities and
to keep mining in Canada.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present three petitions today, the first one being part
of the 64,000 petitioners, representing individuals from my
riding of Wild Rose who ask that Parliament recognize and
address the concerns of the Young Offenders Act to make it
serious enough to deter young offenders from committing
crimes and tough enough to provide real justice.
I have a petition with a total of 200 signatures from the areas
of my riding of Crossfield, Cremona and Cochrane. The
petitioners identify seven major points regarding the entire
judicial system which they believe need a complete overhaul.
They ask for legislation to re-evaluate and amend the Canadian
justice system providing protection to and giving precedence to
victim rights rather than criminal rights.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition containing 5,363 names submitted from central
Alberta, mostly from Edmonton. The petitioners respectfully
request that our elected representatives amend the Criminal
Code using their power and henceforth prohibit any type of
performance, including those in live peep shows, which in any
form or manner exposes to the view of any member of the public
genitals, buttocks or female breasts.
I concur with and support all of these petitions.
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately the time has expired for
petitions. Most of the members standing will know why I am
particularly sorry they cannot present their petitions today.
However, the Chair must pass on to motions.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, question No. 129 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 129-Mr. Mitchell:
With a minimum security prison already located in the riding of Parry
Sound-Muskoka and a medium security prison to be operational by 1997,
what is being done to ensure the proper assignment of classification to prisoners
who will be located at these prison facilities?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): In so far
as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned, the answer
is as follows:
All federal inmates entering the Correctional Service of
Canada's jurisdiction, including those coming from the courts
as well as those who have violated a conditional release and
whose release has been suspended, are admitted to a maximum
security institution for assessment. In Ontario, all new federal
inmates are admitted to the assessment unit at Millhaven
maximum security institution.
All new inmates undergo a comprehensive assessment to
identify those issues which have contributed to criminal
behaviour and which must be addressed. Violent offenders
receive psychological assessments and sexual offenders are
offered a comprehensive assessment aimed at establishing
appropriate treatment interventions and level of risk to public
safety. The results of these assessments, and case specific
information (such as documents from the police, courts, family,
etc.) are examined and analysed to determine the level of
security required for the management of the case. As well, a
correctional plan for the inmate is produced which becomes the
blueprint for the sentence, against which progress toward
correctional goals are measured. At the end of the process,
which may take up to eight weeks, a placement decision is made
which reflects both the security and program needs of the
offender.
Inmates are assigned a minimum, medium or maximum
security classification. Part of the overall assessment is the
custody rating scale, a tool which was developed to provide a
statistically based placement opinion. The elements included in
this tool are considered to be effective predictors of behaviour.
On the basis of the entire assessment, including the custody
rating scale, a placement decision is made by assessment staff,
and the inmate is sent to a receiving institution classified at
his/her level of security.
Three critical factors are taken into consideration in
determining the security level of the inmate; namely,
institutional adjustment, escape risk, and risk to public safety.
Each factor is given a rating of low, moderate or high, and each
is significant to the overall assessment of the inmate.
Once an inmate has been placed at an institution, the inmate's
security classification is reviewed at least once a year. Any
additional information which was not considered at the previous
placement may result in a change in the classification level.
New factors which may be considered are the inmate's current
attitude, behaviour, motivation and progress in his/her
treatment programs. In preparation for any critical decisions
concerning transfer, temporary absence, or work release, CSC
10202
policy requires that the inmate's classification be reviewed and
confirmed or amended. Case managers must use their
professional judgment, in conjunction with available
assessment tools, in reaching a final conclusion as to the
appropriate security classification.
In addition to the individual inmate's classification,
institutions are also classified by security level. Beaver Creek
Institution, in Parry Sound-Muskoka, is classified as a
minimum security prison. The new institution, to be located on
the Beaver Creek reserve near Gravenhurst, Ontario, is expected
to be completed in 1997, and will be classified as a medium
security prison.
The rationale for placement of all federal inmates is found in
section 28.i.(e) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
which states that the Correctional Service of Canada shall take
all reasonable steps to ensure that the penitentiary in which the
person is confined is one that provides the least restrictive
environment for that person, taking into account: (a) the degree
and kind of custody necessary for (i) the safety of the public, (ii)
the safety of that person and other persons in the penitentiary,
and (iii) the security of the penitentiary; (b) accessibility to: (i)
the person's home community and family, (ii) a compatible
cultural environment, and (iii) a compatible linguistic
environment; (c) the availability of appropriate programs and
services, and the person's willingness to participate in those
programs.
When the new institution is opened, only those inmates who
have undergone careful assessment and meet the criteria for
placement at the medium security level will be transferred there.
Public safety is the paramount factor in any decision relating
to the management of inmate cases.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The question enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that the notice of motion for the production
of papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
10202
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the
motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy
of the government; the amendment, and the amendment to the
amendment.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
before I begin, Reform members will be splitting their time
today.
I cannot say I am honoured but I feel responsible to join in this
budget debate and to speak against both the budget and the
amendment on the floor. I remind the House that it was only one
year ago that we in the Reform caucus were saying several
things about a budget which had just been tabled.
Those things were that the targets contained in the
budget-the target of a 3 per cent deficit to GDP-were not good
enough. Even if those targets were to be achieved they would
add billions of dollars in cuts to deal with the accumulated
interest payments that would be realized as a consequence of
adding to our national debt. In so doing, we were assured time
and time again that the targets and the measures laid out in that
budget were good enough and that they could be achieved with
no additional budgetary action whatsoever.
What we have this week is a budget with spending cuts of $12
billion and tax increases of $1.5 billion, all in a period of
exceptional economic growth, even above what was foreseen in
the previous budget.
(1545 )
It is in order to achieve the very targets that we started out
with, the very targets that are inadequate and that we were
supposedly going to be able to achieve with no cuts whatsoever.
Why? Because on this particular budget path we have added
interest payments of $12 billion.
The interest costs on the government's debt will rise in this
same period from $38 billion to $50 billion. We are cutting $12
billion in spending now to achieve what? It is to achieve a stable
debt-GDP ratio at the top of an economic cycle, so that it will do
nothing but rise when we face the inevitable downturn. It is
called an achievement. It is the government's belief that this is
its ticket for re-election.
This reminds me so much of what the Progressive
Conservatives did in 1988. They reached exactly the same point,
except at a much lower level of debt and then said all was well.
What do we say now? We say that this is not adequate. We say
that this path will continue to add interest charges that will come
out of program spending. What are we told? We are told that
10203
there will be no more cuts to achieve our targets, especially not
in the area of social programs. We will achieve these targets
nevertheless.
The finance minister knows this is not true. There is such a
gap between what the Liberal government says and what it does
that it is just astounding. It explains why the finance minister
must on a daily basis so grossly exaggerate Reform policy in
order to cover his real agenda.
In fact my Bloc colleagues in question period today were
calling his statements demagoguery. That is the only way to
describe his desperate defence of the course he is leading us
down.
Some of the cuts in the budget should have been made a long
time ago and I agree with them. However it is interesting and
necessary to compare them against what the Liberal government
said versus what it meant. I am not talking historically but just in
recent memory.
As recently as a year and a half ago the Liberal Party said it
was against free trade and it would pull out of the free trade
agreement. What it meant was it would strengthen free trade,
continue those agreements and expand them on a scale that was
not foreseen before.
When the Liberal Party said it was committed to keeping
Petro-Canada and would not privatize it, what it really meant
was it would finish the job of privatization.
When the Liberal Party said it would guarantee funding for
the CBC what it meant was it would guarantee that its funding
would be continually cut.
The Liberal Party said a Liberal government would never cut
the civil service, but what have we got here? Not only do we
have retro-cuts, but what the Liberal government really meant
was that it would cut the civil service at record levels and do it
retroactively by reopening collective agreements.
The Liberal Party said a Liberal government would never cut
transfer payments to the provinces. What it will not transfer to
the provinces is additional authority or additional tax points, but
it will cut the transfer payments to the provinces at a record
level.
The Liberal government said it would never raise the tax
burden on the middle class. That apparently did not include gas
taxes which are paid by ordinary citizens of every class. It did
not include limiting RRSP contributions which hit certainly at
members of the upper middle class which I would distinguish
from the rich. It would raise utility taxes on ordinary consumers,
providing they live in Alberta and a few other select areas of the
country. It is now prepared to raise tobacco taxes which fall
generally on those with lower than average incomes. The
Liberal Party said it would never raise taxes on the middle class
but what it really meant was most of the tax increases will be on
the middle class.
(1550)
The Prime Minister said he would never allow a society where
we see beggars in the streets. What he really meant was he would
never walk to work but instead drive by in his limousine so he
never sees the beggars that we all meet every single day that we
come here.
The Liberal Party now says that it will never cut health care,
unemployment insurance, old age security, the Canada pension
plan, child care or any of those plans. It says it will never cut
them like the Reform Party intends to cut them. What the Liberal
government really means is that it is not going to tell Canadians
what those cuts are until they come. It is not going to bring them
in them until the debt and the interest has drained off every red
cent necessary to have a program of any kind.
What the Liberal government also said was that generally it
will never cut the social security of Canadians. What do the
Liberals really mean when they say all these things about
compassion and sacrifice? They mean they will never take MPs
off their gold-plated pension plan and you will never see MPs
begging in the streets.
The leader of the Reform Party proposed last week a plan for a
balanced budget with social programs that are clearly smaller
and more decentralized than we have today. These are not
popular measures and we know that. Those programs are based
on clear objectives and values with dollars that are available
today.
As bad as the Minister of Finance will paint this, these
programs are going to look very good by the time we find out
what the government really plans to do with social programs.
The choice is very simple. Canadians will have accept the
tough medicine necessary to get us back to fiscal to health. The
alternative is to buy the same snake oil from the same snake oil
salesman at a price that is going to go up and up and up.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
listened to the member speak all I heard were negatives and
misinformation.
The member somehow painted the reduction of the civil
service by 45,000 jobs as a negative when in fact the government
is refocusing through program review the downsizing. There
will be surplus staff. The member clearly cannot be opposed to
eliminating surplus staff in a compassionate way.
The member complains about the transfers to the provinces,
yet in the Reform alternative budget the amount of hit to seniors,
to the disadvantaged, to those who need health care, is
drastically heavier. He paints the RRSP alternatives as if
something is wrong. The RRSP limits in fact will be increasing
to $15,500 from the current year of $13,500.
10204
An hon. member: You'll flip-flop on that one too.
Mr. Szabo: Not flip-flop. The member says the Reform Party
has all the answers.
If the member feels that the budget presented on February 27
was a draconian budget, how does he square the fact that instead
of cutting $7 billion from the transfers to provinces Reform was
going to cut some $15 billion from the social programs of
Canadians?
(1555 )
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, the member raises
the issue of cuts to the civil service, asking how I can condemn a
program that reduces the civil service and tries to do so in a
compassionate manner.
Reformers would not try and do that. In fact, Reformers told
the civil servants in this city in the last election that these kinds
of cuts would be necessary. We told them we would try to do it in
a compassionate manner and we lost that election.
The Liberal Party candidates who won told civil servants
precisely the opposite. They guaranteed collective agreements
they are now breaking. They guaranteed jobs they are now
removing. They guaranteed wages they are now taking away.
Now Liberals tell us that will not cut social programs by $15
billion. By the time the Liberal government is done, the cuts
proposed by the Reform Party in last week's alternative budget
will look very minor and the programs we proposed will look
very good.
I am not surprised at anything that comes from people who
will run on one thing and a year and a half later say the opposite
on every single area of public policy.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member in his speech referred to snake oil.
What he neglected to mention was the snake oil in the budget
that the hon. member's party presented last week.
The last questioner, my distinguished colleague from
Mississauga South, did ask a question. Of course, the hon.
member evaded the answer, as every member of his party has
when pressed on this issue. What proposals did the member put
forward in the budget last week to gut Canada's social
programs? Tell Canadians about those. In not one speech in the
House have we have heard any clear reference to those guttings
of social programs proposed in the Reform budget-
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Calgary West has the
same amount of time, about a minute.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, the budget
proposals that the Reform Party prepared last week and tabled
were done publicly and in a manner that is open and available,
unlike the plans being made by the government. Any Reform
member's office can be contacted by any Canadian and the
information will be provided.
There were $15 billion in cuts to social programs, leaving a
social program envelope of $65 billion. That $65 billion will not
be available when we learn how the government is really going
to eliminate a deficit of $25 billion.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
budget process has been most fascinating. For the first time in
the history of Canada the people have become involved in the
process. We had a member presently in the House say yesterday
that Reformers were trying to create a tax revolt.
I for one-I can speak on behalf of all my colleagues-was
invited to these events, as were many Liberal members who
chose not to turn up because they were afraid. It is really
interesting that in a small city in my constituency, the town of
Golden with 2,371 households, four women I would like to name
here today in one week got 2,500 signatures from those 2,371
households: Gert Shewchuk, Stephanie Braul, Cheryl Kofluk
and Merle McKnight.
These are common, ordinary Canadian women who are
concerned about their country. This was the kind of activity that
was going on. This was the kind of involvement that Canadians
were demonstrating in this process.
However, when we come to the budget where the government
in its own cynical way-although over a three-year period-is
taking over $3.5 billion out of Canadian taxpayers' pockets
without raising individual income tax rates, it would appear as
though the hard work of these women and many others who were
involved in the tax protest was successful. When I woke up on
the morning of the day following the budget I turned on the radio
and was confronted with a song that might be familiar to some
members in the House. It goes:
Bye, bye Miss American pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry
and good old boys were drinking whiskey and rye
saying this will be the day that I die
This will be the day that I die.
(1600)
That was the way I felt after I had an opportunity to take a look
at the budget.
This is a budget of despair. This is a budget that is not
straightforward by any form of measurement. This is a budget
that is to have public debt charges increase from $38 billion to
$51 billion.
Government members have the audacity to say that they are to
protect social program when the largest single increase at 17.3
per cent is spending on funding the public debt. How can they
say they are to protect social programs when they are increasing
the spending on public debt by 17.3 per cent?
10205
I took a look at their documents. They frequently say that
they do not know what the facts are. I have the budget speech
of the minister and I read on page 32 that personal income tax
is to go up from $51.1 billion to $56.8 billion, to $60.4 billion,
to $64.5 billion in a four-year period. Corporate tax is to go
up from $9.8 billion to $13 billion, to $15.5 billion, to $16.3
billion. As a matter of fact gross budgetary revenues in the
same period are to increase from $116 billion to $137.4 billion.
These are numbers provided by the finance minister.
We do not have a revenue problem; we have an expenditure
problem. It is so obvious it is just absolutely amazing.
Another interesting point on the expenditure side is that my
colleague just referred to the fact that 45,000 civil servants are
to be laid off over the next three-year period. He very clearly
pointed out that the government was not elected to cut 45,000
civil servants. It was elected on the promise that civil servant
jobs were to remain. That promise has been broken.
Furthermore business has also taken a hit in the budget.
Business grants have dropped from $3.7 billion down to $1.9
billion. While the premiums remain constant, unemployment
insurance payouts are to decrease from $17.6 billion to $15.3
billion, to $14.3 billion, to $13.7 billion.
There is more and more of a take because they are not to
decrease the amount they are taking from the unemployed. They
are to decrease the payouts and put $5 billion into a slush fund
for themselves. There we have it: we have expenditure cuts and
the inevitable social program cuts.
Why do I say this is a budget of despair? In spite of all the
harsh medicine and in spite of the fact it will be reducing the
total amount we are going into the hole by $10 billion, the
government has permitted annual interest charges in the same
period of time to increase by $10 billion.
In other words we are treading water. Rather than swimming
and getting somewhere, we are treading water. I think of another
verse of the song:
It's been 10 years
I've been on my own
and moss grows fat
on a rolling stone.
It is a song of despair; it is a budget of despair.
We have to ask the following question. If we look at the cuts
that have occurred to this point, where else is there to cut except
in the social envelope in a responsible manner so that the people
at the bottom end of the scale are protected? Where else is there
to cut? There is no place else. In that respect the budget is not
only a budget of despair. It is a budget of dishonesty.
(1605)
We are taking a look at the fact that it is hidden within these
documents. The downloading is where it is hidden. It is hidden
because they are to combine the Canada Health Act with the
Canada assistance plan and post-secondary education funding.
They are to rename all those things the Canada social transfer
and then they are to reduce it by $4.5 billion.
When it is transferred to the provinces and the $4.5 billion is
removed we have a choice as Canadians. Either we downgrade
health care, post-secondary education and the amount of
funding for the Canada assistance plan, or we increase taxes at
the provincial level. We cannot have it both ways. It is just that
simple.
I asked myself, in listening to the budget debate, what was the
problem here. Is there some difficulty in terms of understanding
common ordinary English? I asked a question of the
parliamentary secretary last night. His response was rather
interesting. My question was exactly what I have been
developing here. If we are increasing the amount we are
spending from $38 billion to $51 billion in our debt service
charge, where is the money to come from? That is a very valid
question.
When I said that I do not see how the government could
possibly do the job of continuing to fund social programs-and
it keeps on saying that it is-his response as reported at page
10181 of Hansard was:
The Government of Canada will be able to keep its commitments and pay
pensions to seniors.
The difference is that the Reform Party sees everything black; it is the end of the
world.
No, it is just a little despair at this point.
The member acknowledged that we have made real cuts. We have a balanced
budget in terms of real cuts and it will encourage economic growth.
When the documents say that we are to be overspending $32.7
billion, how in the world could the parliamentary secretary say:
``We have a balanced budget?'' Obviously he does not
understand ordinary English. He said: ``The deficit will
disappear''. By magic? He also said: ``The deficit will be
reduced by creating jobs''. That was a promise in the last
election. Obviously it is another promise they believe they can
drop.
I close by quoting in despair:
I still remembered how I cried
When I read about his widowed bride
But something touched me deep inside
The day the music died.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Reform Party members took a big risk in terms of the strategy
they were to use with regard to the budget. They went out and
incited Canadians on the issue of no new taxes and cutting
spending. That is exactly what the finance minister did with $7
10206
of cuts to $1 of increases, and those revenue increases included
no personal income tax increases.
Reformers presented a budget to the House which said that we
had to keep the poor poor and make the middle class poor. They
said to Canadians: ``Just stop eating for a year and use that
money to pay down your mortgage. Then everything will be
fine''. That is like saying the operation was a success but the
patient died.
The question I have for the member concerns the Canadian
social transfer. That social transfer is a combination of the CAP
and the EPF. The member would well know that as there is
growth in the economy and as the value of tax points goes up, the
amount of cash transferred to the provinces will go down. In
some cases the amount of cash will be zero. That being the case,
what leverage would the federal government have over the
provinces in terms of maintaining standards?
(1610 )
Would the member not agree that consolidating those transfer
programs under one umbrella allows the federal government
continued leverage to ensure that the national standards of
health care, environment and others are maintained in Canada,
the best country in the world?
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric of my hon. colleague is
reminiscent of what we ran into during the last election: the only
politicians of virtue in Canada are Liberal federal politicians;
the politicians in provinces are terrible people as well as
anybody who is not a Liberal.
What is this? I do not understand. Perhaps it is just a case that
members of that party have been in power for so long, have been
building up the debt for so long, and have had the reins of
government for so long that as we slide off the edge it has gone
to their heads.
To answer the member very simply, if the government is not
decreasing the amount of money available to social programs, is
decreasing the cash transfers by $4.5 billion, and is not
transferring the tax points to the provinces, how can the
government possibly try to convince Canadians that it is not
simply shifting the burden and that it is able to keep its false
promise of being able to look after social programs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the last half hour or so I
listened to presentations by two members of the Reform Party. I
am reminded of a movie I saw recently called ``The Madness of
King George''. We have heard a version of paranoid economics
where there is a hobgoblin behind every bush and a shadow
behind every budget. It reminds me very much of King George
who suffered from a similar malady. He would find himself very
much at home in the present day Reform caucus.
There is an interesting scene in that movie that I think is worth
commenting on. James Fox, leader of the opposition at that
time, was seen strolling along the lawns of Westminster with
Mr. Pitt, who at the time was prime minister. He was a somewhat
straight-laced and dour gentleman according to history; that
certainly was how he was portrayed in the movie. As they were
walking along, James Fox said to the prime minister: ``Mr. Pitt,
is there anything you admire at all?'' Mr. Pitt said: ``A balance
sheet, Mr. Fox. I like a good balance sheet''.
Mr. Pitt would be very happy with our Minister of Finance
today because he has come up with a good balance sheet. He has
been able to come up with a balance sheet to escape the malady
and the problems faced by governments over the past decade
that have promised much and delivered little. He has come up
with a balance sheet that has now been acknowledged and
recognized by financial markets both here and internationally as
meeting the test of restoring integrity in our fiscal system.
A few short days ago the leader of the Reform Party, the
chicken little of Canadian politics, screamed that the sky was
going to fall and that the clouds were going to roll in? All of a
sudden comes the budget and interest rates begin to fall, the
dollar stabilizes and financial markets say that the government
has met the test.
Not to be daunted by that illusion, he must now find himself a
new form of vapour to chase after. He is now pretending there is
``a hidden agenda''. The only hidden agenda is the one we
recently read about in the book about the Reform Party that says
the hidden agenda of the hon. member for Calgary Southwest is
to rule the world.
The message of the budget is to get beyond the immediate and
the superficial, as we have heard this afternoon. We must deal
with the specifics and put aside some of the grand statements of
moral indignation we hear coming from certain provincial
premiers such as: ``woe is me, the world is gone'' and get down
to what the government is attempting to do.
(1615 )
It has provided in this budget the first major step in
restructuring the economy of this country to provide a way of
ensuring a fiscal, economic and monetary system that prepares
us and gives us the kind of foundation we need upon which we
can then begin to build a new social reform, a new system of
cultural programs to provide certainty and stability to Canada,
on which we can then begin to build the new Canada and the new
economy. That is what this budget is all about.
It is very important to emphasize that modernization,
re-engineering and restructuring are not the object of one day or
one week. They must start and must continue. It is going to be
work that I certainly believe will engage members of Parliament
from
10207
our side of the House and I hope it will engage members of
Parliament from all sides of the House.
This is what Canadians want and demand. They do not want
the kind of voodoo analysis we are constantly hearing. They
simply want people to quit playing with black magic and get
down to reality and deal with the real issues such as how to
maintain a balance of programs and begin to respond to the
transformations in the workplace and in the global economy,
how we preserve integrity economically and socially and the
sovereignty in order to make our own decisions.
Clearly the statement has been made. As much as we have the
fulmination of the Reform Party wishing it were otherwise,
wishing and hoping that the sky had fallen as its leader
predicted, hoping that there would be a cataclysm in Canada,
that catastrophe would be visited upon us, as much as it has been
urging and praying that the sky would fall, it has not.
What is happening is that Canadians and people
internationally have seen that this government is the best
economic manager this country has had in a long time.
That is why every Canadian has a crucial stake in the budget
we brought forward. The government moved decisively to
restore our nation's integrity and is now beginning to put us in a
position where we can do the real work of rebuilding we were
elected to do. We had to get the economics right and the Minister
of Finance has accomplished that.
[Translation]
We want to maintain the social safety net offered by programs
like old age pension, family allowance and welfare. It is
absolutely essential that our financial house be put in order. We
will take any action necessary to protect social programs today
and in the future.
[English]
I want to illustrate to members in the House and others
listening exactly how that budget has been the catalyst to begin
that reformation, that new resolution of programs and
developments in our country.
In the budget we announced that we were going to
fundamentally reorganize the funding of programs in the very
large Department of Human Resources Development to bring
together, as we heard during the course of the committee
hearings, a new human resources investment fund so that we
could consolidate a number of existing programs that may have
had value at one time but no longer had the same relevance or the
same impact. We wanted to bring them together into a common
pool so we could begin to organize a new social reform package.
When hon. members opposite ask where the social reform is,
it is happening now. The member from Calgary when she made
her presentation on behalf of her party said: ``I apologize. It was
not all that well thought out because I did not have much time''.
We have a plan. The human resource investment fund is the
beginning of that because it now gives us the flexibility to put in
place a good child care program in this country, to deal with the
question of literacy with our partners in the provinces, to begin
working on new approaches to help people get re-employed, to
sit down with the private sector as we are doing in something
like 16 human resource councils in things like electronics,
tourism, horticulture, logistics, car repair and auto parts.
We are now putting in place a partnership with business and
labour in each of these sectors to start new training for young
people. Since the summer close to 10,000 young people have
been enrolled in these new internship programs in which we are
sharing our resources with the private sector to begin providing
new job opportunities and training opportunities.
(1620)
It is not the old jurisdictional wars between federal and
provincial governments. We are getting away from the old turf
disputes. We are now sitting down with the private sector and
community sector, the women's resource centres, the YWCA,
the local communities and asking how to become partners to get
people trained.
I heard from one of the Reform members ``too little too late''.
That is coming from a party which said it was going to take the
unemployment insurance fund and rip up all programs for
women with children in the unemployment insurance program.
He says we are too little too late. Talk about taking a dagger to
the heart of the vampire. The vampire is taking the dagger to the
heart of the Canadian people. That is what is going on.
Those kind of partnerships are now going to be facilitated by
this kind of reorganization. The single drawer we have now put
in place, which we promised to do when I stood in this House for
social reform and said the first major initiative is to put a single
drawer of financing in this federal department so we could being
to work out these new partnerships. It has happened in this
budget and social reform is well under way.
Let me talk for a minute about the Canada social transfer.
There have been a lot of balloons and a lot of assumptions made
about what is being proposed. Basically what we are proposing
in this particular area is to ensure the continuation of an
effective national approach for the funding and support of social
initiatives by developing a new set of partnerships with the
provinces.
We are proposing to do exactly what every single province has
been asking us to do, to ensure they could have the flexibility to
provide innovation and new approaches, to allow the provinces
to become incubators of good social reform. That kind of
freedom has been on every single premier's list until we do it.
10208
Then they say: ``Oh, God, the devil made us do it. Please do not
do it to us''.
Do they want the responsibility or not? We have given them
the responsibility and for those who have said for some reason or
other that this means there is going to be a withdrawal of the
federal government from responsibilities, that is not the case.
Every member of the House knows that the present program,
the existing program, is the one that creates the problems.
Because it was designed 30 years ago it really means that in most
cases there is no conditionality. There are no common
principles. There are no standards. We simply write the cheques
and they make the decisions.
As a result we have created in many cases large numbers of
bureaucracies that have chewed up the money not in delivering
directly to people but simply providing services for themselves.
I am most surprised by the objection of Bloc Quebecois on
this matter because it is the one party which I thought would
endorse fully a new system of federalism that would allow
provinces to make more decisions for themselves.
[Translation]
The budget lays the foundations of a new federalism, a new
partnership with the provinces and communities. At present, we
have a government organization that has remained unchanged
since the 1930s and 1940s; it is too centralized, too heavy and
far from meeting the needs of the people.
The provinces, and Quebec in particular, have been asking
that changes be made for quite some time. What the new
Canadian social transfer will give the provinces is flexibility
and the power to make decisions, less paperwork, yet better
results.
[English]
What we are basically trying to do is ensure that we would
still maintain very clearly the commitments under the Canada
Health Act. We still maintain very clearly in the budget papers
the responsibility to maintain full mobility. We will sit down
with the provinces over the next year to work out a new
framework in which we can provide more coherence to our
programs, provide more co-ordination of what they are doing
among themselves and with us so we can begin to tackle the high
priority that Canadians have placed to deal with things like child
poverty and to deal with the problems of families.
(1625 )
For the first time as the federal government we are saying let
us sit down as equals to work out how we can bring all our
resources together in a new way to provide a new framework for
social reform.
Again, when members opposite and others say that social
reform is on the shelf, they have not read the budget. It started
Monday night with a brand new way of working with the
provinces to bring about social reform in a collective,
co-ordinated, co-operative community way which is what
Canadians want. That is what the Canadian social transfer is all
about.
I issue an invitation to all members of this House. It is going
to be absolutely essential and important that every member
representing all the regions be prepared to put forward those
kinds of proposals and ideas about how they can see this new
Canadian social framework taking place, the kind of priorities
that are there, where we allocate the money and to encourage
and endorse in their own provinces and their own regions the
willingness of the provinces to come to the table.
I was encouraged this morning to hear Roy Romanow, the
premier of Saskatchewan, say that we are going to sit down and
talk with the provinces, to watch the kind of courage expressed
by Clyde Wells, the premier of Newfoundland, last night on
television when he said: ``Sure, we're the poorest province in
the country but we realize the federal government had to take
tough steps and we're prepared to sit down and work with
them''.
The proposal, for example, in Newfoundland for the new
income security proposal looking at a way of providing income
supplements to top up basic benefits to encourage people to go
back to work is one of those ideas that we can work together on,
that we can come together with the province of Newfoundland
and other provinces that want to engage in that same kind of
joint enterprise to provide more work and more incentives for
people to go back to work to restore their sense of dignity and
their sense of hope. I applaud Premier Wells for the kind of
initiative he has taken.
It is important that we get this right and not engage in the
vocabulary and the language of old Canada, to talk about the
way things used to be which I hear too many doing and by
equating social reform with the amount of dollars that we spend.
I heard members in the opposition today standing up saying we
are going to take this money and the provinces do not have as
much.
Have they never considered that by changing that program we
will put an entirely new regime in place where we do not have to
have duplicating bureaucracy, where we do not have to waste
money on people pushing paper, where we do not have to have
people stumbling over one another to administer the same
program? What we can begin to do is save money that we can
recycle and restore back directly to people by getting rid of the
superstructure and infrastructure built up over the years. That is
the key point.
This is not only a way of bringing down the expenses of
government but also making it more efficient, more effective,
more competent and more relevant to the people who really need
help and support. That is what this budget is about.
10209
Let me for the moments remaining speak of a third initiative
that emerges directly out of the budget in terms of undertaking
the kind of reform of our social network that we want to initiate.
That is proposals to look at the unemployment insurance system
or, to frankly use the term that the Prime Minister used, an
employment insurance program, to retool, redesign the program
as a way of enabling people to get back to work, which is the
fundamental mandate we received as a government.
That means taking a program which over the years has
allowed or acquired a certain number of disincentives that
discourage people from working, that provide alternatives to
working, that do not provide the resources to get the kinds of
skills and the training required to meet the kinds of new
challenges in our economy.
It is fascinating to see how many good ideas are out there.
This country is so full of people with good innovative ideas. We
have to provide the encouragement, provide the incentive and
provide the framework to let them flower.
Let me speak for a moment about the New Brunswick job
corps which was a joint project between us and the province of
New Brunswick for older workers who had lost their jobs in the
forest industry. The forest industry was shrinking. We have
come together as part of our strategic initiatives plan and put
together a New Brunswick job corps for older workers.
Many of them went back to the forest to plant trees, to do the
reforestation, to restore the resource. Others worked in a wide
variety of other areas. I received one of the most encouraging
letters last week from a gentleman from Moncton, New
Brunswick who as part of his job corps experience has been
working with the boys and girls clubs of Moncton, sitting down
with young people, using his well honed, well developed talents
from his years of working in forestry to impart that same kind of
skill and that same knowledge to young people.
(1630 )
He wrote to me saying it was the best job he had ever had
because he is back working with young people, giving them the
skills they need. Rather than telling a 55-year old man he no
longer is of use and is simply going to draw his benefits for the
next year or two and will live out his life asking where is the
meaning and purpose, we have given him new hope through the
New Brunswick job corps. He is now back working in a job that
gives him an enormous sense of satisfaction.
That can be done not just for one, but for tens of thousands of
people, if we can take money spent through unemployment
insurance purely for benefits and convert it into money for
things like the New Brunswick job corps.
It can provide wage supplements for people to go back to work
in the private sector. It can provide earned income supplements
to get people off social assistance and back into employment. It
can provide better training programs working with the private
sector. It can provide good counselling in our programs so that
people can understand what their choices and options are.
It can provide a new labour market information system from
coast to coast to coast so that people will know exactly where the
jobs are. They can plug their resumes into that system and an
employer will know exactly who is available. They can do it
right across Canada.
That is what we mean by social reform: re-engineering our
system of unemployment insurance into an employment
insurance system. We would be using the resources to give
people the kind of incentive, the kind of support and the kind of
encouragement they need to get back to work. We believe that is
what Canadians want. They want to go back to work. The best
kind of social security enables them to go back to work.
There is a transformation going on in today's workplace.
Technology has an enormous impact in changing the way we
work and in changing the kind of work available. We have to
change with it. We cannot stay with the old programs and the old
ways. Reform and change are essential to enable people to
understand that this new workplace is something and that they
have a real place to occupy.
My plea today is to let us use this budget as the launching pad.
Let us use it as the foundation upon which we build a new
employment system, a new work system and a new job system in
Canada. With scarce resources and by working closely with the
provinces, the private sector and community organizations, we
would create new job opportunities. We would create new
partnerships and would combine our skills and aptitudes to give
Canadians real hope. Most important, we would use those
resources so that Canadians individually could have choices.
They could choose what kind of job, what kind of training, what
kind of school and what kind of community they would build.
We launched social reform as a public consultation. It is now
coming into practice as a program as of Monday night's budget.
Its whole purpose is to give and restore to Canadians the choices
about the kind of work they do, the kind of community they
build and the kind of country they are going to live in.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
anyone who is not aware of the government's real situation, of
the figures, anyone who does not know the real intentions and
the mess this government finds itself in, would be tempted to
vote for a minister so eager to speak about job creation and
training, would be tempted to vote for the Minister of Human
Resources Development after such an enthusiastic speech.
What enthusiasm. What a man, with his desire to put young
people back to work. What a man who wants post-secondary
training for students. What a man who wants the transfer of
10210
funds to give the provinces the power to make their own
decisions.
People do not take these political speeches at face value.
People know very well that debts are being offloaded in this
budget. They also know very well that these transfers mean that
the provinces will receive less over the next three years. For
Quebec, the shortfall will be more than $2 billion.
When the Minister of Human Resources Development speaks
about putting young people back to work, giving young people
the chance to be trained, how can he explain that his reform
plans would send young people right into debt? Since there is no
money left, student loans and grants are of course frozen. But
credit is to be extended more readily. At the same time, while
responsibilities are being transferred, transfer payments are
being reduced. This forces the provinces to come up with very
tough budgets also.
(1635)
This dynamic minister who would offer fine training through
his plans for job-related training in conjunction with employers
and with the workplace, does he know that this has been planned
for a long time in Quebec? Does he know that in Quebec the
University of Sherbrooke has a co-operative training program
in which all students are not merely trained, but are also sent on
regular placements with potential employers? Does he know
that this approach was taken by what some call factory schools
where students get practical training, long before the minister
announced his plans, long before the minister suggested that
such things should exist? No, Mr. Speaker.
How can the minister, in such an ardent speech, maintain this
hope for young people when his budget consists solely of
reducing transfers and offloading the federal debt onto the
provincial budgets?
[English]
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, I
sure liked the first part of his comments. I will certainly do my
best to answer his question.
First, it is important to get the facts right. I know the hon.
gentleman is an honourable and respected parliamentarian who
never wants to get confused by misinformation. As we pointed
out in the House today, the changeover in transfers in the
province of Quebec for example only amounts to 3.1 per cent,
not the vast figures used, but 3.1 per cent in 1996-97. It is a
reduction of about $350 million, at most.
I want to underline the point I made during the course of my
remarks because I know the hon. member takes this very
seriously. That amount is far less than the reductions we are
taking ourselves as a federal government, which is on average
about 7 or 8 per cent. The national average of reduction on
transfers is about 4.4 per cent and in Quebec alone it is 3.1 per
cent. I would be quite happy to share further that information. It
would be very useful for the member to know those are the real
facts and not those that have been put forward by other sources.
It means we have to work at what I have heard the hon.
member speak of quite eloquently in his own way. We need to
eliminate a lot of the duplication which takes place between
levels of government. We need to eliminate a lot of the build up
of bureaucracies and the program administration which are in
the way of the direct delivery of programs. I have always said
that one of the major objectives we have in social reform is to
eliminate many of those barriers and hurdles that have built up.
This puts the onus and responsibility on the provinces to
figure out ways of doing that. They now have far more freedom
and far more choice about how they can reorganize their
programs to get those kinds of things because we are taking the
restrictive rules off.
As the hon. member knows, the Canada assistance plan had a
whole set of rules about what could not be done. A good example
in Quebec is the APPORT program which has been a very good
incentive to enable people on social assistance to go back to
work. We could never fund APPORT under the old rules of the
Canada assistance plan. Under our new transfer proposal
Quebec can now use funds from the federal government for the
APPORT program and therefore have a lot more flexibility.
It seems to be a real example of contradiction to have it being
opposed by the Bloc Quebecois when it is in the interest of
Quebec to have access to those funds for use in Quebec's own
innovative programs.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, now that I listen to the minister I can understand why
some people call him the head dinosaur in the Liberal stable of
those who believe that all the solutions to the economic and
social problems of Canada are found with the government.
(1640 )
The issue of this budget is one of credibility. One year ago the
Minister of Finance said: ``We have now made all the cuts that
we have to make''. It is a matter of credibility not relative to
what we have proposed. I think that we have been honest. What
is at issue is the untruth, the smoke and mirrors we got in the last
budget. It was said that there would be no cuts and especially
that social programs were sacrosanct.
The budget speech gives the expenditure reductions by
category. Would anyone believe there are cuts planned in health,
in Canada Mortgage and Housing which serves the poor, and in
veterans affairs? The people who served this country will now
10211
be asked to make sacrifices by this government which promised
there would be no cuts at all. One of the biggest cuts has been in
heritage and cultural programs. There are cuts in international
assistance as well. All of those things were promised to be
sacrosanct.
The issue is one of credibility. I stood and applauded these
cuts, but the story was given that there would be no cuts in the
future. Now we are hearing all kinds of wonderful stories. Why
should we believe them this time?
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, by
the way, I want to make an official announcement. It is well
known that in the next week the Reform caucus room will be
renamed Jurassic Park. I hope we will be invited to the opening.
The real question of credibility is what Canadians take as
being the honest efforts of a government to balance out its
priorities. Those are to make sure that we can start living within
our means and using our fiscal system to restore health while at
the same time maintaining the kind of justice and compassion
that we have.
I think the credibility of the hon. member's own party fell
apart in its alternative budget. The Reform Party talks about
clawbacks of $3 billion on seniors pensions. It talks about taking
away maternity benefits from women. It also talks about
virtually doing away with the Canada assistance plan and
turning it into some kind of investment program. Imagine a
single parent with three children in downtown Toronto saying:
``Yes, I have a few thousand dollars. I am going to invest in my
own registered retirement savings income security program''.
That shows no credibility.
We are trying to balance the two off. We know we have to
make some cuts. At the same time, we believe in the kind of
social reform we are initiating. It enables us to sit down with the
provinces and the private sector to establish partnerships for
new training programs and new job programs. We all share in the
cost. We eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and we get rid of
duplicated programs. It is under those kinds of initiatives that
we can begin to use our valuable resources in a much more
effective way.
It seems to me that members of the Reform Party have
completely and entirely abdicated the notion that good,
effective management can bring about better results. Maybe it is
because they know they will never have the opportunity to
manage anything in the federal Government of Canada at any
time, anywhere. Therefore they do not focus on the requirement
to ask how to do things better.
The Reform Party has given the name Reform a bad currency.
The real meaning of reform is to be able to make effective
changes without losing one's values. We have maintained our
Liberal values and we are going to make effective changes.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Excuse me, but I must make the
following announcement before 5 p.m. 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-gun control; the hon.
member for South Shore-tourism; the hon. member for
Frontenac-the budget.
(1645)
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure as the member for Richmond-Wolfe and the
official opposition's critic for regional development to speak on
the occasion of the tabling of the budget.
I would ask permission to first remind this House of one of the
major causes of the Canadian deficit, because the aim of this
budget is to resolve the problem of the deficit in order to tackle
the problem of the debt. Let us have a look at one of the causes of
this great catastrophe of the Canadian economy-the debt.
Liberal Pierre Trudeau came to the position of Prime Minister
armed with a national vision that was impervious to the many
representations made with respect to provincial jurisdiction.
This national delusion of grandeur on the part of one political
party would take the country of the 1970s down the road to a
national debt that is today out of control.
The Liberals' Canadian nationalism formed the ideological
foundation for government intervention, given the lack of a real
social democratic policy. National unity in the face of rising
provincialism provided one vocation for the party and its leader;
the other was Canada's independence from the United States.
Thus involvement by the central government with the aim of
ensuring a Canadian presence in all regions of this vast country
gave birth to a monstrous government apparatus, the cost of
which is being felt today in the national debt.
Canada's debt is the hidden side of this national liberalism. It
is the expression of the collapse of the Liberals and of Canada's
economic and political systems. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
Party of Canada is responsible for the national debt.
Having said this, Canada's debt is now $550 billion, and will
climb to $650 billion by 1997-98. The federal government's
debt will continue to grow faster than the economy. The net debt
will grow from $546 billion in 1994-95, to $578 billion in
1995-96 and will reach $603 billion in 1996-97. The debt, as a
percentage of gross domestic product, will peak at 73.5 per cent
in 1995-96 before easing off slightly to 73.4 per cent in
1996-97.
Canada's problem is structural. It is directly linked to the
Liberals' desire to centralize everything and to stake out an
10212
imposing presence for itself throughout the country. Quebec
should have dragged itself out of this quagmire a long time ago.
In the Minister of Finance's 1995-96 budget, the state takes a
hands-off approach to this bankrupt country's economy.
However, the federal Liberals still have the same desire, the
same delusion of grandeur: they have stuck with the same
flawed vision they had in the seventies, which was the dream of
a unified nation taking its place among the greatest western
capitalist countries.
In 1996-97, the government will cut $650 million in transfer
payments to Quebec for health, education and welfare, but has
no intention of withdrawing from these jurisdictions. The
central government is beginning its great withdrawal by
merging established programs financing with the Canada
assistance plan to create one global transfer program, dubbed
the Canada social transfer.
Despite budgetary constraints and the spectre of national
bankruptcy hovering over our heads, Ottawa firmly clings to
national standards. Abiding steadfastly to federal principles,
that is the rampart the government is defending in the budget,
with Quebec's referendum looming on the horizon. Make no
mistake, this budget is, above all, about decentralizing the
deficit accumulated by Liberals Trudeau, Chrétien, Lalonde and
Turner, about decentralizing the Liberal debt, starting with cuts
in federal transfer payments for post-secondary education,
health care and social assistance.
The federal government has withdrawn from its funding role,
but the departments where duplication exists remain in place.
Did anyone say the Department of Health would be abolished?
And when do we get this sweeping structural reform of the
federal system? Despite the government's claims since the
beginning of this year that it wants to decentralize, the Liberals
are still flying the centralist flag. Thanks to national standards,
the centralist option is alive and well.
(1650)
A withdrawing from its funding role in the provinces does not
mean the central government has withdrawn its administrative
structures. Even if these become increasingly symbolic, they are
still costly and, as such, even more damaging to the initiatives of
the provinces. The trouble is, the federal withdrawal creates a
vacuum. There is a lack of real job creation measures. People are
upset about drastic cuts, and there is a consistent lack of regional
development policies. For instance, general cuts in transfers to
the provinces will have an impact on access to university. This is
tough for our young people.
Certain regions may have trouble supporting their
universities. This was said by Claude Lajeunesse, president of
the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. And he
should know. The Eastern Townships, where I have the privilege
of representing the riding of Richmond-Wolfe, is one of the
regions that will be particularly affected by the federal
government's new policy, the so-called Canadian Social
Transfer, and the attendant cuts in transfer payments. This
region, which has two universities and five hospitals, will suffer
as a result of these cuts. Let the federal government withdraw,
let it disappear and with it the departments of Health and Human
Resources Development, let full responsibility be transferred to
the regions, with the appropriate tax revenues.
Canada is the G-7 country that invests least in research and
development, but the Minister of Finance cut the budget for
research and development. In the agricultural sector in Quebec,
$10 million will be cut annually over the next three years. This
will have a particularly dramatic impact on the development of
regions in Quebec that are known for their flourishing dairy
industry. We see the same thing happening to the National
Research Council of Canada, whose budget will be cut by $76
million over the next three years. Do not try to understand why.
The Liberal Party which, throughout its election campaign and
in its red book, focused on jobs, advanced technology and
competitiveness, is now withdrawing from research and
development in Quebec, making the regions poorer in the
process.
Another example of a regional catastrophe. The Gaspé and the
Maritimes will be particularly affected by the repeal of the
Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, since $99 million worth
of subsidies will be cut.
I would like to welcome my Liberal colleagues, who are
coming from behind the curtains to listen to what I have to say.
The federal withdrawal announced in Monday's budget may
be described as typical of a routed State, a government that has
become so fat that it can no longer move except to reduce this
government-made deficit on the backs of others: Quebec and
the provinces. For example, Henri Massé, secretary general of
the FTQ, reminds us that the total payroll for federal civil
servants accounts for only eight per cent of the deficit and he
concludes that this is a very cruel budget for the little people. It
attacks the most disadvantaged segment of our society, namely
the wage earners, while protecting the friends of the regime. The
powerful capitalist leaders of the Liberal financial community
in Canada are like the angels of the Liberal Party.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, ask federal public service
employees: ``Do you not think that your jobs will be safer in a
Quebec public service set to expand in a new sovereign country
than in this declining federal public service?'' Who says that
laying off 45,000 employees will produce efficiency gains?
What guarantee do we have that, as my hon. colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot said, the ``bosses'' across the way will
not decide to replace the career civil servants who will be laid
off with friends of the regime, friends of the Liberal Party?
10213
(1655)
Again, one of Quebec's regions will have to bear the brunt of
indiscriminate federal cuts, as 12,000 federal jobs will no doubt
be eliminated in the Outaouais region.
Going once more against what it had announced during the
election campaign in terms of employment policies, the Liberal
Party is about to cut the budget of its industry department by
$560 million. This measure is all the more harmful because it
affects peripheral regions.
With respect to the regions, while maintaining a presence, the
Liberal government is planning to reduce the budget of regional
development agencies by the modest sum of $0.6 billion over a
three year period.
The Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, the
FORDQ, becomes an empty shell that eventually will merge
with the Federal Business Development Bank, as indicated in
the budget, and play the role of a financial institution.
The implications of the budget are obvious: regional
development agencies will channel their assistance to small
business. Subsidies will be systematically replaced with
refundable contributions and loans. Apparently, the Liberal
Party of Canada thinks it can treat regional small businesses and
big multinational corporations the same way, because when it
cuts 60 per cent of its subsidies to business, it seems to think this
should affect regional small businesses as well. And remember,
they cut only 60 per cent, when everyone in the official
opposition, including Quebec employers, wanted to cut them
100 per cent.
This approach will be very damaging to regional development
in Quebec. That being the case, with the FORDQ an empty shell,
the federal government should withdraw from regional
development altogether, with full compensation for Quebec.
The FORDQ is a typical example of duplication and overlap.
Programs to help small businesses already exist in Quebec in all
administrative regions, including a secretariat for small
business at International Affairs.
Quebec cannot afford to remain in a system that maintains
duplication and overlap. In any case, Quebec has generally had
gained very little as a result of federal regional development
policies, and the Minister of Finance's latest budget is a case in
point. In fact, we are been advised by the minister that operating
budgets of regional development agencies will be cut, and again,
Quebec is being hit, this time to the tune of $40.3 million.
Monday's budget is typical of the Liberal philosophy of
Canada's financial community. This budget does nothing to
relieve the tax burden on the middle class, but maintains tax
shelters for the very wealthy and large Canadian corporations. It
continues to attack the neediest in this country. In 1995-96,
social programs will see their budgets cut by 7.3 per cent;
industrial, regional and scientific support programs, 1.8 per
cent; heritage and cultural programs, 6.9 per cent; and
Transport, 11.4 per cent. Meanwhile, debt charges are expected
to increase by 20.7 per cent over the same period.
It is pretty obvious that Canada's financial community is not
helping to pay the debt. The job market and the neediest in our
society are bearing the brunt of these debt charges. The figures
prove it: Over 27 per cent of the cuts to job creation and social
programs will be used to pay the 20.7 per cent increase in the
cost of servicing the debt.
The budget hits big business and corporations with a
disproportionately small share of the deficit and debt fighting
measures. Surtaxes on incomes of approximately $115 million
were raised from 3 to 4 per cent, income tax rates for large
corporations were raised slightly from 0.2 per cent to 0.225 per
cent of capital used in excess of $10 million.
Let us not forget the banks. They do not get a permanent tax
increase, but a temporary one. A minimal and insignificant tax.
The Royal Bank of Canada, you will remember, pocketed $1.2
billion in profits last year. These are but a few examples of how
the federal Liberal budget has spared the middle class, only to
hit the big Canadian capitalists with mere micky-mouse tax
measures, and thus passes by funds that are needed to reduce the
deficit.
(1700)
That is where the money is coming from to reduce the federal
deficit. There is nothing in this budget for job creation, which is
particularly dramatic for Quebec's regions. The Liberals even
have the gall to say that the unemployment rate is expected to
remain unchanged over the next few years, at approximately 9.5
per cent, that is to say about 11 per cent for Quebec and its
regions. The people of Quebec should know the time has come to
say ``yes'' to a sovereign Quebec. It is more important than ever
that our powers and decisions be in our own hands and not in the
hands of others, like the federal Liberals.
Quebecers will pay dearly if they decide against having a
country of their own, a real country that will take control over its
public finances and operate the administrative changes
required. Unless Quebecers vote for sovereignty this year,
unless they choose budget efficiency and structural change, they
are headed, as a society, for a situation where Quebec will have
less and less control over job creation and will loose all ability to
put in place an efficient regional economic recovery plan.
A negative vote at the upcoming referendum will signal the
decline of regional development in Quebec, because the present
Liberal federal government is showing its true colours in this
budget with disastrous consequences for the regions. What the
Federal Office of Regional Development, this capitalistic small
business loan agency, will become is a parody of regional
development. As the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional
develop-
10214
ment, I fully support the amendment put forth by my hon.
colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot to defeat this budget.
In closing, what it this budget about? What does it mean? This
is a pre-referendum budget that does not even let us see right
away, in practical terms, that, once again, the federal
government is hurting Quebec. The pain it getting pretty
unbearable and this pain is like a wound, a wound that will not
heal in this federal system. In order to heal, we have to decide
for ourselves. Quebec has to choose its own remedies, so that it
can be on its way to economic recovery.
It is up to the people of Quebec to choose a positive solution
and find a cure to they own ills. To remain in this federal system
is to leave our cultural and economic future, which is already
seriously compromised, in the hands of individuals who look
after and stand for interests other than those of ordinary people
in Quebec. The unemployed, the disadvantaged, the ill, the
aged, the young, these are the people for whom the federal
system never does anything.
No! They work for the financial elite, the big corporations, the
banks, the family trusts that will not be taxable until 1999, all
close friends of this government, the majority of whom
represent English Canada and the financial elite. That is what
Canada has always been.
The people of Quebec must take responsibility for their own
future, with confidence and openness. Confidence in
themselves, in their resources, their strengths and capabilities;
open to others as they always have been in their cultural and
business relations with Canada, the United States, South
America, Europe and the rest of the world.
Confidence and openness are Quebec's two greatest assets for
the future. They are what it needs to recover from this incurable
federal disease. The future of Quebec, if the people really want
it, depends on pride. Pride in the fact that we decide to have a
country, in the fact that we are all prepared to be responsible for
our economy, our social programs and our culture, and pride in
our own perception of the future, the future of generations to
come, of our sons and daughters. We put our trust above all in
our children, and we must do everything we can to prepare their
future and ensure that our contribution in this respect is
exceptional and worthy of the responsibility we have as their
parents, as their elders.
(1705)
History is in the making, and we should be proud to be a part
of it and to make this exceptional contribution to our joint
future. We say yes to this future, for the sake of our children first
of all, and we want the people of Quebec to be a strong and vital
force in a country that is Quebec.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by
the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe. I know he listened with
interest himself to the words of the Minister of Human
Resources Development earlier, when he spoke about the
overtures made to the provinces to work out a new framework
for the social security system, as described in part in the budget,
and in other government initiatives to involve the provinces and
work with them in a spirit of partnership, so that together they
might develop a new social security system that will meet the
needs of all Canadians.
Given these initiatives and the position the hon. member has
just expressed on Quebec sovereignty, I would like to know
whether he thinks there is a happy medium. Would it be possible
to work in partnership with the government of Quebec in
developing a new generation of social and other programs,
which might, in his view, enable the people of Quebec or the
government of Quebec to really participate with the rest of
Canada in these programs?
Given that the referendum, if the government of Quebec ever
sets it in motion, is not a foregone conclusion and that there is a
good chance, if not a strong possibility, that Quebecers will say
``yes'' to Canada, as they have always done, and ``no'' to
separation as proposed by their provincial government, is there
any way, in his opinion, consistent with his option, to work
together with the government of Canada, other provincial
governments and in the other partnerships involved, to improve
and renew Canada's social security system?
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, first of all I
would like to thank my colleague for this very long question
with its many parts. First off, I must say that the words dialogue,
partnership and co-operation are not just words but are
underlying principles in Quebec, underlying principles used by
elected members, used in the communities. In Quebec we have
always worked through dialogue, partnerships and in
co-operation.
(1710)
To my mind, this is a very clear characteristic of Quebec and
in this regard, my hon. colleague, you must have seen the
numerous socio-economic summits held in all regions since the
1980s, you must have seen dialogue and partnerships develop
between university communities and economic communities.
Since then, you must have seen strategic plans evolving for each
region in response to the difficult economic situation and to
meet development needs.
Yes, my hon. colleague, we have these deeply rooted qualities
and we have also worked through partnerships, in co-operation
and openly with a great variety of partners in Canada, the United
States and other countries.
10215
However, my hon. colleague, we are not attempting to give a
history lesson, but we do have a very great deal of patience.
Quebec has demonstrated that it has a lot of patience. Quebec
has shown that it is a very peace loving nation. We have
discussed this Canadian partnership for a very long time now.
We have had repeated discussions about many areas of
jurisdiction. One must consider that we have suffered heavy
blows as a result of these discussions. You will remember that
the greatest and most serious blow ever dealt to Quebec was the
unilateral patriation of the constitution in 1982.
This unilateral patriation of the constitution, to remind you,
followed a major debate in Quebec when honest people believed
the speeches stating that a ``no'' meant ``yes'' to fundamental
change to the system described as a partnership, involving
give-and-take and co-operation, when they were told that a
``no'' meant ``yes'' to profound reform and to a serious
re-affirmation of ties with Quebec. Quebec had the constitution
rammed down its throat. Even though the National Assembly
voted almost unanimously against patriation. There are limits.
Quebec nevertheless took the ``beau risque''. We tried to
come back, to resume dialogue, to get back into the debate with a
partner called Canada and the other provinces. We went through
different stages. We survived the Charlottetown experience, we
survived Meech, despite the many wounds they inflicted.
Partnership, openness and association with our neighbours
are qualities that are still part of the make-up of Quebecers, but
it is hard to conceive that association could coexist with
renewal.
Yes indeed, dear colleague, Quebec, which will take on the
qualities of a sovereign country, will be extremely interested in
economic association. Please keep in mind one very important
point regarding Quebec's trade balances with the other
provinces. In 1989, Quebec bought goods and services for a total
of $26 billion from Ontario, $2.2 billion from the Atlantic
provinces and $5 billion from the Ottawa region alone. Trade
links between these regions do exist.
Yes, dear colleague, we are prepared to work in partnership
with friendly countries and in a spirit of openness, co-operation
and collaboration, but only on the basis of economic association
and only after we have established our sovereignty.
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleague, I would ask you to
address the Chair next time. This enables us to depersonalize the
debate.
[English]
The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, have we
gone through 10 minutes with one question and answer? Did I
misunderstand you?
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary is correct.
Perhaps that will be a record in this Parliament, that one
question and one answer went about nine and a quarter minutes.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the
member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.
It is my privilege to rise in the House today to participate in
the budget debate. I compliment the Minister of Finance on a
masterful budget the addresses the concerns of the business
community, the international markets and the Canadian
taxpayer. He has made great strides to bring our deficit under
control and meet the targets we set in our election campaign. In
1996-97 we will reach the 3 per cent of GDP target we outlined.
(1715)
Over the last few days a great deal of speculation about the
budget has been replaced by some pretty confident and solid
comments about the Canadian economy. They have been
addressing the positives in terms of what we have seen in the
budget.
Mr. John Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of
Business, said that it was very believable and very credible. The
powerful Canadian Manufacturers Association called the
budget the first serious attempt at resolving Canada's books and
balancing them properly. The Montreal based bank, the
Laurentian Bank of Canada, led the way in cutting its prime rate
by one-quarter of one per cent on budget night. Since then and
through this week we have seen the Canadian dollar go to a solid
72 cents. At the same time most of our lending institutions
announced that they would be cutting their lending rates from
one-quarter to one-half per cent. Mortgage rates will be down.
What does this mean to the average Canadian taxpayer? It
means that we will have more money in our pockets. Average
Canadian taxpayers are making payments on loans and on
mortgages. When they come up for renewal they will be paying
less for borrowing that dollar. It is a positive point about the
Canadian economy. It is the point that will create more
spending, bring back consumer confidence and lead us to more
jobs.
Over the past 10 years Canadians heard finance ministers
Wilson and Mazankowski give budget speeches that promised to
reduce the debt and the deficit. Their assumptions and targets
were so far off base that year after year we fell well below the
targets. They mismanaged the economy badly. When they were
elected in 1984 the debt of the country was $168 billion. In nine
10216
short years from 1984 to 1993 they tripled the debt, going from
$168 billion to $500 billion.
At the same time, the Canadian government under Wilson and
Mazankowski had to keep interest rates high to attract the
bulging demand for foreign capital. We as a country became
more and more subject to foreign investors. We became more
and more a country with rising foreign debt. As a result we
needed a major change and the Canadian public was well aware
of it. Our Liberal government when elected in 1993 set realistic,
achievable goals.
This year's budget, with a total saving of $29 billion over
three years, is realistic. It is achievable. As a result, because we
based our budget on basic, realistic, achievable goals in our
economy, we as a government will create a positive climate that
will move forward in a very positive way. I forecast that not just
three years down the line but in five years from today, by the
year 2000, we will be looking at a no deficit budget. We will be
looking at a balance sheet where we can start digging into the
debt and reducing it.
What does the budget mean to the average Canadian
taxpayer? As I said, money is going to be in their pockets
through reduced interest and borrowing costs.
I have heard the opposition complain very bitterly that
Canadian taxpayers will have to pay an excise tax on gasoline.
Yes, we added 1.5 cents to the cost of a litre of gasoline. There is
no question about that. I would suggest that when average
Canadian taxpayers fill up their cars once a week they probably
put 50 litres in their gas tanks. The increase will amount to 75
cents a week or the price of a cup of coffee. Would they rather
pay the price of a cup of coffee and see their mortgage rates go
down or, as Reformers would state, have absolutely no
expenses? I do not see their logic. I do not see their reasoning. I
have talked with a lot of Canadians and they are not upset by the
1.5 cents per litre increase.
(1720)
There are, however, other people in this dimension. Over the
last several months large corporations and banks have
announced record profits in their businesses in Canada. They
have been targeted to help reduce our deficit, as well they should
be. Over the next three years we expect to generate $910 million
from tax increases to very prosperous institutions. They as a
group have been demanding that the government get spending
under control, and they are the group that has a responsibility in
helping us do so.
My riding of Essex-Kent in southwestern Ontario is very
dependent upon agriculture for its livelihood. It is an industry
that producers over half a billion dollars in the two counties of
Kent and Essex that I represent. We are very mindful of the
partnership between government and the agri-food industry
working together in that sector.
The government in streamlining research has designated
some areas as centres of agricultural excellence. In
southwestern Ontario the Harrow Research Centre will become
a national centre of excellence for research in the greenhouse
industry and the food processing industry. Streamlining services
in Harrow will centre the research where the high concentration
of greenhouses and processing crops is. The value added and tax
initiatives that very instrumental to Essex and Kent counties
will help our economy a great deal.
In the Chatham area we will see an ethanol plant that will have
a great impact on the economy. The plant is a result of a real
desire on behalf of the government to improve value added
production in Canada. The benefits of the initiative have great
potential across the country. There are very serious concerns
about MMT that is presently being used to boost the octane of
most Canadian gasolines. Ethanol is far more environmentally
friendly and will be the choice of Canadians in the future.
Liberals can take pride in our legacy of caring for people and
ensuring that our seniors will be financially secure. Measures
have been introduced to guarantee their incomes and to make
certain that over time in the future they will have definite
pension plans that will pay to support them. They can be sure
that with the studies and discussions presently ongoing the old
age security and guaranteed income supplements will remain.
The government will remain committed to providing a fair,
reasonable and equitable situation for them.
Cash transfers to the provinces have been questioned very
much. I was a little appalled this morning when I saw Bob Rae
on television complaining about Canadian support to the
provincial government. Bob Rae, the premier of Ontario, has
totally mismanaged the economy of Ontario. Between 1990 and
1994 the federal government increased its funding for Ontario
hospitals, colleges and universities by 26 per cent, while Bob
Rae only increased funding to hospitals, colleges and
universities by 17 per cent.
What does that mean? It means that Bob Rae did not
participate in those services as the federal government has and
did not carry his fair share. He mismanaged the economy and
downgraded services, accepting totally the transfers from the
federal government but not spending them within the province
with matching funds.
(1725)
It has to be made clear in looking at the services that above all
we are trying to make certain Canadians across the land get fair
and equitable treatment.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
some questions for members of the government. They talk about
wanting to be fair and treating all regions of Canada fairly. I
would like them to take another look at the budget and what they
have really done to the Atlantic region.
10217
The Atlantic region last time around took 27 per cent of all
the cuts in the last budget and we have 8 per cent of the
population. This time around someone has to tell me how they
can justify taking away the freight rate subsidies to get our
product to market. When they brought down the budget on
Monday, 15,000 jobs were jeopardized in the Atlantic region.
Members do not know this and backbenchers do not know this,
but the Minister of Transport knows it. He made promises to
the people in the Atlantic region. They held public meetings.
Our people said they would give up ARFAA, the interprovincial
subsidy, but that they must have the westbound one in order
to keep working. They were led to believe the Minister of
Transport agreed.
Does anyone know how they heard that the ARFAA and
MFRAA were to be taken from them? They heard it from Peter
Gzowski on CBC interviewing the Minister of Transport. I have
a list of companies in the Atlantic region that will be affected.
The Canadian Manufacturers Association wrote to the Prime
Minister about the fact that there had been no dialogue from the
Minister of Transport.
We want to be fair and responsible in the Atlantic region. I get
tired of hearing people refer to us as have not provinces. Our
people believe in the family unit and in work. They want to
work.
What are they going to do for all the people in manufacturing?
What are they going to do today? I represent a city that has a
nuclear power plant and the largest privately owned oil refinery
in Canada, and the government took away the weather office.
Does the government not know what it is doing? I do not believe
it does. This is a very serious situation.
I ask hon. members to revisit what they have done. What has
happened to the Atlantic region is devastating to our people. The
people are sitting at home today wondering what is going to
happen tomorrow because they have not had all the bad news
yet. They took the bad news the last time and said: ``We are good
Canadians. We will accept it''. However we cannot accept any
more.
I ask members to take another look at it. Where are the 31
members in government from the Atlantic region? Why are they
not speaking out for good, honest people who want to work?
That is all they are asking for. Government members say they
will create jobs; we are still looking for them. They know our
transportation costs have been increased by 40 per cent with
what they have done by taking away the freight rate subsidies.
They cannot compete. They are finished.
I ask hon. members to take another look at what they have
done to the Atlantic region, a part of this country. They did not
state that the St. Lawrence Seaway would no longer be ice free.
When that project came into play it affected my international
port. What will you do for the Atlantic region?
The Deputy Speaker: I ask all hon. members not to refer to
other members as ``you''.
(1730)
Mr. Pickard: Mr. Speaker, the question was a little longer
than requires a brief reply.
The point to be made is that every region in this country has
equal treatment in this budget. There has been a tremendous
effort on behalf of the finance department, the minister and the
government to make certain every section of this country does
have fair and equal treatment.
It is interesting that the member did note that they are losing
transportation payments. She was very upset about that. I
remember the Mulroney government which took the At and East
bill and destroyed travel in the east, in Ontario and all through
eastern Canada. I certainly saw it destroy the economy of this
country.
Jeffrey Simpson, who is really no friend to the Liberal Party,
did support the Tory government and stated very clearly that if
Wilson and Mazankowski under the Mulroney government had
taken some reasonable action about the economy of this country
in the 1980s we would not be in the problem we are today. It is a
sin we are here. They created it and they got ripped by the
Canadian public for it.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint John wondered where
the 31 other Atlantic members were to speak on this budget. I am
one of those members and I am proud to support this budget.
It is a very fair budget. It is a budget that responds to the needs
of Canada, including Atlantic Canada. It is a budget that will
build a strong foundation for future growth in Atlantic Canada
and it is the budget that does what nine years of Tory government
failed to do, which is the reason why it only has one member
from Atlantic Canada in the House of Commons and only one
other member in the House of Commons.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the budget that was
tabled on Monday. My remarks will come from two
perspectives, as my experience as chair of the House of
Commons committee which recently carried out extensive
public hearings across Canada on the future of Canada's social
programs and as an Atlantic Canadian.
For many, perhaps most of the hundreds of Canadians who
appeared before our committee last fall, this budget and what
would happen to social programs and to the historic federal
commitment to social programs as a result of the growing
preoccupation with the deficit was very much on their minds.
Many witnesses expressed suspicion that the comprehensive
review of the social security system in Canada which they
acknowledged was necessary was nevertheless being used as a
smoke screen to slash spending on social programs as a way for
the government to achieve its deficit targets.
10218
They wondered about the choice of programs that were being
included in this review. Why was the government not focusing
more on tax expenditures, in particular about tax breaks to
wealthy Canadians and corporations? Should they not be made
to shoulder their fair share of the task of deficit reduction?
The report of the human resources development committee
which I tabled in this House on February 6 paid careful attention
to these concerns and had some specific recommendations for
the Minister of Finance to consider as he prepared his budget.
In particular, we urged him to ensure that the balance of
deficit reduction measures in his budget addressed the issue of
tax fairness in Canada. As well, we urged the government to
proceed with the reform of social programs as part of its jobs and
growth agenda.
The country's difficult fiscal situation only makes the need to
address the accumulated problems which have occurred in our
social security system more and not less urgent. We did not say
that there should never be any reduction in social spending in
Canada. That would have been unrealistic in the current fiscal
climate. What we did say was that savings in this area should be
achieved as part of a fundamental, comprehensive reform to the
system of social security in Canada.
(1735)
It is one that would respond to today's social security needs
like addressing the pressing problem of child poverty, fostering
the kind of life long learning culture that will support
employment and assist Canadians to find the kind of well paying
jobs that have a future in this country and, most important, by
stabilizing the overall finances of the federal government by
removing the distortions and the disincentives that have grown
up around government programs that have been built with the
best of intentions for another era and by focusing the resources
and the energies of government to those areas where government
is best placed to be effected. In short, by getting government
right.
The Government of Canada can provide the leadership and the
fiscal framework needed to ensure that the social security
system and the programs which Canadians across this country
told the committee they were so proud of and were so necessary
and so much defined our country would be preserved and
enhanced for the future.
Does the budget that was released on Monday respond to the
concerns of Canadians as reported by a committee? In large
measure I believe it does. The committee urged the government
to balance efforts to reduce the deficit with measures to promote
tax fairness. This budget does that. For example, there are no
increases to general income taxes, yet measures are taken to
ensure that taxes that are owed are paid.
The large corporations tax is increased by 12.5 per cent and
the existing corporations surtax from 3 to 4 per cent. In addition,
banks and other large deposit taking institutions will pay a tax
on capital, raising $100 million between now and October 1996.
The budget takes dead aim at the system of family trusts. All
tax advantages that flow from the establishment of family trusts
will be eliminated. The infamous amendment to the so-called
21-year rule that was introduced by the previous government to
allow the wealthy to shelter tax through family trusts will be
repealed.
In addition, the budget adopts a specific recommendation of
the committee that would open up tax expenditures as well as
direct expenditures of government to regular parliamentary
scrutiny.
With the budget the government reaffirms its commitment to
reform of the social security in Canada not as a reckless exercise
in slashing programs but as an orderly and thoughtful process of
renewal in full partnership with the provinces and in
consultation with Canadians.
This budget makes no immediate cuts to the principle
elements of the social safety net. What further spending cuts
occur only begin in 1996-97 and then only once a framework for
a renewed and reformed unemployment insurance system and
the implementation of the Canada social transfer are fully in
place. These reductions are less than the reductions that have
been made in other areas of government. The social programs
will have more room in a government which is more rationalized
and where the fiscal part of the government is more organized.
The consolidation of the Canada assistance plan and the
established program finance transfers into a uniformed block
transfer to the provinces follow in the spirit of the committee's
reports which recommended that the Canada assistance plan be
made into a block transfer in order to give the provinces more
flexibility and in order to design reformed and renewed ways of
helping people who are on social assistance provide basic
supports for their families, also to enhance their access to the
job market.
In addition to that the committee also recommended that there
be an enhanced effort toward working with the provinces to
enhance the child tax credit, working income supplement and
other measures that would be made in order to work together to
provide more assistance to poor families with children.
(1740 )
In addition, the redesign of the unemployment insurance
program announced with this budget is also something that is
absolutely necessary. Our committee recommends ways in
which the unemployment insurance program can be redesigned
and rebuilt in order to foster employability, in order to promote
10219
lifelong learning, in order to allow Canadians to have access to
the supports they need to get the jobs of the future.
As an Atlantic Canadian, particularly one who comes from a
region where unemployment insurance and other social
programs are a very important part and preoccupation, I know
they realize there must be changes to this program in order to
help Canadians get into the workforce and to help our people
relinquish their dependence that has grown on unemployment
insurance.
If we as Atlantic Canadians can participate in a renewed
unemployment insurance system or an employment insurance
system, which is really what it is all about, we could help to
create a better foundation for our economy in Atlantic Canada,
creating the kinds of jobs we need to have in order to have a
stable future there.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I too was on the tour with the committee on social
program reform with the hon. member for Cape Breton
Highlands-Canso. There are some things he has not said,
because what everyone talked to us about, everywhere, and the
budget makes no mention of, is the matter of job creation.
One of the questions I would like to ask him is why the budget
contains no objectives for job creation. There are criteria for the
deficit. They decided that, to control the deficit, it had to be
brought down to 3 per cent of the GDP. Why did the government
not set objectives for itself in terms of job creation? There is
nothing about that anywhere in the budget.
At the same time, we are told that banks are going to be taxed
in the amount of $100 million. When, however, during the tour
of the committee on social program reform, did people tell us
that another $700 million should be cut from the unemployment
insurance program? As for the block transfer, yes, a possible
block transfer for social programs was recommended, but did
the committee recommend cutting $7 billion in this area in the
next two years? There is a difference between a block transfer
and a transfer after cuts are made. There is a significant
difference between the two, which I consider important.
I have another question and, in this regard, I can sympathize
with the issue raised by the Conservative member who spoke
earlier about transportation subsidies and the people who live in
the east. It is true that they said: ``They want to get us off
unemployment insurance''. Everyone in Canada knows that
nobody goes on unemployment insurance for the fun of it. They
are on it because of the way the economy is. At the same time,
however, they said: ``Give us a period of transition to do it''.
Why did the government, in its transportation assistance
program for the Atlantic region, not follow the
recommendations made by the industry, by the people locally
and by the economic development officers and why was there
not a gradual decrease in these types of taxes, so that, in three or
five years, a new economic situation could be achieved, over
which the people in the community would have total control?
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his
questions.
Firstly, many jobs have in fact been created since the
government has been in office, more than 433,000 jobs have
been created. These jobs were created thanks to the confidence
the government has inspired across Canada, especially in the
private sector, and the budget brought down by the finance
minister on Monday evening will increase the confidence felt by
the private sector, the business community, because the
government is taking the necessary measures to tackle Canada's
deficit directly, thereby creating jobs and lowering Canada's
unemployment rate.
(1745)
The targets the government has set its sights on are necessary
to stabilize public finances and create jobs. We can see the
effects already in the falling unemployment rate. Our program's
objective is to create jobs.
Among the reforms suggested, we will have the opportunity to
work on those relating to unemployment insurance. The new
Canadian social transfer will allow the government of Canada,
in conjunction with the provinces, to create a new social security
net with a greater emphasis on employability.
To repeat, we are laying the foundations necessary for a strong
Canadian economy which will result in new jobs being created
throughout the country.
That is the government's strategy. We have forged ahead with
it, it is working and it will continue to work.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the various Liberal members who
have spoken about this marvellous budget of theirs today only
one thought comes to my mind, they do not understand
fundamental arithmetic.
The Canadian people, the taxpayers, who have been funding
all these programs that previous governments have put in based
on election promises and credit card funding, have been saying
that overspending has to stop. They want to see a balanced
budget down the road. They want to see some tax relief down the
road.
This red ink budget that the Liberals have delivered by 1997
will add another $100 billion to the debt and will increase the
interest payments on that debt to some $51 billion to $52 billion.
Can they not get it straight? It is the mountainous debt and the
10220
mountainous interest payments on that debt that are ripping the
heart out of the social safety net of the country.
It is not enough today to nibble at the edges of overspending.
We need a positive, progressive plan to decrease the deficit to a
zero budget. That is what the Canadian people want. They will
not get it from the government. It has not been listening to them.
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to differ with the hon. member. We cannot start
eliminating the debt until we start to get the deficit down. That is
what the government is doing.
Does the hon. member actually believe that by slashing social
programs in one fell swoop the deficit will be eliminated faster?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we in the House should spare a moment of sympathy for the
Canadians who, for unknown reasons, are watching the debate
on television. We have members opposite saying that it is a
wonderful budget, a visionary and perfect budget for the
country. Then we have members of our party who are responding
to the budget with grave concern and alarm. It is only fair for
Canadians to know why there are real concerns about the budget.
It is true that the budget reduces the deficit. Unfortunately the
budget and the so-called rolling targets that it contains
substantially increase the interest burden. That is the real threat
to social programs.
I do not think the finance minister should get a lot of credit for
reducing the deficit. As a matter of fact, he had absolutely no
choice. Not only are Canadians telling their political leaders that
their number one concern is the debt and deficit, our creditors
have been sending us strong, unmistakable messages that we had
better get our fiscal act together. According to the Wall Street
Journal Canada ``has now become an honorary member of the
third world in the unmanageability of its debt problem''.
(1750)
The debt is about $550 billion. By the time the government is
finished with us it will be $650 billion. Where is a country like
Canada going to be with that kind of debt loading down its future
and its young people? Moody's has threatened to remove our
coveted AAA bond rating. International lenders everywhere
want assurance from the government that a $25 billion deficit is
just an interim goal. In fact, the budget sets $25 billion as the
goal. Then there is some very nice talk about good intentions
down the road. The good intentions of the Liberals for the last 30
years have paved a lot of roads and they all lead down into the
debt hole.
Our real concern, which Canadians share, is that the budget
will have a profound effect on the future of social security.
Contrary to popular belief, Reformers are going to get old. Some
of us are quite close to that goal. Reformers get sick. Reformers
have disasters strike them. Reformers become unemployed. We
are very concerned about the security of every single Canadian.
That is why we brought in a plan to stop the horrible interest
drain on the social security resources.
The finance minister's refusal to deal with the financial mess
that is being caused to social programs by ever-burgeoning
interest payments is a missed opportunity for which all
Canadians will pay a heavy price. Much of our social program
spending is funded and has been funded for years on borrowed
money. Every year we borrow money, and that has been every
single year, unbelievably, for the last 25 or more years. We
increase the size of our interest obligation.
Every increase in the amount we are forced to pay in interest
decreases the amount we have left to fund the programs we offer
to Canadians. The only hope we have to break this vicious cycle
of higher interest payments and less cash for our programs is to
quit borrowing. That is exactly what Reformers have proposed;
to quite borrowing as fast as possible, in fact by the end of three
years.
In order to quit borrowing, social program spending has to be
reduced. That is because fully two-thirds of non-interest
spending by the federal government is on the social side. Even if
we virtually wiped out every other program and function of
government, we would still barely balance the books.
Of course many essential government programs cannot be
eliminated. Although there is some fat in other non-social
spending government programs-and the taxpayers' budget
starts by cutting government operations by a full 25 per cent for
a $10 billion savings-simple arithmetic dictates that some
spending reductions must take place on the social side.
Interestingly enough, even our human resources development
minister has figured that out. On page 8 of his discussion paper,
which as we know went nowhere, it states:
-the interest costs on that debt are choking governments' ability to deliver
services that the public needs and depends on-The larger the debt gets, the bigger
the interest costs and the smaller the budget for services-The status quo is not an
option.
That is the government's own minister. We have to ask
ourselves why is status quo social spending precisely what the
finance minister brags he has given us in the budget when
another minister is saying that the status quo is not an option?
The clue is in the rhetoric with which he has chosen to surround
this sensitive issue.
(1755)
Instead of providing a plan, the finance minister, like the
human resources development minister, has again chosen to
delay addressing Canada's ailing social programs, letting the
cancer spread, letting the patient get sicker and sicker. Why?
Because the Liberal government does not have the political guts
10221
and fortitude to do the job, to get social spending under control
so that we can preserve social programs for the future.
The Liberal government, knowing full well that the future
security of Canadian citizens is in peril, lacks the political
fortitude to take bold and decisive steps to effectively address
the issue. Even worse, not only are Liberals afraid to deal with
the problems in this critical area, they work hard to make
Canadians afraid to have it dealt with at all.
How do they do this? By telling Canadians again and again
that any plan to safeguard the ability to provide long term
security by some reductions in social spending today is too
cruel, too heartless, too harmful even to consider. Anyone
suggesting such a course of action is immediately set upon and
labelled as lacking in compassion and uncaring about the poor
and needy.
Clearly Liberals cannot honestly believe this to be true
because they are saying, and I quote again from the human
resources development minister's discussion paper: ``The
interest costs on the debt are choking government's ability to
deliver services that the public needs and depends on''. They
know this. One can only conclude that the government is
anxious to make a virtue out of what can only be termed a
shameful failure to get a grip on its deficit spending habits.
We are treated to loud protests by members opposite. In fact,
they can be heard even as I speak, in the background nattering on
and on. Any suggestion of spending reductions on the social
side, even though they clearly know that government must
reduce its expenditures in all areas if we are to have any hope of
curbing the interest haemorrhage from the national treasury, is
cloaked in inaction with a lot of talk about their commitment to
compassion, fairness and equity. However, Canadians are
beginning to see through all this nice talk to the lack of
substance within.
Nowhere is this made more clear than in last week's unveiling
of the Liberal so-called reform of MP pensions. Canadians were
treated to the unseemly spectacle of government ministers flatly
refusing to lose a nickel of their incredibly rich pension
benefits.
This year the Canadian government paid $42 billion in
interest. Just think for a moment what we could have done with
$42 billion to spend on the citizens of our country. It could have
doubled all guaranteed income supplement payments to needy
seniors. It could have cut income tax by 20 per cent. It could
have given free tuition to 100,000 students. It could have
provided $10,000 to 100,000 newly married couples for
mortgage down payments. In addition, it could have totally
eliminated the GST, something the Liberals promised to do. To
put the icing on the cake, it would have paid to build a $500
million skydome in every province, including P.E.I.
We did not have that $42 billion because we had to pay it to the
Liberal interest debt they have built up.
The real threat to social spending is Liberal borrowing and
deficit. It is not changing in this budget. If not now, when?
Canadians and their children will remember the 1995 federal
budget as the one which could have and should have but failed to
provide a plan to ensure personal security in the years ahead.
That it failed to do so will be seen as one of the greatest tragedies
of the 35th Parliament.
(1800 )
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I listened to my colleague's comments. What she seems to
ignore in her comments is the reaction from all the financial
experts, both at home and abroad.
Almost universally the reaction to this budget from everyone
except members of the Reform Party is very positive. In fact, in
many glowing terms we hear how the finance minister has
turned the corner on this country's debt and deficit problem. Yet
the member says there should be no credit for the finance
minister. I would remind the hon. member that for nine years the
previous government was not able to meet its targets, yet this
finance minister has done so two years in a row.
Quite frankly a misstatement was made that $25 billion is the
ultimate goal of the finance minister. It is not even fair to say
that on the floor of this House. The minister has been quoted
publicly many times as stating that the ultimate goal is the total
elimination of the deficit and debt. That is the ultimate goal. The
minister has made that eminently clear. The research by the
Reform Party seems to be awfully selective on these points.
Now to my question for the Reform Party member and the
Reform members heckling as I speak. If there is such concern
and compassion in the Reform Party for this country's social
security system, why did the blue budget plan, the so-called
taxpayers' budget of the Reform Party-if ever there was a
misnomer that is one-slash so severely the seniors' pension
plan? How can that be offered as some concern for the citizens of
this country?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the points raised by
my hon. friend opposite because they are important issues to
address. They are ones that hon. members opposite are always
using to justify their position. It is important that Canadians
know it does not do that.
First of all, the reaction of the financial markets was positive.
It is kind of sad, is it not, that financial markets are so used to
governments that do not do anything that there is great relief
when there are any cuts in our borrowing.
Not only that, my friends who work in the financial industry
tell me that financial markets discount government actions.
They are way ahead of government. They are weeks ahead of
government and they discounted this budget long ago. They did
10222
not do it the day after; they did it weeks before. That is how
financial markets work. Those familiar with financial markets
know that.
The hon. member brags that the government has reached its
targets although previous governments have not. If you make
your targets low, of course you will reach them. It is like a
cigarette smoker who cuts back from two packs a day to a pack
and a half and then says: ``I am quitting smoking''. He has a long
way to go and so does this budget.
There is no plan to get to zero deficit in this budget. There is
nice talk by the finance minister on the side that of course, yes,
this is the ultimate goal. If it is a goal, there should be a plan.
Instead, the government always refers to its red book target of a
$25 billion dollar deficit which is huge.
Our plan is to cut social spending by $15 billion for the simple
reason that if you do that, you get to zero borrowing. If you get to
zero borrowing, the interest levels off. The interest gets flat. If
you do not cut your borrowing, then the interest keeps rising.
Once the interest levels off, you know you have the rest of your
money to work with. However, if the interest keeps going up,
then you have less and less money to work with every single
year.
That is exactly what is going to happen under this plan. If
members opposite think that cutting spending now to get to a
zero deficit is bad, just wait until they see the cuts that will have
to be made when our interest gets to $50 billion, $55 billion, $60
billion because this government will not take that kind of action.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on the budget. It is a budget
that in the opinion of those who get past the initial media
kowtowing, the interest group moaning and the Liberal back
slapping, is dishonest. It is overrated. It is underachieving and
hypocritical. It fails to attack the efficiency and the internal
wastefulness of the federal government.
(1805 )
This budget deserves no praise. It lacks will. It lacks
solutions. It is not an answer. It is only prolonging the inevitable
demise of our social programs, our financial security and our
way of life, including that of our children.
What the finance minister has done is altogether typically
Liberal. He has made some token reductions which he thinks
will placate voters. He has increased taxes in such a way that
taxpayers will not know they are being hit hard. Furthermore, he
has done some things that, had they been done by any other party
with the Liberals in opposition, would have caused the Liberals
to explode in outrage and violent criticism. That is the hypocrisy
of this budget.
The Reform Party's taxpayers' budget laid out a series of
reasonable, manageable cuts to transfers and established
programs financing, cuts that would ensure long term health
and the continuation of these programs. The Liberals assailed
us, as the hon. member is doing right now. They accused us of
being heartless, of being uncaring, of bashing the poor. What is
the Liberal alternative to this imagined Reform Party
heartlessness?
The Liberals will double the fees of refugee claimants. That is
really something. That is without a doubt the most blatant
hypocrisy I have ever seen from this government or that party.
They have done nothing in any promise for the future.
Look at what is going on within the department of
immigration. Look at those increased fees that are coming. For a
moment, look at the increased fees and the recipients of those
fees, the immigration department. If you take an honest look,
you will come away with a very different impression about the
seriousness of this government, the willingness of this
government and the party across the aisle to make real change.
You will come away with a very different impression of the will
of that party and the intestinal fortitude of the finance minister
and especially the immigration minister.
There are two reasons the finance minister together with the
immigration minister have decided to increase fees. One is
stated and the other is not.
The stated reason is to raise revenue to offset the cuts. In other
words, they want to bring more money into the coffers. Charge a
little more up front and recover more of the costs of processing
and resettlement, as the minister points out. Fair enough. Why
should those who apply for immigrant status not pay their way?
We are not objecting to that.
There is no good reason for the taxpayer to subsidize the
processing of immigrant applications. Remember that if any
other party had done this, the Liberals would have fallen all over
themselves moaning about taxing the poor, charging more to
those who are unable to pay.
The other reason for almost doubling the fees, the unstated
reason that observers from both sides of the immigration debate
recognize, is to quietly cull a certain percentage of the
applicants for immigration. Changing the immigrant mix is a
good idea certainly. Both the C.D. Howe Institute and the Fraser
Institute agree with the Reform Party that we need to do that.
However, doing it this way is cowardly and devious on the part
of the Liberals.
An hon. member: Why?
Mr. Hanger: Because you are not stating the reasons.
The immigration minister has had all sorts of opportunities to
make changes to immigration that make sense and that are
honest but he will not do it. He has had every opportunity to save
the Canadian taxpayers a huge amount of money through
immigration reform. He did not do it. He would not. He does not
have what it takes. If the minister wanted to save money for the
taxpayer, he would have saved literally hundreds of millions of
10223
dollars by taking some advice from the Reform Party on refugee
determination in Canada.
A month ago, we released our proactive proposals for refugee
determination. Those proposals, if enacted, would ensure that
the refugee system was more fair to genuine refugees. That was
our first goal. The proposal would have ensured that the system
was more fair to the taxpayer by cutting back on legal aid and
social services for people who had been refused as refugees and
were appealing.
(1810)
We proposed that the Immigration and Refugee Board, that
$80 million a year hotbed of patronage, pork and foolish
decision making be abolished. We proposed that a refugee
determination system, which presently costs $1 billion or more
a year to determine a handful of claims, be fundamentally
restructured to reduce the number of bogus claims. Accept more
genuine refugees from abroad. Doing so would have saved the
taxpayers millions of dollars, but the minister would not hear of
it.
Here is a short list of some other costs the immigration
minister has been afraid to deal with. The total cost of the
department has gone up from $581 million to $592 million. Do
you call that cost cutting? The corporate service budget has
increased from $33 million to an unbelievable $78 million. Is
that the minister's idea of government efficiency, to double the
budget in one year?
The cost of failed sponsorship is $700 million. Welfare for
refugees as estimated in the Vancouver Sun a few days ago is
$600 million. Teaching English or French and other settlement
services for new immigrants costs $450 million. Quebec's gold
plated immigration settlement program costs $90 million. No
adjustments are made there at all, one year after another.
On top of all that the justice department will spend an
additional $11.6 million on immigration and refugee cases. The
Federal Court will spend an additional $11.9 million on
handling refugee cases. The RCMP will have to allocate an
additional $2.3 million to clean up the messes made by lousy
immigration policies. There is $60 million in legal aid.
Of course, there was last year's stupid expenditures: $2,000
for a pizza party hosted by the minister; $2,000 for bookmarks
with the minister's photo on them; $100,000 for office furniture
for one member in the IRB; another $100,000 for a golden
handshake to get rid of that member.
In light of all of these numbers, the increased user fees are just
a drop in the bucket. Until this government and this immigration
minister come to terms with the fact that Canada's immigration
and refugee programs are so lax, so broad, so inefficient and so
ridiculously generous as to cost Canadians up to $3 billion a
year to accept and settle refugees and immigrants, we are just
wasting time.
The government is tilting at windmills. If this government
really wants to fix the immigration budget it should not jack up
fees before it gets on top of the real problem: Liberal
immigration policy. That is the problem.
I say to the people of Canada, to the media, to interested
observers of Canada's immigration system around the world,
that before they congratulate the finance minister and the
immigration minister for taking tough action to fix a tough
problem, before this back slapping gets too intense, tell me what
is wrong with this picture.
A refugee claimant has just been paid $1,000. Now he sits
before an $85,000 a year patronage appointee. Each hour of
hearing and preparation time is being run up as a profit by his
legal aid attorney. His acceptance is virtually guaranteed since
the IRB is little more than an $80 million a year rubber stamp. If
he is sick, there are no worries, he has a health card.
In the extremely unlikely event that he is found not to be a
refugee, there are no worries. He will just ring up a few more
hours for his legal aid attorney, appeal to the taxpayer funded
courts, get another hearing before another $85,000 a year IRB
member. After this charade has been carried on for three years,
the minister gives him an automatic amnesty. It is not a bad deal
for $975. Most of us would not even get inside the courtroom
door for $975. The refugee claimant and his lawyer can tie up
our courts for three years.
This is no exaggeration. Members may not like the
illustration. They do not like it because they know it is true. The
most tragic aspect of that scenario is that all the time this
charade is being played out at the taxpayers' expense, the UN
tells us that the most genuine refugees from overseas are being
systematically ignored by countries like Canada. Refugees we
could process more easily and far more cheaply are being
ignored. These are genuine refugees.
People may start realizing now how much of an opportunity
there was in 1995 to really rethink government and make
fundamental changes. They will realize what a golden
opportunity there was to make things work better. Then they will
wake up to what was not done and they will be sorely
disappointed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment now
before the House.
10224
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
to the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment,
which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 165)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Mayfield
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-41
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-186
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bergeron
Bouchard
Brien
Deshaies
Dumas
Flis
Lalonde
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
MacLaren
McKinnon
Peters
Pillitteri
Rock
Stewart (Brant)
Wood
de Savoye
10225
(1845 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment to the
amendment defeated.
_____________________________________________
10225
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on February 10, I asked the Minister of Justice if he
would ban two new hyper-destructive handgun bullets
developed in the United States. One of these bullets was
designed to do maximum damage to human tissue, while the
second could penetrate body armour. We are told this rhino
ammunition, as it is called, is designed to break into thousands
of razor-like fragments when it hits flesh. The creator of these
bullets stated that: ``These fragments become lethal shrapnel as
they are hurled into vital organs, lungs, circulatory system
components, the heart and other tissues. The wound channel
becomes catastrophic and death is nearly instantaneous''.
(1850)
I was pleased with the answer given to me by the Minister of
Justice when he told the House that these two new types of
ammunition had been banned in Canada. However this incident
reminded us that if we are serious about gun control, we must
also control ammunition. Without ammunition, you cannot do
too much damage with guns.
It is especially important when you consider that 65,000 guns
have been lost or stolen since 1974. The RCMP report that about
3,000 are lost or stolen each year. If you cannot get the
ammunition with which to use a stolen gun, then you might be
preventing a crime from taking place. That is why it is so
important to control ammunition.
I would like to ask the government tonight whether in the new
legislation which is before the House-I have examined the said
legislation-it is correct that in order to buy ammunition in the
future, a person will require a firearms possession certificate or
a firearms registration certificate.
I ask this because in some of the publicity material
accompanying the bill, there was a suggestion that a person
might be able to buy ammunition simply with a driver's licence.
I could not accept that but since it will be necessary to obtain a
firearms possession certificate or require one to own, use or
purchase a gun then I do not see why it could not be presented as
well when purchasing ammunition.
I would like to have some clarification on that.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last December newspapers reported that a United
States company had produced two highly destructive bullets; the
black rhino, a plastic bullet allegedly capable of piercing
armour and the rhino-ammo, a highly fragmenting bullet
designed to cause maximum damage to human tissue.
Government officials have been in contact with U.S. officials
and in fact the black rhino does not exist and technical experts
highly doubt that an armour piercing plastic bullet could be
produced.
As regards the rhino ammo bullets, the potential
destructiveness was highly inflated and in fact they resemble
hollow point bullets currently available in the United States
markets and under limited conditions in Canada.
Armour piercing and exploding or incendiary cartridges are
now prohibited in Canada and have been since October 1, 1992
under prohibition order number 10. The possession, sale or
import of such ammunition is subject to Criminal Code
penalties of up to 10 years.
I want to particularly address the question of the hon. member
with respect to how ammunition is to be purchased. To purchase
ammunition, it will be required to have the registration
certificate once the registration certificate period of five years
ending December 31, 2003 has elapsed.
Until then everybody may not have a registration certificate.
In the interim, where possible it will be the requirement to
provide another certificate, a driver's licence or perhaps a
firearms acquisition certificate. This is yet to be determined
exactly but there will be requirements.
This will be brought forward and stipulated in the regulations.
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to expand on my question of February
24 to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry on
the matter of tourism.
10226
Tourism plays a major role in the lives of my constituents
on the south shore of Nova Scotia. It is important that tourism
continue to be promoted as it is serving to revitalize
communities that have been devastated by the downturn in the
fishery.
(1855 )
In the South Shore tourism generates $100 million annually
while providing employment for thousands of people. It is an
industry that can and will play a leading role in the economic
recovery of my area.
For instance, in 1994 the South Shore experienced a 20 per
cent increase in room sales. This was the largest percentage
increase in Nova Scotia. More than 127,000 people signed guest
books at the South Shore tourist bureaus. This represented an
increase of 19 per cent over 1993. The South Shore is popular
but it has potential to be even more so. I say this because 30 per
cent of visitors were from inside the province of Nova Scotia, 29
per cent were from other parts of Canada, 28 per cent were from
the United States and 5 per cent were international visitors.
There is so much to see and do along the South Shore. I am
partial to the charms of Chester, having chosen to settle down
there over 20 years ago. There is colourful Lunenburg, home of
the Bluenose and the Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic currently
seeking a designation of world heritage status. There is Oak
Island with its hidden treasure which is celebrating its 200th
anniversary this year.
In Queens county there are spectacular white sandy beaches
and several ecotourism sites, including the Keji seaside adjunct
and the bird sanctuary in Port Joli. These treasures have been
left largely untouched for the public to enjoy. At the western end
of my riding is Shelburne with its historic waterfront which is
gaining a good reputation as a destination for movie makers.
As a representative for an area like the South Shore, I am sure
members can understand that I was pleased to hear the Prime
Minister announce last fall that he had accepted the
recommendations made by his special advisor on tourism. The
creation of the Canadian tourism committee and the allocation
of base funding totalling $50 million certainly has the potential
to allow for effective marketing of Canada at home and abroad. I
do, however, have some concerns about how this is all going to
work.
First, in addition to the very successful South Shore Tourism
Association, there are many local tourism committees that have
been established to formulate strategies to increase the amount
of tourism traffic in their respective areas. I am constantly being
asked if and how they can access this tourism promotion money.
I am having difficulty answering these questions because that
has never been made clear. Media reports make it sound like
there is a pot of money for these people to access. Yet the
material I have received is vague on how the money will be
allocated.
Second, I would be interested to know how the Canadian
tourism commission will benefit rural areas like mine when to
date efforts seem to be rather metro driven. Will the interests of
small businesses, which comprise a large proportion of the
tourism industry, be appropriately represented?
Finally, I am concerned about an overlap of effort. The
Canadian tourism commission seems to be just a larger scale
version of the Atlantic Canada tourism partnership which was
established in late 1993. I would hope that these groups will be
working together rather than at cross purposes.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that I support the intent
behind the establishment of this commission. Because I have
seen the positive benefits that tourism can have in an area, I want
to see Canada eliminate its tourism deficit. However, first I want
specifics on how this will be done.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for South Shore for his question and also his keen
interest in a sector of our economy that has been sadly neglected
over the last 10 to 15 years.
The tourism industry is a sector of our economy which, after
automotive, employs more Canadians than any other sector.
This government has made a serious commitment to not only
maintaining but virtually quadrupling the tourism budget.
We did not just quadruple the budget, we also gave guidelines
and said to the Canadian tourism commission that we wanted
this money to be levered, joint ventured. In other words, it is not
Industry Canada and the tourism team going out and doing work
on their own. It is this commission which is made up of private
sector experts from the tourism industry from all over Canada.
The Minister of Industry appointed these people on February 1.
I have to say to the member for South Shore that this is a new
commission and no doubt there will be some glitches until we
get it operating perfectly. If the member, in his community of
South Shore, is having difficulty in partnering or accessing his
tourism operators with the commission, I would invite him to
come to the House of Commons industry committee. About two
weeks from now the executive of the Canadian Tourism
Commission will appear before the committee. We will deal
with the overall plan and objectives but, more important, we will
deal with the specific concerns and the specific challenges the
member for South Shore raised this evening.
10227
(1900)
I do not want to suggest that at the moment the commission
has all of the answers. It is a new commission. It is a new
experiment where we are partnering with the private sector.
However I invite the member to the committee. His specific
concerns will be addressed. There is great hope for this sector
putting Canadians back to work, which is the number one
responsibility of the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise now at the end of the day to point out that, in my question of
February 28, I spoke of the gross injustice in the budget which
the Minister of Finance brought down this Monday.
To clearly define this injustice, I would like to repeat part of
the question I put to the Hon. Minister of Finance this week. My
question was for the finance minister and was more or less as
follows: Yesterday, the finance minister announced that grain
transportation subsidies would be eliminated, adding that a
generous compensation of close to $3 billion, which includes
direct subsidies, would be given to western producers.
I have done some research since then and have in fact found
that grain producers in the west, and only in the west, would be
offered between $15 and $18 per acre, or an average of some
$15,000 to $18,000 per grain producer.
Of course, the Crow rate was intended for grain transportation
from point A to point B, with point B located near the ocean,
most often in Vancouver. Looking again at WGTA issue, we
found that many producers stockpiled their grain in railway
hopper cars. The railway cars went to Thunder Bay to be eligible
for the subsidy before returning to Vancouver. This was costly to
the government.
I would like to talk about the unjust and unfair way that
farmers in the east of the country have been treated. On the one
hand, the government cuts $560 million in subsidies to farmers
in the west and, to clear its conscience, offers them a
compensation package of close to $3 billion to help them
diversify their crops; on the other hand, in the same budget, it
trims industrial milk subsidies by 30 per cent.
I did my math and realized that a 30 per cent cut will result in
losses. As we all well know, Quebec and Ontario produce 80 per
cent of Canada's industrial milk and the cut will result in losses
of anywhere from three to five thousand dollars. What
compensation will farmers in the east get from the Liberal
government? None.
This inequity in the budget is noteworthy, and I expect an
explanation now and not a canned response.
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to comment on the question of the member for
Frontenac.
Yes, the annual $560 million western grain transportation
subsidy is being completely eliminated on August 1. However I
point out to the hon. member-and I know he realizes it-that
the dairy subsidy is only being reduced by 15 per cent this year
and 15 per cent next year. As of August 1, 85 per cent of that
support will still be there.
Eliminating the so-called Crow subsidy addresses a
longstanding equity concern that has been raised by eastern
farmers. The adjustment package reflects the potential impact of
eliminating a 96-year old commitment to the western grain
sector.
In addition to the $1.6 billion, a multi-year adjustment
package of $300 million is being put in place to facilitate the
transition to a more efficient transportation system. The amount
is not excessive. It is necessary to help grain producers adapt to
the change and to compete effectively in international markets
against subsidized foreign competition.
It is important to note the dairy industry does not face
international competition because of supply management for 90
per cent of its production. Equally important, this government
package of reforms to grain transportation is consistent with the
position set out by the Quebec coalition on the WGTA.
The package of reforms is fair and balanced with respect to
the different situations in different regions and different sectors.
Everyone has done his or her share in contributing to deficit
reduction. The government does not have a double standard as
the hon. member for Frontenac has suggested. It is not true.
Rather, through the budget we offered all Canadians a single
standard to strive for that will ensure future growth of the
agriculture sector and maintain our competitiveness on the
global field.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 7.10 p.m., the House stands
adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.07 p.m.)