CONTENTS
Friday, March 17, 1995
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10654
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10657
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10659
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10659
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10659
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10661
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10663
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10664
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 10666
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 10666
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10667
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 10667
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 10668
Bill C-75. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 10668
Motion for concurrence in 67th report 10668
(Motion agreed to.) 10668
Motion moved and agreed to 10669
Consideration resumed of motion 10671
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10674
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10676
Bill C-224. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 10682
Motion moved and agreed to 10682
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 10686
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 10688
10647
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 17, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.) moved:
That, this House urge the government to recognize that the present social
programs are failing and to investigate more secure options such as the
Registered Personal Security Plan (RPSP), a system of personalized,
tax-sheltered, RRSP-like savings accounts to which Canadians could
contribute funds to be drawn during periods of unemployment, for personal
upgrading/retraining and for retirement income.
She said: Mr. Speaker, It is a tremendous honour and privilege
for me today to introduce to the House and to the Canadian
public an innovative new concept which the Reform Party
believes will help preserve long term personal security for
Canadians.
With so much talk lately of cutbacks and change to social
programs, citizens are naturally concerned that this will threaten
the benefits they have been promised. Although the welfare
state is crumbling, Reformers believe that we can work together
to build a better and stronger way to provide for ourselves
during times such as unemployment and retirement.
Today we place before the House a motion which addresses
this vitally important issue of how best to preserve and protect
the personal security of Canadians:
That, this House urge the government to recognize that the present social
programs are failing and to investigate more secure options such as the
Registered Personal Security Plan (RPSP), a system of personalized,
tax-sheltered, RRSP-like savings accounts to which Canadians could
contribute funds to be drawn during periods of unemployment, for personal
upgrading/retraining and for retirement income.
The Reform Party unveiled its registered personal security
plan proposal in our taxpayers budget which we released on
February 21 of this year. This was as a direct result of a
resolution passed by Reform members at our October 1994
assembly:
Resolved that the Reform Party investigate the feasibility of replacing the
compulsory, government operated, privately funded taxpayer subsidized
unemployment insurance program with a voluntary, personally financed,
privately administered, government regulated registered unemployment savings
plan.
Since then we have begun the process of discussion and
consultation necessary to examine and test the idea both with
experts and in the public arena. Through that process we will
expand and refine our proposal and determine whether there is
support for moving toward this entirely new way of meeting our
personal security needs.
The first question Canadians watching this debate will ask is:
what is an RPSP or registered personal security plan? Simply
put, an RPSP gives us instead of government ownership and
control of the moneys we pay into UI and CPP.
The second question Canadians might ask is: why do we need
to change; what is the problem with the unemployment
insurance program and the Canada pension plan we have now? I
suspect that a lot of Canadians have already figured out the
answer to this question.
They have seen the report that the CPP fund will run out of
money in 20 years. They heard the finance minister in his budget
promising a paper on the changes required in the public pension
system to ensure its affordability. They know this means
something is deeply wrong. It is the same sinking feeling they
get when the doctor says: ``We need to do a few more tests''.
The finance minister also cut unemployment benefits. Of
course this was all carefully worded by Liberal spin doctors. The
cuts were styled as ``unemployment insurance reform'' which
``will reduce the overall size of the unemployment insurance
program by a minimum of 10 per cent''.
In spite of this 10 per cent reduction in benefits, Canadian
workers will still hand over the same amount of money to the
government. The Liberal spin doctors dress this up by promising
no increase in premium rates. One would hope not, considering
the benefits are being cut.
It would have been more honest for the finance minister to
come right out and say that benefits would be cut by 10 per cent
or more. In spite of the coy wording, Canadians figured out that
they are getting a smaller benefit for the same money. They
10648
worry that it will shrink a lot more as the government sinks
deeper into debt.
Over the past 30 years Canadians have been promised that
government will meet the lion's share of their most important
security needs, but there is increasing evidence that these
promises cannot and will not be kept. Our compulsory
contributions to government programs have not guaranteed us
anything. We are living on borrowed money and mortgaging our
children's future to pay for government programs that are
simply not working. We would all like to hope that these
problems will somehow disappear but in our hearts we know
they will not.
(1010)
Government pension plans as currently constituted do not
enhance social security. They pour it down the drain. The
government as a pension manager is like an alchemist who can
only change gold into lead.
There is something else to consider. Even if we were not
losing programs, there are harmful social consequences from
encouraging people to depend on government for their personal
security. Canadians have a proud tradition of self-reliance,
caring for our families and helping those less fortunate.
Many of our citizens have a strong desire to take back control
of their resources, their futures and their own welfare. They are
willing to be self-reliant and to show compassion for the needy.
All they ask is that they be able to keep more of what they earn
and that government exercise careful stewardship of necessary
tax dollars.
If we move from failing social programs to a new plan, what
will be the benefit? The greatest benefit is that your money will
go into your own registered personal security plan, RPSP. The
money is yours. The interest or profit from the investment of
that money is yours. If you die, your loved ones get it. It is your
property and your ownership of it does not depend on the
management skills or financial health of government.
CPP and UIC turn taxes that are too high into benefits that are
too small. The RPSP turns taxes into productive investments and
productive investments back into social security. In addition,
there are tremendous financial advantages to this type of plan.
Assume that an employee contributes five per cent to an RPSP
account monthly, matched by five per cent from his employer.
This is about the same amount as the present combined CPP and
UI contributions. The employee works from age 20 to age 65.
Also assume a moderate investment return of 8 per cent interest
compounded quarterly.
A worker earning only $1,000 per month or only $12,000 per
year would retire on $3,432 per month before tax for the rest of
his life and would leave an inheritance of $514,812 for his
family or other beneficiaries. This is someone who earns only
$1,000 per month. No doubt this will be astonishing to many
people because they have not realized how much more they
could receive under an RPSP fund than under the government
CPP and UI programs.
Let us look at what an average Canadian wage earner could
expect from an RPSP. Someone earning $30,000 or $2,500 per
month would retire on $8,580 per month before tax and would
leave an inheritance of $1,287,031. Nothing like getting a huge
raise when you retire.
The Reform Party will be providing Canadians with tables of
such returns for different levels of income which demonstrate
why they deserve a whole new system to ensure personal
security.
Canada lags behind other countries when it comes to moving
toward more rewarding and effective measures in this all
important area.
A system similar to the RPSP plan was successfully
implemented in the United Kingdom in 1978. Current
pensioners were made secure at existing levels of benefits,
while future pensioners were given a chance to move into the
more attractive retirement option.
Britain's long term pension liability was reduced by more
than 30 per cent in the first three years alone of the opting out
plan's operation. This guaranteed that future taxpayers will not
be overburdened as British baby boomers began to retire.
(1015 )
Chile successfully privatized its pension system more than 15
years ago, in 1981. Like Canada, an increasing number of
Chileans were retired compared to citizens still in the
workforce. The level of seniors' benefits was exceeding the
level of contributions and, like Canada's CPP, Chile's pension
plan was a pay as you go scheme.
Because the scheme was broke, Chile moved to a mandatory
savings plan requiring employees to place a minimum of 10 per
cent of their taxable income into tax sheltered individual
retirement accounts managed by competing private sector
financial managers.
The results have been remarkable. Private savings in Chile
rose from 2.8 per cent of GDP in 1980 to 14.3 per cent in 1991.
Very importantly, they have provided investment capital which
has been pivotal in the near-miraculous financial renewal of
Chile's economy.
I believe that the experiences of the U.K. and Chile provide
evidence that there would be tremendous advantages to our own
country in looking for similar, innovative solutions to some of
the worrisome uncertainties about our own personal security
which we see looming on the horizon.
These are some further benefits we see to moving our UI and
CPP contributions into our own personal RPSPs. First, working
Canadians would be gradually relieved of the burden of paying
10649
government pensions to those who are retired. As our population
ages there will be far fewer working Canadians shouldering the
cost of the benefit seniors have been promised.
In just 20 years the number of seniors will have increased by
40 per cent. At that time working Canadians will be trying to
ensure their own personal security, pay staggering yearly
interest rates on the debt we have run up, will still have our debt
hanging around their necks like a millstone and, in addition, will
be asked to pay our seniors' benefits since nothing has been
saved up for that purpose.
Not only do we have an obligation to relive them of that
burden to the greatest extent possible, we should ask ourselves
whether it is fair that they should be asked to carry such an
onerous and unfair load on our behalf. We would be wise to see
this coming and fix the problem while we still can.
Second, RPSPs would provide Canadians with much greater
retirement income than do the present plans. For example, a
Canadian born in 1960 would receive only $2.60 for every dollar
paid into CPP. For a Canadian born in 1980 the return drops
dramatically to only 80 cents per dollar paid in, a dead loss.
By contrast, moneys invested in an RPSP at even 5 per cent
interest would yield an average lifetime return of $3 for every
dollar invested. CPP is misnamed. It is not a pension plan but a
tax to redistribute income from workers to retirees. If it were a
true pension plan, properly invested, it would not be in trouble,
it would be rich.
Third, rolling UI premiums into RPSPs would provide
substantially more security to the unemployed while also
creating an incentive to remain employed. Canadians would
have far greater control over their own unemployment income.
They would have the security of knowing that their premiums
are a long term, personal investment even if they are never
unemployed.
The Canadian Institute of Actuaries has shown that after only
eight years, UI contributions administered through an RPSP
would provide the same level of benefits as the maximum under
the current UI program. Of course in subsequent years the rate of
growth in the RPSP rapidly out performs the return from
premiums paid into the current UI program. In addition, workers
would have the enormous satisfaction of control and
responsibility for personal well-being.
Fourth, seniors could continue to earn income without having
their retirement benefits clawed back as happens today with
OAS.
Fifth, RPSPs would benefit the poor. Because UI and CPP
contributions are taken off the top of their pay cheques low
income Canadians do not have anything left to put into personal
savings. Under the Reform RPSP, payroll deductions from CPP
and UI would gradually be transformed into automatic payments
into each individual's RPSP. This means that many working
class Canadians would be able to own a personal security
account for the first time ever.
(1020)
Sixth, moving into RPSPs would generate an enormous pool
of capital for productive investment in our country, resulting in
a host of new employment opportunities. This would create far
more jobs than government spending ever could. Although
RPSP managers should be able to invest in government bonds at
their own discretion, we would recommend that RPSP moneys
should not be accessible by government.
Seventh, these personal security funds would be owned
outright by Canadians as their personal property. They would
not be vulnerable to government mismanagement or
squandering. Prudent regulations would ensure sound
investments managed by reputable firms. People do not want
their retirement savings put into fur-bearing trout farms.
Eighth, RPSPs would allow and encourage Canadians to free
themselves from disabling and uncertain dependence on
government and government bureaucracy. A return to the ethic
of self-reliance would enrich the spirit and vigour of citizens
and the country as a whole.
We have begun the work of researching details which need to
be addressed. We want to make the transition from the current
unsustainable programs to personal RPSPs in a way which
protects those already receiving benefits under the old plans. To
achieve that we anticipate a long phase in period. We will decide
whether any changes to the tax system are needed to move to
RPSPs and we will demonstrate how a new direction in personal
security will also benefit the poor in society.
Also to be explored is whether the RPSP should be expanded
to provide a savings component to fund education and training
and other security needs.
As the Reform Party continues to expand this new personal
security concept, it will consult with a broad cross section of
knowledgeable Canadians, including tax experts, actuaries,
investment managers and technical researchers. It will also find
a variety of ways to provide information to Canadians to
encourage discussion and ensure an informed debate and
decision at the end of the process.
This will include surveying citizens on what they need and
want; holding open public meetings to present the concept and
hear from Canadians; and creating a concrete proposal
summarizing all the research and consultation, which Canadians
will be able to judge.
In our view it is critical that we move now to carefully
examine the issue of our personal security and options for the
future. With every passing year the transition to a better and
more workable solution becomes more difficult. This is because
our population is aging rapidly. In addition, as our debt balloons
and interest payments consume more and more of the national
10650
wealth every year, we lose needed financial flexibility to protect
Canadians who already have retired or are nearing retirement.
The World Bank has also pointed out the urgent need to face
the imminent problems of our old age security system. Just a few
months ago in its report ``Averting the Old Age Crisis'' the
World Bank urged countries with rapidly aging populations and
costly welfare state social programs to shift to greater
self-reliance and individual initiatives to meet personal security
needs.
It is abundantly clear that all Canadians and especially their
elected leaders and representatives need to take thoughtful and
vigorous action to protect our future personal security and they
must do so now. We are dismayed to see the Liberal government
bitterly divided on where to take the country when it comes to
this important issue. It has utterly failed to bring forward
promised proposals for change.
It is disturbingly clear that the people in charge have
absolutely no vision for constructive change to a crumbling
social system. Canadians desperately need such a vision. They
need hope that there is a way to deal with the disaster they see
looming ahead and which they know will rob them of the
security and protection that every single individual needs and
expects.
It is for this reason that the Reform Party is doing everything
it can to fill that need for our citizens. This is why it has come
forward to introduce a proposal which it believes will provide a
positive and beneficial solution to give hope to Canadians on
this critical issue.
The experience of other countries in the world, the
recommendations of experts and analysts and just plain common
sense all lead to the conclusion that a dollar left in the hands of a
mother, a father, a family, a student, a senior, a caring and
compassionate Canadian is more productive and will provide far
greater personal security than a dollar left to be managed by the
federal government. Let us get on with the job.
(1025)
I appeal to Canadians everywhere to examine the emerging
concept of the registered personal security plan. Work together
with us to shape its direction and determine its details. Do
everything you can to ensure that your elected representatives
support more workable and effective ways for you to manage
your hard earned dollars, to provide needed security for yourself
and your family.
I say to Canadians, it is your money, it is your country, it is
your future. Reformers believe that registered personal security
plans ought to be a part of that future but the status quo will
never change unless we work together to make it happen.
I ask for your support as we move to find better alternatives
for Canadians in the 21st century.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with attention to the proposals of the
member across the way.
It seems to me it is the Reform Party that is divided all over
the map. The leader of the Reform Party is in Washington trying
to distance himself a little from the right wing agenda.
Meanwhile, Reform minions in Ottawa are still talking about the
old agenda prior to his departure to Washington where he had
somewhat of a conversion although we are not holding our
breath in that regard.
I want to ask a question of the member under whose name that
motion is today about the registered personal security plans that
that party is offering as an alternative to Canadian social
programs.
Does she not think there is something deficient in social
programs where we do not have the advantages of pooled risk
that we have when society as a whole takes care of social
programs?
We cannot put money away unless we have money to start
with. Our RRSPs are a form of tax shelter. In order to have a tax
shelter, we must have money to shelter away to start with.
For people who do not have that, does the hon. member feel
they should be condemned to a life of poverty? Does she not
think as I do that instead we should have programs to enable
people to have better futures, to enable people regardless of
their socioeconomic background to improve in life?
Not all of us were born with gold spoons in our mouths.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear that the
Liberals are extremely worried about the fact that our leader is
making an extremely positive impact in the country to the south
of us. They know that Canadians also are waking up to the
common sense, workability and hope that the Reform program
offers. I know they are worried. They are trying to tear that down
every chance they get, but Canadians are not going to be fooled.
If there were such great advantages to the pooled risks that the
member suggests are present in our present programs, why is the
benefit of these programs continually being eroded? The
government said barely a week ago that unemployment
insurance benefits would be cut by 10 per cent or more. Where is
the great advantage to the pooled risk there?
This member says: ``What about people without no money to
squirrel away?'' We are talking about how to manage the money
we do put away better, UI premiums and CPP premiums. Most
Canadians pay those, especially at some point in their life. They
10651
are being terribly mismanaged and wasted by the government
programs that this member is trying to defend.
It is time Canadians woke up and started doing something
better and safer with their money. We are proposing a plan to do
that. We believe we will be supported by Canadians.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at my
town hall meetings in Edmonton East over the past year-we
have had many of them-talking about these kinds of reforms,
this idea has never come forward. I guess the reason that it did
not is that many in society are unable to save.
(1030)
I see some real discrepancies. For instance, only 14 per cent of
tax filers with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000 can make
RRSP contributions. How will these people be able to make the
savings that are requested? There are other discrepancies as
well: 70 per cent of those with incomes above $80,000
contribute to RRSPs.
How can people who earn lower incomes prepare for potential
catastrophic events?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised the idea has
never come forward in Liberal meetings. It takes leadership to
provide new ideas and that is exactly what is missing from the
government.
I wish the member had listened to my speech. It would have
helped her a great deal. In the speech I noted that workers
earning only $1,000 a month, which is the working poor, by
investing their UI and CPP forced contributions in RPSPs,
would retire under the plan with $3,432 per month before tax.
That is what will benefit the poor. No wonder they have no
ability to save now. They are forced to pay these moneys to the
government, which are mismanaged and poured down the drain.
They have nothing left to save.
Why not let them keep their money and save it for this kind of
return? It would be a tremendous advantage to the working poor.
I believe the member will see that and support it if she examines
the proposal objectively.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I sat here in utter amazement as I listened to the
hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell ask how people
were going to squirrel money away when they do not have any
money.
That Liberal member could have answered his own question.
He knows very well that over 60 per cent of the income of
average working middle class Canadians is being paid out in
taxes of all forms. It was a predecessor Liberal government that
started the deficit and debt spending which was carried on by the
Tory Party. Now we have almost a $500 billion debt and we are
servicing that debt with about a $45 billion interest payment. If
the incompetence of the Liberal Party back in the mid-seventies
had not started this downward slide, Canadian taxpayers would
have money left in their paycheques to provide for their own
personal security.
It goes back to what we have been saying. It is not fiscally
responsible MPs like the Reformers that are the biggest threat to
social programs. It is the incompetence of previous
governments and the high taxes we pay in the country.
The Deputy Speaker: I am not sure those remarks were
aimed at the member who was speaking.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in
the House to debate the hon. member's motion. The hon.
member says our social security programs are failing. I fail to
see how the hon. member arrived at that conclusion.
Before we began reviewing our social security system we
heard from Canadians loud and clear. They wanted us to retain
these programs, programs that are interwoven into the social
fabric of Canada. That hardly suggests failure. It does not mean,
however, that Canadians thought we should just leave them as is.
The government recognized social security programs have
served us well for many years but that it was time for an
overhaul. It was time to make them relative to the needs of the
population of the 1990s. That is why we undertook, with the
support of the majority of Canadians, the first step in the process
of social security reform.
Hon. members are well aware that we carried out massive
consultations across the country. The Minister of Human
Resources Development and the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development listened to the views of Canadians from
all walks of life. More than 600 groups expressed their opinions
on social security reform.
(1035)
To break it down briefly for hon. members, 20,000 Canadians
took part in more than 200 town hall meetings held by MPs from
all parties. More than 40,000 people completed and returned
social security reform workbooks. We held a series of seminars
where there was broad public discussion in 25 communities
across the nation. The Minister of Human Resources
Development has received more than 3,000 letters from citizens
expressing their views on social security reform. Over 7,000
people have accessed the minister's Internet bulletin board on
social security reform and more than 35,000 people have called
the social security reform hotline to request information or
material.
Hon. members will also recall that some of the hearings were
rambunctious affairs, to say the least. While it is true that those
who voice strong opinions may indicate disagreement with
some program policy, one thing it certainly does not indicate is
10652
complacency. Canadians care about their social security
programs.
The government realizes it must move ahead with social
security reform in a timely and orderly fashion. The budget
confirms this point. We know from the excellent budget
presented by the Minister of Finance, a budget that is getting
higher ratings than ``Hockey Night in Canada'', that Canadians
agree reform of our social security system is moving in the right
direction.
We said from the beginning that meaningful social security
reform could only take place in the context of a responsible
fiscal framework. The budget has given us that framework. The
budget clarifies that effective reform of our social security
programs is absolutely essential, given that we must operate
with limited financial resources. Let me put to rest the
unfounded rumours that social security reform is dead. It is
anything but dead.
Here is where we are at. We have completed the very
successful consultation process. The government is now
studying the excellent report of the standing committee. Now
that the budget has given us the fiscal parameters within which
to operate, the next phase is to carefully develop an overall
design.
In other words, it is time for the architecture. The architecture
comes before we start rebuilding the programs. It is a logical
process. We need to develop a new structure before we abandon
the old or the current one. A key part of the process will be
consultations between the Minister of Human Resources
Development and the provinces. These consultations will seek
to establish national principles.
The government believes that Canadians are equal in every
part of this great nation. We will strive to ensure that national
principles apply to social security programs for all citizens.
Canadians told us that one of the key areas for reform was the
unemployment insurance program. Using the input we have
received we intend to develop proposals for the UI program that
take into account the views of hardworking men and women.
We have already begun to act. Hon. members will recall that
the government had enough foresight last year to make
provisions that began January 1 of this year. If the government
had not acted, UI premiums would have risen to $3.30. Instead
they were reduced to $3. It is estimated that the payroll tax relief
will create or preserve 40,000 jobs. We will be able to put
additional savings from UI reform toward improved
employment development services.
There is more good news on the reduction of UI premiums.
The economy is performing extremely well and we have every
reason to believe it will continue to do so. For that reason we
expect to reduce premiums again, possibly next year but
certainly by 1997. I want to stress, however, that the government
has not yet determined the amount of any cut to the premium
rate. The figures we read in the press are only forecasting
estimates.
We plan to move ahead with UI reform this fall. As the budget
clearly stated, we intend to have new UI legislation in effect no
later than July 1, 1996. It is true that we are shooting for at least
a 10 per cent target reduction in program expenditure. How fast
we reach that target will depend upon the continued good health
of the economy. It will depend upon program details that UI
officials are currently working on.
While reform of the social security system is an ongoing
process, we know it will function more effectively and with
significantly reduced administrative costs as part of the new
Canada social transfer. The popularity of the budget tells me that
Canadians are very excited about the innovative possibilities
and the flexibility that the provinces will have to address the
needs of their particular residents under CST.
(1040)
Again I stress national principles and objectives will be very
much a part of the new Canada social transfer. The Minister of
Human Resources Development will be inviting all provincial
governments to work together on developing a set of shared
principles and objectives to provide a solid framework for the
new CST. This is one way that all governments can reaffirm their
commitment to the social well-being of Canadians.
I think all hon. members will agree that the best form of social
security is a well paying, rewarding job. Social security reform
is very much a part of the government's job and growth agenda.
With that in mind the Minister of Human Resources
Development is bringing together the current programs that
support Canadians in preparing for and attaining employment.
They will be consolidated into a new human resources
investment fund. The fund will pool resources from existing
programs to develop a more coherent approach, establish
priorities and make use of the best tools available to ensure
Canadian workers find stable employment.
The human resources investment fund will take a hard look at
the role of the federal government. We will ask ourselves what
we should be doing and determine the best way to eliminate
overlap and duplication. Streamlining and consolidation will
mean some savings in the coming two fiscal years. The result
will be that federal employment related programs will make the
most efficient use of available resources.
The new programming will recognize clear and distinct roles
for the federal government and the provinces. We will
co-operate with the provinces to deliver services effectively and
at the lowest cost possible to Canadian taxpayers. Together we
can
10653
ensure that Canadians are capable of functioning at a high level
in the rapidly expanding global economy.
We all know that today's motion is based on the ill conceived
quasi-budget of the Reform Party and that document in turn
owed more than a little to the Reform minority report on social
security reform which contained proposals that the member
proposing today's motion conceded were not thought through
very well before they were rushed into print.
I am most concerned by the Reform's so-called proposals.
After examining them it is clear to me that these are old
knee-jerk ideas that would move us backward, not forward. I
cannot see how Reform's proposals would help Canadians find
meaningful employment and reduce social ills such as child
poverty.
The Reform Party has come up with the catchy title
``Taxpayers' Budget''. However when Canadian taxpayers get a
close look at it they will see that if we adopted it taxpayers are
the ones who would be snagged.
First let us look at the subject of today's motion, the
registered personal security plan or RPSP. As I understand it,
Reform wants to replace UI, OAS, CPP and some health,
education and training programs with an individually based
savings plan. This means that when sickness or unemployment
strike or when they take their retirement, Canadians will be
expected to rely on their own means and the risk pooling
features of our current social programs would disappear.
Obviously lower income Canadians would be much more
adversely affected by the proposal. I can see nothing in it except
for the very well off who would have yet another instrument for
feathering their nest egg.
Next let us take Reform's proposals for UI. The party suggests
cutting $3.4 billion from the UI program. That is easy to do on
paper but the result in real terms would phase out maternity,
parental and sickness benefits as well as the fishermen's
program. The measure alone would take away maternity
benefits from more than 160,000 new mothers, sickness benefits
from 150,000 workers who are temporarily unemployed, and
badly needed benefits for 30,000 fishermen.
Who will shoulder the burden to help these individuals?
Removing regional benefits would affect 1.3 million
unemployed workers, which is more than 50 per cent of UI
claimants. The Reform Party would slash income support by
$4.5 billion. This blanket insensitive approach would drain
billions out of the provincial economies-hardly what I would
call a responsible move.
This is not what Canadians want. As I have already outlined
the government intends to revitalize its UI program. We need to
look carefully at how and why people use unemployment
insurance and then make adjustments accordingly. We will not
wipe out key social benefits like those for maternity leave.
(1045)
The Reform Party tries to put forward a social conscience
with its principle of equality contributions. Its taxpayers'
budget states the burden of reduction must fall least heavily on
the most vulnerable members of society.
There is no doubt that all hon. members share those
sentiments. The trouble is Reform's proposals would have
exactly the opposite effect. Instead of helping those most in
need, the taxpayers' budget would cut seniors' pensions by $3
billion. How will this measure help vulnerable seniors meet the
cost of living?
Reform also proposes that the government eliminate all
regional differentiation. How will this help the poorest regions
of the country? It also suggests cutting aboriginal programs by
24 per cent. Someone will have to explain to me how this
measure will help our aboriginal brothers and sisters who are
quite possibly the neediest group in Canada.
The Reform Party's budget suggests cutting the Canada
assistance plan transfer payments by 34 per cent and
equalization payments by $3 billion, a 35 per cent cut. If the
government did that I acknowledge it would certainly lessen the
burden on federal coffers. Unfortunately it would devastate the
poorest regions of the country. It would place the burden of
deficit reduction on the most vulnerable members of society. It
would contradict Reform's stated philosophy.
Cuts like these would not renew our social security system.
They would outright destroy it. Reform's approach to deficit
reduction is simply reckless. It is easy to be reckless when one is
not in the driver's seat.
What about the proposal to slash $3 billion from seniors'
pensions? The Reform does not provide any details on this
proposal maybe because if it had done so it would have had to
tell elderly Canadians that more than half of them would see
their benefits cut and low income seniors would be among the
losers.
The government's approach is to review the needs of seniors
into the next century and determine how best to meet those
needs. We are not saying there should be no changes. We have
never said that. However, a responsible government examines
the repercussions of changes before taking action, and that is
what we are doing.
Reform wants to replace old age security and the Canada
pension plan with an RRSP and registered personal security plan
system. The concept has already been tried in the United States.
It is called a personal bank account. It actually works very well
provided one is fortunate enough to be wealthy. Those less
fortunate are out in the cold.
The Liberal Party's policy is for a sound and efficient income
system that provides a balance between public pensions and
private arrangements. In other words, the government's
philoso-
10654
phy on retirement combines realism with compassion,
something the Reform Party should thing about.
The Reform Party should also think its proposals through
before presenting them and should come clean on how much
impact it would have on the lives of Canadians and the social
fabric of this great nation.
The government certainly welcomes constructive suggestions
from hon. members on the opposite side of the House. The
proposals we see in the Reform Party's taxpayers' budget are so
poorly thought out that it simply does not give us anything valid
to work with.
The popularity of the budget by the Minister of Finance
speaks for itself. Canadians recognize that in order to retain
strong, viable social programs we have to find the financial
resources to fund them. That is why Canadians support the
direction the government is taking. With the Canada social
transfer we are entering a new era of social policy that will
streamline our social security system and bring us into the 21st
century.
As a nation that enjoys one of the highest standards of living,
there is no doubt in my mind Canadians reject the simplistic
notion embodied in today's motion. They know the government
is committed to the renewal of Canada's great legacy of social
programs. I am sure they share my belief that the Reform Party
is in no position to enact the motion before us today.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to this speech. There were a couple of anomalies within
it which we should think about.
(1050 )
She indicated this was an old thinking, knee-jerk reaction. To
me that is an oxymoron. Knee-jerk is something not thought of
before.
The principles we are espousing are based on both experience
and thinking. We have found the country did best when there was
the least amount of government, when there was less intrusion.
To now say we should once again use those principles of
self-sufficiency and encourage people to look after themselves
and making it possible for them to do that is not knee-jerk. That
is good, solid thinking.
The member said Canadians reject this. She said that several
times. That is not my experience. I have shared this concept with
a number of people for over a year. I am pleased the ideas we had
are now coming forward in the House. I have yet to hear a single
person indicate anything but enthusiasm for this concept.
With respect to the reduction of old age security benefits, the
member made mention that Reform is saying we are going to cut
back. I want to make it very clear, I want everyone to know we
are forced into this, not by what Reform is doing but what
governments over the last 30 years have done. We have run out
of money and the Reform policy is to target the remaining
money, as little as there is, to those who have true need.
When we are talking about reducing old age security, we are
talking about reducing to those who do not need it because they
have an income over the national average.
We would be most honest with Canadians if we were to say the
Canada pension plan is at risk because we will not have the
money. That is the result of Liberal and Conservatives
governments. That has to come to an end.
Ms. Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not heard the
Prime Minister mention on several occasions that the taxpayers'
budget proposed by the Reform Party has forgotten to take into
account that our population is aging. The costs of old age
security for our seniors will rise every year. It is not in the
Reform budget. Maybe the member should take a look at that
part and think it through.
The Reform Party constantly claims over and over again that
it represents the people, the interests of Canadians and listens to
polls and to to Canadians. When 80 per cent of Canadians
respond telling us they support public programs for elderly care,
does that not send a message to the Reform Party? It should send
a message to a party that claims to represent the people. When it
hears that 77 per cent support public programs for child care and
other programs, does that not send a message? I would think it
sends a message.
I would ask the Reform Party to take a look at our budget. Our
budget talks about the problems we are going to face. It talks
about the fact that we have to deal with old age security and all
of our social programs, especially relating to our seniors. The
budget has the foresight to deal with that.
Perhaps the Reform Party should actually read the budget.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, our budget does take into account the fact that the
population is aging and that our social programs are
unsustainable.
The hon. member should realize that in a few short years we
will be paying up to 15 per cent of our income into the pension
fund alone to meet the expectations of those retiring in a short
time.
The member said social security programs are anything but
dead. The studies by the Liberal government show the pension
plan is in big trouble. There is less than two years of funds in the
pension fund for payouts. The liability in this fund is about as
great as our national debt, at over $500 billion. That is the
liability in this fund.
(1055 )
This does not give Canadians security. It should be
immediately obvious to everyone in the House when you have
that kind of liability it is not sustainable, the opposite of
security.
10655
If individuals had been contributing into a self-managed
fund, they would now have more security. The proposal we are
putting forward gives the poor people a lot more security than
they presently have with the mismanaged pension fund run by
the government.
Does the hon. member feel it is worth exploring a means by
which we could make a transition from the present
unsustainable system to a more secure system that gives
individuals more control over their future? Does she not think
this concept is worth exploring?
Ms. Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member was not
listening. In the budget the finance minister talked about the fact
that we need to review our programs for our seniors.
We have a system in Canada developed by Liberals, a system
that met the needs of the 1960s and the 1970s when it was
introduced; a system we are trying to up date that will meet the
needs of the 1990s and the 21st Century. That is what this
Liberal government does and that is what this Liberal
government is about. That is what we will do.
The hon. member is not aware, obviously, how programs work
in other countries. I am very familiar with how they work. I have
an aunt who lives in the United States. I know what happens
when you become a senior citizen. I know what happens to
programs you have paid into for four years and benefits that are
cut off over time. I understand how that system works because I
live with that system every day due to a family member who has
an illness.
I ask the Reform Party to do a little research into its
suggestions before it puts them forward and that it realize what
the Liberal government is trying to do.
We recognize things have to change. We started the social
security reform and we started the human resources
consultations over a year ago. Members on that side took part in
them. We are not afraid of that. We are aware of that. We
mentioned in the red book that we would deal with the systems
and that we would make changes and that is what we are going to
do.
The Speaker: It being almost 11 a.m. we will now go to
Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
10655
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier this week a young man in my riding, while
driving at night, was in collision with a trailer portion of a
tractor trailer which had turned across the highway. He had no
chance to apply the brakes and hit the trailer squarely in front of
the rear wheels. The crash impact squashed the roof of the car
flat and it took a crane to free it from underneath the trailer.
Firemen who arrived at the scene did not believe that anyone
could have survived. Inside the wreckage, jammed beneath an
air bag and squeezed on all sides by twisted metal, 18 year old
Jeremy Freiburger still lived. Not only did he still live, but when
at last he was cut out of the vehicle by the jaws of life, he was
uninjured, save for a few cuts and bruises.
His parents were ecstatic with joy. Let this story remind us
that life is precious and miracles do happen.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today, March 17, is St. Patrick's Day and we want to
share the pride of those hundreds of thousands of Canadians and
Quebecers of Irish descent whose ancestors left their country in
often difficult circumstances to find a new home among us.
With the intermingling of people over time, many of us now
have friends and relatives of Irish origin. Their presence has
enriched our lives and our societies.
We salute the invaluable contribution of the Ryans, Lanigans,
Regans, O'Reillys, Johnsons, Kirkpatricks, Rowans and many
others to the development of Quebec and Canada.
Happy St. Patrick's Day everybody!
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
British Columbia we have just completed multicultural week, a
week of immersion into the understanding of other cultures, a
week of sharing with people of all backgrounds.
Next week on March 21, British Columbia and the rest of
Canada will celebrate International Day for the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination. On March 21, 1966 in South Africa, a
group of people holding a peaceful march were shot at and
killed.
[Translation]
March 21 has therefore been designated by the United Nations
as International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination. Next week, all Canadians will celebrate that
day with special ceremonies, and people of all cultures will meet
again to learn from one another.
Today, despite the visibility of human rights at the
international level, too many tragedies occur throughout the
world and discrimination continues to exist.
10656
[English]
Let us hope that events like International Day for the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination and Multicultural Week
will help with the respect of human rights all over the world and
bring peace.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the type of labour management crisis crippling
Canada's shipping industry happens all too frequently. This has
to be prevented in the future.
This objective can be achieved without labour legislation.
The government only has to declare existing railbeds a common
carrier accessible to any railroad company. As a result, shippers
can switch from the use of struck railroads to others that are still
operating.
In addition, the government should remove all restrictions on
the use of shipping routes. As a result, if the docks in one city are
tied up in a labour dispute, docks in other cities can be used.
Under these conditions, labour disputes in the shipping
industry will become extremely rare. The employers and
workers know well what the market will bear. Industries hitherto
protected from competition by government granted monopolies
and regulation are exposed to the healthy winds of competition.
They can no longer hold the Canadian public ransom.
I personally urge the Minister of Transport to propose such
legislation and deregulation. It can be enacted quickly.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the finance
minister for a budget that keeps Canadian small businesses
competitive.
In my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka as in the rest of the
country, small business ventures are often the key to the
economy. This budget encourages small business growth. It
encourages job creation. It encourages prosperity.
The recent budget is but one part of our government's strategy
of jobs and growth. It is already paying dividends. Let us look at
some examples.
First, the value of manufacturing shipments was $33.1 billion
in January, up 25 per cent in just one year. Second, Statistics
Canada's index of leading economic indicators, a measure of
future economic growth, was up .5 per cent in February. Third,
the manufacturing sector in February created over 53,000 new
jobs.
We have, as a government, been successful in creating a
climate in which small business can create jobs for Canadians.
The minister's budget will accelerate-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a while ago, Air Canada put ads in major Canadian
newspapers, inviting anyone interested in a temporary or
permanent position in Toronto to apply.
The ad said that ideally candidates should speak English and
French as well as another language such as Japanese, Korean
and Mandarin, but that Air Canada would consider applications
from individuals who spoke English and one of those other
languages.
Bloc members are appalled at Air Canada's move, relegating
the French language to a position of secondary importance, as in
fact the knowledge of English is the only qualification required
for the job.
Let us not forget that, despite privatization, Air Canada
remains subject to the Official Languages Act and, therefore, we
demand that the provision of the act guaranteeing the respect of
the French language be enforced.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a
member of Parliament for a rural riding in northern Ontario, I
am well aware of the great concern being expressed by the legal
gun owning community in regions all across Canada.
I have met with over 1,000 constituents on this matter and
have received an even greater number of letters and phone calls.
We can only conclude from this that we must find the proper
balance between rural and urban needs on the issue of crime
control through gun control.
I am calling on my colleagues who represent urban ridings to
hear the message from rural Canada that the law-abiding gun
owning community not be the victims under any new gun laws.
Rather, let us become partners in the fight against crime and
continue to create together the peaceful and secure country we
all want.
I will continue to bring forward the concerns of my
constituents. They deserve to be heard.
(1105)
I trust we can all work together to produce common sense
firearms measures so that just maybe we can put this issue to rest
once and for all. That is the goal I have set for myself as
Algoma's MP.
10657
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this statement was inspired by Professor Taylor
Buckner from Concordia University in his letter to the
Globe
and Mail on January 30.
In 1994 the RCMP reported there were 151 incidents of police
being accused of misusing confidential data. Further, the RCMP
were unable to stop this misuse. This is the same database in
which the justice minister proposes to list all firearms and their
owners.
The RCMP admission proves that the gun registry system
could be illegally accessed by criminals to quickly identify
those homes with guns and those without. If they want to steal
guns they will break into a gun owner's home while the owner is
away. If they want to steal valuables or just trash a house they
will break into the unarmed homes anytime they want.
Gun control makes crime easier for criminals, not harder.
Split Bill C-68 and give-
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to recognize in the House today Mr. Yude Henteleff
of Winnipeg who has been selected to receive a citation for
citizenship.
Mr. Henteleff's commitment to improving the lives of special
needs individuals has significantly enhanced the lives of many
in Manitoba.
As past president of the Learning Disabilities Association of
Canada, Mr. Henteleff has worked assiduously to ensure that
children and adults with disabilities receive the services they
require.
Mr. Henteleff's efforts in championing the human rights of
the mentally handicapped and promoting the integration of
disabled persons in our society are truly admirable and make
him more than deserving of the citation for citizenship.
On behalf of all my colleagues, I congratulate this man who is
making society better.
[Translation]
Hear, hear, Mr. Henteleff. Well done.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is March 17, St. Patrick's Day. There are two
types of people in the world: those who are Irish and those who
wish they were.
St. Patrick was famous for driving the snakes out of Ireland.
Prime Minister O'Chrétien is famous for driving the Tories out
of Ottawa.
Happy St. Patrick's Day from the Irish.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
his ruling concerning the question of privilege raised by the
Leader of the Official Opposition, the Speaker of the House of
Commons mentioned that he had found troubling anomalies in
the transcription of the deputy prime minister's comments.
It is unacceptable for members of this House, and especially
the deputy prime minister, to tamper with the transcription of
our deliberations in order to change the meaning of their public
statements.
This practice is all the more reprehensible-
The Deputy Speaker: Members are not permitted to
comment on the Speaker's rulings.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today our community mourns the death of a courageous woman.
Jill Brown was honoured in this city as a businesswoman, a
fundraiser and contributor to numerous charities, as a city
councillor, and as a wife and mother.
Yesterday Jill Brown ended her life as she lived it: spirited,
defiant, taking charge, refusing to let the leukaemia that had
devastated her for over a year decide the time of her death.
I shared with Jill the privilege of representing the people of
Britannia ward on city council. She came to know, love and
respect them. They in turn loved and respected her.
I convey to her family, her husband Brian, her children,
Shannon, Michael and Chris, our condolences.
* * *
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Natural Resources was quoted as saying that Ottawa
may not be able to tax crown owned utilities, but she would like
to hear ideas on how to put them on level ground with investor
owned electricity and natural gas utilities.
10658
(1110 )
I know for a fact that a coalition of privately owned utility
companies from across Canada sent this minister a copy of their
document entitled: ``Equitable Tax Treatment for Utilities in
Canada''. It represents a fair alternative that would increase the
utility costs by less than 1 per cent for all Canadians instead of a
7.5 per cent increase for Albertans and Nova Scotians as
proposed in the budget.
If the minister really is serious about fairness she would
seriously consider their ideas before she cuts the private utilities
income tax transfer. She would also advise the Minister of
Finance to commit to doing this when he meets with Calgary's
mayor today.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the member for Ottawa-Vanier I have the honour of
representing the University of Ottawa in this House. The
students' federation of the university is about to hold a
referendum on whether or not the students wish their campus to
maintain its membership in the Canadian Federation of
Students.
In its eagerness to have the university remain a member, the
CFS may have given the students less than completely accurate
information to encourage them to vote yes in the referendum.
The federation has claimed that it, the CFS, has forced the
Liberal government to stop the social security review.
The students of the University of Ottawa and students across
the country should know that the social security review is
moving forward. That means the government is still committed
to finding better ways of working, learning and providing
security for those in need of it.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
European Bank of Reconstruction and Development is about to
make a crucial decision about the financing of the Mochovce
nuclear power plant in Slovakia.
Expert sources indicate this nuclear reactor is neither
environmentally nor economically viable. Along with its
technical flaws and overall concern for safety, the energy output
of this nuclear reactor is not necessary to either the current or
future needs of the people of Slovakia.
The European parliament, many countries, and all major
environmental groups in Europe, the United States and Canada
are calling for a delay or cancellation of this nuclear project.
Furthermore, more than half the Slovakian population oppose
the construction of nuclear power plants.
For Canada to vote in favour of this project would not only
waste Canadian tax dollars in a very dangerous energy
megaproject but would also subject the people of Slovakia to a
huge debt load.
I urge the Government of Canada to vote against this proposal
and not waste Canadian tax dollars.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the House I asked for clarification from the
agriculture minister on exactly who the Crow payment is
intended to benefit: landowners or actual farmers. I did not
receive an answer to this very basic question. This is extremely
frustrating since western Canadian farmers have a number of
other questions they would like this government to answer as
well.
For example, is the purpose of the $1.6 billion payout to
compensate for losses in land value, or is it meant to be a
transition fund for farmers who have lost the Crow benefit but
are still shipping grain? What accommodations have been made
within the phase out plan for renters and lessors? How will the
money be paid to farmers? When can farmers expect to receive
the money? Specifically, what measures will be taken to allow
the system to become more efficient and to give farmers more
flexibility in marketing?
The government must not keep western Canadian farmers in
the dark on these issues any longer. Farmers must be able to plan
with certainty and recoup some of the losses which will result
from these cuts.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the turbot is a miserable looking little fish. Who in his
or her right mind would have ever thought it could have rallied
an entire nation and why? Because the latest pillaging of fish
stocks by Spanish trawlers has become the straw that has broken
the camel's back.
Enough is enough, say Canadians. Canadians right across this
country now realize that Newfoundland and Atlantic fishermen
and plant workers are the unwitting victims here, not the lazy
hangashores they have been portrayed as over the years.
The government of this country has finally done what any
government worth its salt should have done years ago when I
first raised the matter seven years ago in this House. For that, I
thank the Prime Minister for keeping his election promise on
this issue. I congratulate my friend and colleague, the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, for his handling of the issue.
10659
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Canada's
peacekeepers.
Since 1956 Canada has taken part in almost every United
Nations peacekeeping operation. With good reason Canadians
are proud of our participation in these forces. Since 1947 more
than 90,000 Canadians have participated in peacekeeping
missions.
(1115 )
As I speak more than 3,000 Canadians are currently deployed
somewhere in the world as part of peacekeeping operations.
These proud soldiers made up of part time reservists and full
time regulars have given Canada a proud name in this sphere.
In the former Yugoslavia alone more than 2,000 Canadians are
working in the most strenuous situations and are performing
admirably under the strain.
Over the period of three years approximately 300 of the
soldiers serving have been reservists. It is Canada's reserves
that are demonstrating the ultimate commitment in the battles of
patriotism and duty.
I salute the Canadians currently in peacekeeping operations.
Canada's great traditions of patience, forbearance and
commitment are safe in their hands.
_____________________________________________
10659
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the government. I do not know to whom it
is directed, but someone will surely rise to give an answer.
Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said that to avoid
patronage and prevent order in council appointments of friends
of the government, the government decided to abolish the
Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. That is
what she said, although it is rather surprising.
Considering the important role played by the Advisory
Council on the Status of Women, would the Deputy Prime
Minister or another member of the government not agree that it
was not absolutely unnecessary to abolish the council in order to
avoid partisan order in council appointments and that the
government should simply have opted for another appointment
process that would guarantee the arm's length position of the
members?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as part of our effort to have a government that is
efficient and effective and very conscious of expense, the
government has decided to merge these various programs under
the very capable leadership of the Secretary of State for the
Status of Women. I think this will turn out to be a very effective
use of the necessary resources.
The hon. member is always talking about the need to avoid
overlapping and duplication. I am surprised he is not praising
this initiative because it is exactly along the lines he is calling
for, the avoiding of overlapping and duplication.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure you understand why I will have to repeat my question. As
for eliminating duplication, there are whole federal departments
we could get rid of, not an advisory council that serves the status
of women, but whole departments that duplicate the work done
by provincial departments. We have a few suggestions for the
government if it needs some help in this area.
Are we to infer from what the Deputy Prime Minister said that
the committee appointed by the government to review the
CRTC's decision on direct tv broadcasting, consisting of
Gordon Ritchie, Roger Tassé and Robert Rabinovitch, is a
committee appointed by order in council, thus involving friends
of the government who are responsible for reaching a decision
where several billion dollars are at stake, a decision that
concerns all Canadians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member wants to be logical, but where is the
logic in his questions when he complains about our merging
women's programs and at the same time criticizes duplication
and overlap?
Once again, if the hon. member wants to be logical, I would
ask him to support our decision, so that women receive the kind
of support they need.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us
get this straight. We referred to a statement by the Deputy Prime
Minister in which she said that the Advisory Council on the
Status of Women was abolished because it was a hotbed of
patronage, because these were order in council appointments,
and that the best way to avoid that was to abolish the council.
That is what we are talking about.
That being said, since, as the Deputy Prime Minister
admitted, order in council appointments are partisan
appointments and cabinet still insists on appointing the
government's ethics counsellor, would the government not
agree that it should change its approach, act on the opposition's
request and have the
10660
ethics counsellor appointed by the House of Commons instead
of by order in council?
(1120)
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has been opposition House leader for
some time now. He should know that is not a supplementary
question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Again yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated the
following: ``Radio-Canada, my source, confirmed that no cuts
were announced. I assume this means no staff cuts or layoffs
have been decided''. However, all the papers announced
yesterday that 750 positions would be abolished at
Radio-Canada as the result of the cuts imposed by the
government.
Can the Minister of Finance confirm that Radio-Canada will
face cuts of $350 million over three years as Vice-President
Michèle Fortin reaffirmed on Monday?
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know
that Radio-Canada's management will be well able to meet this
challenge. No one here underestimates the challenges facing the
CBC. In the end, Canadians will continue to enjoy the high
quality broadcasting the CBC is famous for.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the Minister of Finance confirm that the government
had told the CBC that the cuts for the three coming years would
be $44 million, $96 million and $165 million, as Mr. Manera
informed us when he resigned? The Minister of Canadian
Heritage had refused to confirm those cuts.
[English]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member likes to speculate, and they do not make very good
gamblers.
Currently it is up to the CBC to determine the best way to
administer its limited resources within the financial realities
that exist.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have
trouble right here in Ottawa city; that starts with
t and it rhymes
with
e and that spells ethics.
All this week the Reform Party has been asking the Prime
Minister to direct the ethics counsellor to investigate the Canada
Post building contract and the influence of Jose Perez and
political officials in the tendering process. The Prime Minister
has refused our request on the grounds that these events took
place under a previous administration.
How would an investigation of the postal building contract
differ from the investigation of the Pearson airport contract
which also took place under a previous administration?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister pointed out that the ethics
counsellor had been appointed to review complaints about
ministers and other order in council appointees and possibly to
look into the matter of lobbyists. The matter raised by the hon.
member is not something for which the position of ethics
counsellor has been created.
I want to say to the hon. member that certainly, as the Prime
Minister said, it was something that took place under a previous
government. The Minister of Public Works who reports to
Parliament for Canada Post is reviewing the situation. I am sure
he will have more to say about it when he completes his review.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, irrespective of
the minister's answer, a number of serious issues need to be
addressed.
Developers need to be assured that Mr. Perez had no unfair
advantage. Taxpayers need to be assured that their money is
being spent correctly and wisely. Most of all, Canadians need to
be assured that either the politicians and bureaucrats did nothing
wrong, or if they did do something wrong that they will be
exposed.
I have a supplementary question. Will the government's
presumed commitment to restoring integrity in the political
institutions allow the ethics commissioner to investigate these
issues?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the estimates of Canada Post have been tabled before
the House and referred to the appropriate parliamentary
committee.
I suggest my hon. friend consider that the matter could well be
raised when the Canada Post estimates are studied by the
appropriate parliamentary committee. If my hon. friend is
concerned about a stronger role for committees, he might
examine this possibility.
10661
(1125 )
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, integrity is
missing; the perception of it is missing. This is not the first time
the Reform Party has asked for the ethics counsellor to
investigate issues on behalf of Canadians. Every time we get the
answer no. It seems the Prime Minister is only willing to unleash
his ethics lap dog when it is suitable to the government.
If the government is unwilling to let the ethics counsellor
investigate in matters of public contracts, why should Canadians
have any trust at all in the ethics counsellor of the lobbyists act?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think Canadians could ask why they should have any
confidence in the kinds of questions asked by the Reform
member when the facts are that the ethics counsellor has been
appointed to look into matters involving ministers and order in
council appointees, and when the Reform Party is not willing to
follow up my suggestion that the matter could be explored when
Canada Post estimates are being studied by the appropriate
parliamentary committee.
Where is their commitment to an effective operation of the
House of Commons and its committees?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Corporations de développement économique et
communautaire de Montréal, or CDECs, are funded by Ottawa,
Quebec and municipal governments. While the provincial and
municipal governments have committed themselves to funding
the corporations for the next three years, the Minister of Human
Resources Development will only guarantee funding for six
months. After this date, the department will no longer be
responsible for funding CDECs.
My question is the following: Are we to understand that, after
hitting the economy of Montreal so hard in the last budget, the
federal government will also refuse to commit to funding these
frontline economic development organizations for more than six
months?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that,
judging from how much the federal government has contributed
to various initiatives in Montreal, it is obvious that it plays a
very, very important role and we intend to continue to do so.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, given the critical role that these development
corporations play in job creation, will the minister responsible
for development in Quebec put an end right now to the
uncertainty and reassure the CDECs that the federal government
will sign the tripartite agreement already reached between the
three parties, and end the uncertainty and sign the agreement?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we indicated in our budget that we would review
various programs to make them more productive.
We also indicated that we would apply federalism by the
book, and spend our money in areas that fall squarely under the
federal government's jurisdiction. Furthermore, we have
created tens of thousands of jobs in Montreal and Quebec over
the past year. We will continue to support policies which
brought us such success in Quebec, and in the Montreal region in
particular.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to use an urgent situation in my own riding
to outline the impact of the CP Rail strike in many ridings both
urban and rural across the country.
Kootenay West-Revelstoke has a pulp mill and a smelter
both on the verge of complete shutdown because of the week old
rail strike. This will take $2.6 million a week out of an area of
less than 20,000 people. Not only is this financially devastating;
it is totally unnecessary.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. How much
economic pain and suffering has to be felt by innocent third
parties, everyone from factory workers to prairie farmers,
before the government takes its inevitable course of action?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that discussions are under way between
the parties. I also understand the railway is operating.
The hon. member has quite properly raised a very serious
situation. This is a message to the parties that they should get
down to business and reach an agreement.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 7,000 cargo containers are presently trapped at the port
of Montreal at a cost of more that $2 million a day.
10662
(1130 )
Once again business and individuals across the country are
being hurt by this situation, some nearly to the point of
bankruptcy. Ten days have now passed and the government has
done nothing, although it only took them only one day in
Vancouver.
Will the Minister of Labour who is an MP from Montreal take
action to end this senseless pain and economic hardship?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Labour, on behalf of the government, is
following the situation very closely.
The hon. member has quite properly raised a serious situation.
It is an indication why the parties-I understand they have
informal discussions under way-should turn them into full
collective bargaining and reach an agreement themselves as
quickly as possible, which is what they have done on every
occasion since 1975.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, but
I guess someone else will answer it. The Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration recently appointed Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury as
executive director of the Immigration and Refugee Board. In a
release confirming that appointment, the minister failed to
indicate that, at one time, Mr. Fleury worked for the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service.
How does the minister explain the fact that no mention
whatsoever was made of Mr. Fleury's managing responsibilities
within CSIS when he was appointed to the Immigration and
Refugee Board?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fleury is a career public
servant. He has worked in the public service for many years and
he continues to do so. The Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration appointed him to that very important position and I
do not see why the hon. member objects to that appointment,
given the mandate of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister admit that, through this appointment, he is indirectly
doing what his government refused to do directly and which he
strongly denounced when he sat in the opposition, namely to
link immigration to intelligence and national security issues?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fleury has been a public
servant since 1965. He worked in several departments and only
spent three years with CSIS.
I can understand that the hon. member sees a connection with
security issues. However, Mr. Fleury's record in the public
service clearly shows that he is a good public servant and that he
will definitely continue to provide quality services.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Six Nations Indian band in Ontario recently
filed a legal action against the province of Ontario and the
federal government seeking compensation for land, money from
land sales, revenue from mineral rights and compound interest
on any money owed.
This claim, which relates to all transactions in the province
since 1784, is estimated by one of the chiefs to be in the
neighbourhood of $400 billion.
I hope we get one clear answer from the government today.
Will the government or someone from the government confirm
to the Canadian taxpayer if the federal government has in fact
advanced any federal funds in support of this legal action?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will take the question under advisement. This is a
very specific question where a proper answer is needed. We will
get the details for the hon. member and give them to him as soon
as they are available.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would hope in the future we will get a proper
answer from the government regarding Indian affairs.
I anticipate we will hear no clear answer. I am surprised that
given the magnitude of the lawsuit, being $400 billion, that
someone has not been reached on that side of the House on this
question.
(1135 )
Can the Reform Party and Canadian taxpayers be assured that
a very clear and distinct answer will be given to this question?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
10663
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the President of the Treasury Board.
After denouncing last week the government's failure to tackle
waste in the public service, we must rise again today to
denounce the unfairness of the cuts. At this time, 14 per cent of
full time jobs in the public service are held by contract
employees without job security. These employees are generally
young graduates and the majority of them are women.
Does the President of the Treasury Board admit that most of
the cuts will affect contract employees and that we are thus
sacrificing a new generation of our most dynamic and youngest
employees?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in short, no. We are making the cuts according to the
programs and services we have reviewed. They are going to be
cut as part of our endeavours to get the deficit down and to cut
government expenditures.
It is the positions that are associated with those programs and
services that will be cut. Some of them will be long term
positions, some will be contractual positions. We will be
monitoring the entire situation to make sure that at the end of the
day after the cuts are made, we will still have a public service
that is able to provide the needs of Canadians in an efficient and
effective manner.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, women
represent 62 per cent of those full time contract employees who
will be affected by the cuts announced by the government. Does
the President of the Treasury Board confirm that these
downsizing measures will affect mainly women?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not believe so. We are going to monitor the
situation very carefully.
I have said, that these are positions related to certain
programs and services that are going to be cut as a result of
budget reduction measures. Treasury Board will be monitoring
them to try and ensure that we do not get into a disproportionate
situation for any one particular group and that we do maintain a
dedicated, professional public services that is able to provide
the services Canadians need.
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a number
of members from all parties and from all regions of Canada have
come together to form a sugar caucus to address the issue of
restrictions placed on Canadian sugar exports to the United
States.
Revenue Canada today announced that it is investigating
unfair trading practices of sugar exporters in the United States,
Europe and Korea. I am sponsoring legislation to address the
problems facing Canadian sugar workers and producers. All
members are pleased that the minister has launched this action.
Can the minister explain to the House the basis for the
investigation into the dumping and subsidization of sugar
imports and the benefits which the sugar producers can expect to
receive from this important action?
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
confirm that today the department initiated a dumping and
subsidy investigation into imports of sugar from Korea, the
European Union and the United States.
This investigation was initiated in response to allegations
filed by the Canadian Sugar Institute that sugar imports are
being dumped into Canada and that foreign refiners have been
receiving government subsidies which allow them to sell at
prices which are sometimes below the cost of production.
These alleged practices have reduced profit levels, forced
Canadian refiners to reduce prices to unreasonable levels and to
lay off workers. Therefore, the department will now investigate
the allegations and should they be proven accurate, apply an
extra duty which will take away the unfair advantage enjoyed by
imports and once again provide a level playing field for
Canadian refiners.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, every December accountants in Canada will have large,
extra expenses because the new budget forces all professional
income returns to be filed at the same time. Professionals will
have to bear this extra cost forever, while the government will
have only a one time increase in cash income. By no economic
standard is this an efficient tax.
(1140)
Has the minister estimated the efficiency of the new tax
measure by comparing the present value of the higher
accounting costs with the one-time gain in revenue?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a measure
that has received a great deal of support from those affected.
10664
It has been pointed out to me that the Association of Certified
General Accountants, the CGA, has supported the move. The
members of this organization are obviously those most
immediately affected.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is not the message I receive from accountants in
my riding.
The legislation affecting the accounting years of proprietary
professional business leaves unaffected the freedom of
incorporated business to choose their accounting year.
What justification does the minister have for discriminating
against unincorporated businesses which will now have to spend
thousands of dollars to incorporate if they want to retain
flexibility in choosing their taxation year end?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely
no discrimination arising from this measure.
We have said that individual Canadians who had the
opportunity at one point to avail themselves of a deferral which
was not available to other individual Canadians will no longer
be able to do so.
We did this on the basis of tax fairness. That is the way it has
been received and it is one of the reasons that I am so glad that an
august body like the CGA has supported what we have done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general. The
parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general stated in this
House that an investigation was under way to explain the
RCMP's lack of co-operation with the Swiss authorities, which
resulted in Libertina Rizzuto and Luca Giammarella being set
free for lack of evidence in a money laundering case.
Can the Solicitor General give us an update on the
investigation announced by his parliamentary secretary, which
should shed light on the reasons behind the RCMP's lack of
co-operation with the Swiss authorities in the case involving
Libertina Rizzuto and Luca Giammarella?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken. There was close
co-operation between the RCMP and the Swiss authorities, and
I have been informed that the Swiss authorities are quite
satisfied with the support they received from the RCMP.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, must I remind the Solicitor General that the only
officer familiar with the Rizzuto and Giammarella case was on
holiday when the Swiss authorities were forced to set them free?
How can the Solicitor General explain that the Swiss
authorities, who caught these two individuals in the act of
laundering money, were forced to set them free because the
RCMP did not co-operate? This was mentioned by the Swiss
authorities themselves.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, the hon. member's comments are wrong. A
second report published a few weeks ago in the Montreal
newspaper he has quoted set the record straight. The fact is that
co-operation between the RCMP and the Swiss authorities is
excellent. I am told that the Swiss authorities are fully satisfied
with the support they received and are receiving from the
RCMP.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last month a plain
clothes policeman appeared at the home of Darrell McKnight
near Fredericton with a warrant to seize his Franchi shotgun,
banned by order in council effective January 1.
Mr. McKnight's teenaged daughter, home alone, phoned her
father and on his instruction surrendered the gun's receiver, the
minimum legal requirement. The officer insisted that she
produce the rest of the gun and told her that he could tear the
house to pieces to find the parts.
Given that when Mr. McKnight arrived with his lawyer, two
backup police cars had arrived to deal with this dangerous
criminal, can the justice minister understand why gun owners
are afraid of setting themselves up for future harassment by
registering their guns?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on
that specific case except to say that I look forward to seeing what
the issue is in light of all the facts when fairly stated.
Let me point out that in respect of firearms that were
prohibited effective January 1 of this year the federal
government is paying compensation to those people from whom
we are taking the firearms. That is point number one.
10665
(1145 )
Second, firearms in that category are being prohibited
because they are not used for sporting or hunting purposes.
These are assault type weapons that have no place in this
country.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Franchi is a
shotgun with a short stock.
The seizures of registered previously legal firearms under
Kim Campbell's orders in council have been declared unlawful
by Alberta courts. The crown is appealing but the minister has,
nevertheless, bulled ahead with more potentially illegal OICs.
Why is he not prepared to await the legal outcome to let this run
through the courts before confiscating more lawfully owned
property from honest citizens who trustingly registered them
before the orders were issued?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the case referred to in
Alberta is under appeal and the federal government has every
confidence that its position will prevail in the appellate court.
* * *
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions.
Yesterday the secretary of state announced the government is
launching a review of financial institutions legislation. Could
the secretary of state explain what this review will entail and
how can Canadians get involved?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question.
The Department of Finance did issue a press release yesterday
inviting interested parties to comment on the mandated
five-year review of the federal financial institutions legislation
which comes up in 1997. That includes the Bank Act, the
Insurance Companies Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act
and the Co-operative Credit Associations Act. We have asked
that submissions be received from the public by June 30, 1995.
This is a separate issue from the regulatory and supervisory
package which I presented in a white paper. We are very much
looking forward to submissions from the public.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, in response to the decision to eliminate the Crow
benefit the Canadian Wheat Board has asked the federal
government to give farmers a short term break on freight rates.
This raises a couple of questions for the Minister of Finance.
Can farmers expect any regulatory control to prevent freight
rate increases on grain after August 1, 1995? Can the minister
tell us if the government has done an evaluation of the effect the
elimination of the Crow will have on the long term future of the
Canadian Wheat Board?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously the changes in the WGTA have a lot of
impact on the movement of grain in the west.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the
Department of Transport have been looking at all of the
alternatives. We have had extensive discussions with all of the
shareholders, the producers, the railroads. We are very much
aware of the concerns raised by my hon. friend.
I want to assure him and the people who are going to be
directly affected by the measures announced in the budget that
we will take every step possible to ensure the orderly and
affordable transportation of grain in western Canada.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps to the Minister of Finance this time, can
the minister explain why the government's one-time payout for
the loss of the Crow is based on an expected reduction in land
value and not on the increased costs of shipping grain?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all of the negotiations surrounding the method of
paying that follows from the elimination of the WGTA have
taken into account as many concerns as possible.
No final determination has been made with respect to the
method of payment. The discussion is ongoing as to how that
will be handled. Without exception, throughout these
negotiations the government has been acutely aware of the
implications for both the owners of the land and those who are
actually farming the land. There has to be a determination on
what is in the best interests of those two groups.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. Last week several
European countries took a stand against the marketing of genetic
discoveries. Europe is sending a clear message to the
biotechnology industry: allowing business to gain control over
the gene pool of the human race is out of the question.
(1150)
Does the Minister of Health not think that it is high time the
government made its intentions known and tabled a clear policy
preventing the sale of human embryos and genetic manipulation
for commercial purposes?
10666
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I maintain direct contact with my provincial
counterparts and we intend to put forth a policy on new
reproductive technologies.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister realize that the longer she waits to regulate the
activities of certain Canadian businesses, the more difficult it
will be to enforce regulations to prevent this commercial
activity?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand fully and you will understand my
frustration, especially when I get a question like this one from
the Bloc Quebecois, whose members constantly talk about
federal and provincial jurisdiction. You know that we must
always work in co-operation with our counterparts. That is what
we are doing and there is no doubt that something will be done.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have been told by a justice official the department is
considering linking some private organizations into the
proposed gun registration system.
Could the minister verify whether this is true? Is he
contemplating providing access to privileged information about
private citizens to outside organizations through C-PIC and the
gun registration system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. The proposal is to
have a registry which will be kept in computer records but which
will be part of C-PIC and available only to police.
As secure as the registry system for handguns has been, we
have had registration of handguns for decades and there has not
once been an instance of anybody breaking into the secure
registry system for handguns.
At the moment those who oppose registry are fearmongering,
trying to get people to think the registration will result in people
getting into private information. That is simply untrue.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, given past conflicting statements by this minister I am
not sure how much comfort our citizens are going to take that he
is going to be protecting their privacy.
At the age of 17 Kevin Mitnick hacked into the North
American air defense command's main computer. Recently he
stole computer files which could compromise the security for
anyone on the Internet.
With new hackers every day how can the minister guarantee to
responsible gun owners that his new registration system will not
simply provide a supermarket for criminals looking for guns?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we want to spend
time in the House looking into the future and conjuring up
images that frighten Canadians, I would rather focus on what
will happen if we do not have effective gun control.
We will go the way of other countries. We will undermine
public safety. We will end up with a gun culture. Canadians do
not want that for the future of their country.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
It is widely accepted that in the past medical research and
therefore practice and treatment have to some extent failed
women.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Cohen: It seems the testosterone levels are a little high
on the other side today. Those members do not take women's
health matters seriously. Maybe when they get their guns they
will feel better.
Breast cancer, osteoporosis, heart disease and other ailments
remain a serious and deadly threat to the women of Canada,
although apparently amusing to the Reform Party.
What is this government doing to keep its red book promises
to Canadian women to improve their health care?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government thinks it is absolutely shameful the
amount of neglect allowed to occur in terms of focusing on
questions of women's health.
When it comes to breast cancer during this past budget
exercise we have been able to keep the moneys we have so we
can continue to invest in research and other services having to
do with women and breast cancer. Not only that, we are looking
at reallocating funds so we can do even more.
As to specific red book commitments, I will refer to the
centres of excellence on women's health. We are about to launch
the process for the site selections for the centres of excellence.
These centres of excellence will link together researchers,
policymakers, health professionals and women's groups across
the country so we can better focus dollars we have.
Some hon. members: Order.
10667
(1155 )
Ms. Marleau: I find it disgraceful that members of the
Reform Party would be so lacking in respect for the very serious
problems of women's health.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention this government plans
to spend $10 million to renovate the dilapidated World War II
barracks at CFB Cornwallis for the international peacekeeping
centre.
Could the minister of national expense, I should say defence,
explain to Canadians why taxpayers must pay for this ridiculous
renovation while modern DND facilities are available across the
country?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows that a decision was made to
establish a centre at Cornwallis. I am unaware of the details as
alleged by the hon. member. I will take the question as notice,
advise the minister and I am sure he will provide the hon.
member with a fully satisfactory explanation next week.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport. Part III of
Transport Canada's Estimates indicates that steps were taken to
implement Transport Safety Board recommendations regarding
serious deficiencies in the inspection of commercial aircraft.
How can the minister hope to convince us that his department
will be able to carry out more thorough inspections and improve
follow-up when $12 million were cut from the $82.2 million
budget of the departmental unit responsible for these
inspections?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that air safety within Canada
and on international flights out of Canada is absolutely
essential, and crucial to the success of Air Canada, Canadian
Airlines International and other carriers. I am sure that my hon.
colleague would not want to raise questions that could cast
doubt on the safety of these aircraft.
The main thing to remember in all this is that carriers, pilots,
the inspection agency-Transport Canada, in this
instance-everyone must do their job. But what was reported,
and this is very important, is that the problem may not have been
the inspections but the follow-up. In this context, we, at
Transport Canada, have undertaken to ensure that, whenever
deficiencies are found, they be followed-up much more
seriously than in the cases reported by the commission.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Increasingly we are hearing the Canadian banks being
referred to as international casinos as the global gamblers now
using depositor's money are re-entering into a casino like
existence.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us what he plans to take to the
Halifax conference in terms of ensuring this is on the agenda and
when some of the details of that will be made public?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt
that first and foremost on the agenda is the reform of the Breton
Woods Institutions. In that area of reform will be the whole
question of surveillance and transparency involving sovereign
nations and also the whole question of capital flows. I suspect
what the member is referring to is the problem of derivatives and
the consequences thereof.
I have met with the heads of most of the major Canadian
financial institutions. In the course of those discussions they
assured me we do have the controls to avoid the kind of
problems that exist abroad.
We also have a financial culture which would not lend itself,
although you can never tell what can happen, to the kinds of
problems to which the member referred.
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and
Africa.
It was reported today that an American congressman
suggested Canada defer to U.S. foreign policy on Cuba. He was
supporting a bill before Congress that would punish countries
that ignore the U.S. embargo.
How will this bill affect Canadian companies doing business
in Cuba?
(1200 )
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to
my colleague's important question. The United States has draft
legislation in place right now which would have a negative
effect, especially on the principals and families of some
Canadian companies investing in Cuba.
10668
We hope there will be amendments to this legislation before
it is pursued in the United States. However, we have made it
very clear that Canada will be pursuing and will continue to
pursue an independent foreign policy. This is very well
respected world wide.
This week we are very pleased to be celebrating 50 years of
friendly relations with Cuba and we expect to have many more
such years in the future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
over a year, the official opposition has been asking the Minister
of Transport to explain why Marine Atlantic, which is a Crown
corporation, had been authorized to operate two of its ships
under Bahamian flags, and to correct the situation as quickly as
possible.
Can the minister confirm today that all Marine Atlantic ships
now fly Canadian flags, and can he tell us what measures were
taken to ensure that Canadian government agencies do not
operate ships under convenience flags?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the issue was raised some months ago, as the hon.
member pointed out, we were looking at a situation which, in
some cases, had been persisting for quite a long time. We have
decided to commercialize Marine Atlantic's operations. In other
words, we will sell all the ships.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, may I draw your attention to the
presence in the gallery of the Hon. Rigoberto Ochoa Zaragoza,
Governor of the State of Nayarit, Mexico, and an accompanying
delegation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Deputy Speaker: May I also draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of His Worship Al Duerr, the mayor of
Calgary.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
10668
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
109, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to the second report of the Standing
Committee on Industry entitled ``Taking Care of Small
Business''.
I am also pleased to table copies of a report entitled ``Small
Business: A Progress Report'' together with the government's
response to the report entitled ``Breaking Through Barriers''
from the private sector.
This is the private small business working committee
established by the government in 1994.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 66th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
supplementary estimates (D) for the fiscal year ending March
31, 1995.
The committee considered supplementary estimates (D)
referred to the committee as agreed, and report them to the
House without any amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 67th report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
regarding the membership of standing committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 67th report later this day.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Young (for Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-75, an act to
amend the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperative
Loans Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1205 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 67th
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 believe there is unanimous consent for the following
10669
motion. I move that the following change be made to the
membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs: Mr. Pickard for Mrs. Bakopanos.
(Motion agreed to).
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased today to present a petition to the House
bearing 904 signatures opposing further gun control.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a second petition bearing 550
names opposing amendments to the Criminal Code, the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms to include consideration of same sex relationships.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition contains 51 signatures opposing
assisted suicide.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the final petition contains 254 signatures from
petitioners opposing increased taxes.
I respectfully submit these petitions.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to table four
petitions today.
The first petition is signed by 195 people from Surrey and
surrounding area and requests that Parliament refuse to accept
the justice minister's gun control proposals.
The petitioners feel that this anti-gun legislation will do
little, if anything, to reduce the incidence of violent crime and
will simply restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens and target
shooters.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by 25 people from Surrey
and surrounding area and 170 people from my riding of Surrey
North, requesting that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with
section 718.2, as presently written, because of the undefined
phrase of sexual orientation.
These petitioners feel that everyone currently has equal status
under the law.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I present a fourth petition signed by 95 people from
Surrey and surrounding area. The petitioners pray that
Parliament intervene and stop the minister from amending the
aircraft maintenance engineering licensing system.
The petitioners feel that the licensing system should be
retained in its current form and continue to be monitored as is
the current practice.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House today.
The first petition is signed by 285 of my constituents who live
the rural municipality and village of Rossburn.
The petitioners urge the government to take action on the
early construction of an all weather road through the west end of
the Riding Mountain National Park to connect the communities
of Grandview and Rossburn. The hope is that this road will
stimulate the stagnating agricultural economy by promoting
trade, tourism, social and cultural exchanges.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition I present to the House has 58
signatures and is on the subject of euthanasia and assisted
suicide.
The petitioners pray that Parliament not repeal or amend
section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada and continue to
disallow assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition is signed by 854 agricultural
producers from the province of Manitoba that support the
Canadian Wheat Board.
The petitioners draw the government's attention to the fact
that a very vocal minority are requesting a dual marketing
system for wheat and barley for export.
The petitioners therefore request that Parliament continue to
give monopoly power to the Canadian Wheat Board for the
export of wheat and barley.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to add another 385 names to
the hundreds of thousands of other petitioners who have asked
that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with section 718.2 as
presently written and not to include the undefined phrase, sexual
orientation. The behaviour people engage in does not warrant
special consideration in Canadian law.
10670
(1210)
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition where the petitioners call
on Parliament to oppose any amendment to the Canadian Human
Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
which provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition which is perhaps a
little after the fact.
These petitioners pray and request that Parliament reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement
a taxpayer protection act to limit federal government spending.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and
pleasure pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition
signed by 295 of my constituents residing primarily in the
villages of Coronach, Fife Lake and Rockglen and the
surrounding districts.
These petitioners state that except in police states there is no
evidence that the suicidal or criminal misuse of firearms is
impeded or restricted by legislation.
They therefore humbly pray that Parliament desist from
passing additional restrictive legislation with respect to
firearms or ammunition and to direct its attention to the
apprehension and punishment of those who criminally misuse
firearms or other deadly weapons.
I wholeheartedly concur.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present this Melanie Carpenter petition organized by
Nick Carter and other staff members from JC-55 SuperCountry
Radio station in Kamloops and circulated throughout the
Kamloops area, the north and south Thompson valleys and the
community of Logan Lake as well as a number of other
communities throughout central British Columbia.
This brings to 22,000 the number of names of individuals
calling for changes to Canada's justice system and parole
system in an effort to make our streets and neighbourhoods safe
places in which to live and to raise our families.
Specifically, the petitioners believe that those convicted of
dangerous and sexual offences should remain incarcerated until
they have successfully undergone treatment and can
demonstrate unequivocally that they have been completely
rehabilitated.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present.
The first petition contains the signatures of 50 constituents of
Simcoe North and calls on Parliament to oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the
inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on Parliament to delete
entirely section 718.2 of Bill C-41.
I present these petitions because I believe all my constituents
are entitled to express their views. However, I fully support the
increased penalties for hate crimes contained in Bill C-41.
I call on the Minister of Justice to bring forward the promised
amendments to the Human Rights Act to include sexual
orientation as a prohibited grounds for discrimination at the
earliest opportunity.
The Deputy Speaker: The member may not have heard the
Speaker say earlier this week that he does not wish us to say
whether we agree or disagree with the petition.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
these petitioners believe that violence and abuse in all forms is a
growing concern in our society.
They also believe that these are not necessary in order to
inform or to entertain. They are particularly concerned about
abuse and violence in various forms that appear in the media.
They ask the government to ensure that the CRTC regulate
this and remove it if at all possible or certainly diminish it. They
also believe that violence is counter to the values they try to
instil in their families. They do, however, point out that there
have been some gains. They appreciate the efforts that have been
made to date.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos.
107, 125 and 151.
[Text]
Question No. 107-Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville):
What is the estimated economic impact in Canada of the firearms and related
industries, with attention to manufacturing, sales and repair, international trade,
hunting, sports, recreation, tourism and associated activities and what is the
impact that previous and proposed gun control measures have had and will have
on the firearms and related industries?
10671
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
The firearms industry is substantial, especially when one
considers related industries such as hunting. For example, the
Canadian Wildlife Service (Environment Canada) reported that
in the year 1991 over 1.2 billion dollars were spent by
Canadians and Americans on hunting in Canada.
Firearms control is designed to be cost neutral. The measures
introduced continue to respect the legitimate uses of firearms
for sporting and recreational purposes.
Stricter firearm control measures are essential to public
health and safety, and one cannot pub a price tag on the
prevention of violence and the added security felt by Canadians.
Question No. 125-Mr. White (North Vancouver):
What legal or constitutional authority provided to Native Band Councils
prohibits non-Natives residing on Native lands from exercising their franchise in
the election of local Band Council representatives?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Subsection 91(24) of the
Constitution Act,
1867 establishes the authority of Parliament to make laws
regarding Indians and lands reserved for Indians.
The Indian Act provides that the election for the chief and
council of a band can be held under one of two authorities. One,
the Indian Act and the Indian Band Election Regulations: If the
chief and council are elected under the Indian Act and the
regulations, all voters must be both band members and
ordinarily resident on the particular reserve (section 77(1)).
Two, the custom of the individual band: If the chief and
council are elected/selected according to the custom of the band,
the qualifications for the voters are set by the band, and the band
has the sole authority to do this.
Question No. 151-Mr. Caccia:
In light of the recent derailment of tanker cars carrying sulphuric acid which
spilled into Lake Masketsi and the Tawachiche River, does Transport Canada
intend to undertake an investigation to identify and correct factors which could
lead to future derailments of tanker cars carrying toxic substances?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): The
Transportation Safety Board, TSB, an independent agency
which operates under its own act of Parliament and reports to
Parliament through the President of the Privy Council, is
conducting an investigation of the circumstances of the
accident. The TSB will issue a public report once its
investigation is completed. Any recommendations made by the
TSB will be acted upon by Transport Canada should any factors
be identified which could lead to further derailments and
subsequent leakage of tank cars carrying toxic substances.
In the interim, Transport Canada's transport of dangerous
goods directorate is reviewing the design standards of the
particular tank cars involved in the derailment to assess the
possibility of enhancing their safety performance.
[English]
* * *
(1215 )
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I believe there would be
unanimous consent to support an order for return of question
131.
The Deputy Speaker: Did the parliamentary secretary ask
that earlier this day?
Mr. Milliken: No, Mr. Speaker, I asked earlier this week and
unanimous consent was refused.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 131 could be made an order for
return, that return would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Under the circumstances, does the
House give unanimous consent for the request?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 131-Mr. Gilmour
What was the total dollar amount (direct and indirect) and source of
government funding per annum from 1990 to the present to the following
interest groups: Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Sierra Club of Western
Canada, Greenpeace, the CANI-Clayoquot Project, the Environmental Youth
Alliance, and the Clayoquot Biosphere Project?
(Return tabled.)
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
10671
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on the Reform Party motion,
which proposes to replace Canada's current social security
system with a registered personal security plan.
From the outset, the wording of the motion reflects its
underlying philosophy or principles. The Reform Party wants to
replace a social security system with a personal security plan. A
10672
social security system is a plan designed to look after the needs
of the poor, so that they have the minimum required to live in
adequate conditions. On the other hand, a personal security plan
concerns a single individual, namely its beneficiary. Such a
system has no social dimension: it only concerns the individual.
The underlying principle of that proposal is obviously the
prevailing ideology within certain groups promoting a free
market, the law of the jungle and the ``every man for himself''
philosophy. This is not the principle which guided the building,
in Quebec and in Canada, of the current social, economic and
even political structures.
This morning, I listened to the hon. member for Calgary
North, who mentioned some countries which had set up plans
somewhat similar to the one she is proposing. She referred to the
United Kingdom under Mrs. Thatcher and Chili under General
Pinochet.
I do not think these examples would be acceptable to people
who have any social conscience at all. The British experience
under Mrs. Thatcher, for the past fifteen years or so, was not a
particularly happy one. If we compare that experience with the
option chosen by France which has taken a different approach to
managing and funding social programs, we realize that people in
the U.K. are not better off financially than people in France, at
present.
As for Chili under General Pinochet, we need only consider
what happened during that period and what this every man for
himself, this free market ideology produced. It produced
torture, deregulation and anti-union behaviour and made the
poor even poorer. I do not think people would welcome that kind
of system in Canada, especially since we recently had another
example of a government that applied this ideology.
Which country was mentioned in glowing terms by the
International Monetary Fund? Which country was, in recent
years, applauded for its privatization model? Which country
was cited as an example for its cuts in social programs? It was
Mexico. And look at where Mexico is today. This is a country
that wanted to implement a foreign ideology, a country that took
steps that had a disastrous impact, first on the poorest in
Mexican society and later on the entire Mexican economy.
We cannot disrupt people's lives for ideological reasons, and
we cannot apply half-baked theories developed by academics in
their ivory towers. We cannot just go ahead and blindly apply
these ideologies to advanced societies like ours.
(1220)
Clearly, I do not support the motion presented by the Reform
Party. I intend to analyse it, however, because there are some
aspects that must be condemned outright and that are downright
shocking.
First of all, the motion proposes to reform existing social
programs which are said to be failing, an expression that has a
certain currency among certain groups. Who says social
programs are failing? The people who do not need them.
Why do we have social programs in Quebec, in Canada, in the
western world? Workers and the least well-off have always
sought protection against poverty resulting from sickness,
unemployment and old age. Often, when people can no longer
work because of age they are poor if they had only their job as a
source of income.
Western society, has always, and particularly in the past 20 to
30 years, sought protection against the poverty resulting from
these scourges. I think they have clearly succeeded. We have
health care programs to help the sick, unemployment insurance
programs to support those who have lost their jobs and old age
security programs to provide a decent standard of living to
seniors who have worked all their lives.
I do not know how we can claim these programs are
ineffective. I think Canadians and Quebecers know what is
involved; they want to keep their social programs. I have two
personal examples for you that will confirm what I am saying.
When the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled
his proposed social reforms, I called a meeting in my riding for
anyone interested in the subject. Some 200 people showed
up-people from community groups, the unemployed, union
people-These people made it clear to me that we had to protect
the social programs we enjoy in Canada today. We might have to
change them a bit, but the conclusion was that they had to be
protected.
My second example is the petition given me by the movement
known as Solidarité populaire, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean.
This petition contains nearly 11,000 names requesting the
minister to keep the social security safety net in Quebec and
Canada.
In the light of such a showing, I can only support those who
elected me, particularly because I share their beliefs, and insist
that the government maintain the social programs we currently
have in Canada, adjusting them as necessary to suit
circumstances and to improve their effectiveness.
We hear a lot about the cost of social programs. Of course,
unemployment insurance, old age security and health insurance
cost money. To some extent, we can surely limit expenditures.
We need think only of the duplication of federal and provincial
initiatives, which we could stop.
We could also consider cutting expenses by adapting certain
programs to reduce their costs and so that the people running
them give greater thought to costs. Given the effects of these
programs in social terms, I do not think that current costs are
exorbitant.
10673
The problem with these issues of cost is the lack of fiscal
resources. Why are we lacking fiscal resources in Canada?
Because our policies on employment are ineffective.
(1225)
Certain circles, especially people from the Reform Party,
have the following to say about employment policies: ``We do
not need to have a policy on employment, because jobs are
created by the private sector''. This point of view is slowly
winning over some of our friends opposite, from the Liberal
Party. What a pity. Although it is true that business creates jobs,
in advanced societies like ours, the government should blaze the
trail and take job creation initiatives whenever there is a need.
I am not suggesting that we introduce initiatives based
uniquely on a certain ideological or theoretical framework. We
must look at the needs of the population and make sure that they
are met, to the extent that this is possible.
I would like to move on to a more thorough critique of the
Reform Party proposal, as regards a personalized system. The
concept of universality would be thrown out. People who have
contributed to a plan would be able to use it, and people who
have not made contributions, well, who knows what would
happen to them. The principle of universality is important,
because it acknowledges a citizen's right to receive services by
virtue of being a citizen, and, if all citizens have equal rights,
they should all have access to many different kinds of services,
like health care, education, social security and old age security,
just because they are citizens.
Of course, those who are better off may possibly, through
various means such as taxation, be required to pay back the
benefits that they receive, but it still remains true, I think, that in
a society, it is important that citizens collectively have the right
to certain services, by the simple fact that they are citizens.
Under the personalized system proposed by the Reform Party,
everybody would contribute to the plan, everybody would invest
money in a fund in order to pay for their own eventual social
needs. But, what happens to people who, for one reason or
another, do not contribute to the plan? What happens to people
who are unemployed, who cannot afford to make contributions?
The chronically ill? People whose lack of training prevents them
from being part of the active population? What would we do
about them? Would we create a dual social security system?
And if we did, how would the people who have to contribute to
a personalized plan feel? They will say: ``We are already paying,
so why should we pay for others?'' In that case, will we let the
poor pay for the poor? We can already see where a proposal like
this one would take us. It would take us to a two-tier society
with rich people living well and poor people starving.
Quebecers and Canadians alike condemn that kind of society.
The proposal refers to tax-sheltered savings accounts. This
means that the personalized system will be tax-deductible in a
way. In other words, the Reform Party is saying ``every man for
himself'', except that the state will have to give tax deductions
to those who contribute funds to this system. I think that this is a
covert way of making the state pay. It is all very well to say:
``Yes, people will invest, take themselves in hand, put money
aside-''
I heard our Reform colleague explain to us this morning that if
you invest so much per year, you end up with a fortune after 15
or 20 years. This reminds me of the financial advisors who visit
people in their homes and tell them: ``If you deposit $500 every
six months or $1,000 a year, with interest rates, you will become
a millionaire''. After he leaves, you see yourself as a
millionaire, but you are not one penny richer.
While we are on the subject, our Reform colleague said this
morning while explaining her system's benefits: ``Assuming
that a person invest so much as such-and-such an interest rate
and that this person is never sick or unemployed, he or she will
be a millionaire in 30 or 40 years''. Such assumptions do not
feed the poor, care for the sick or provide our old people with the
support they need.
As for tax-deductible RRSPs, you may think, Mr. Speaker,
that I am against RRSPs in principle, but that is definitely not
the case, neither for me nor for my party.
(1230)
In fact, in prebudget debates, we spoke in support of not
taxing RRSPs, in spite of the fact this currently deprives the
Canadian government of $15 billion in revenues, because we
think it is not fair to change the rules of the game along the way,
after a contract was signed or a tacit agreement has been reached
by the government and citizens who invest in RRSPs. It had been
agreed that these benefits would not be subject to tax.
As a party, we are not against RRSPs. We do not want RRSPs
to become taxable, but at the same time we cannot understand
why one would want to apply the RRSP formula to everyone in
our society.
I see that I am running out of time, but I would just like to
address one issue that our colleague raised this morning. What
happens to those who invest in RRSPs if something goes wrong
with the economy, if banks go under, if bad investments are
made, if our currency is devalued, if the interest rates go down,
if there is an economic crisis? I could go on and read you the
entire Apocalypse. Many things can happen that will cause
funds invested in RRSPs vanish. You could then come up to us
and say: ``Well, I am poor now. You must help me''. If the
Reform Party members were in power, here is what they would
tell you: ``Look here, sir, you made investments and you lost
money. You are a loser and losers have no right to ask the
society for help. When you lose money, you lose money, and you
shut up''.
10674
Basically, the Reform Party's proposal is for the rich, the
healthy and the educated.
The other problem with this proposal is this: these funds can
and should be drawn only in an emergency. The proposed plan
would replace the Unemployment Insurance Plan, the
manpower training programs and the pension plans.
What happens when an individual has the misfortune to
become unemployed repeatedly over the course of several years,
if he has the misfortune to be ill and therefore unable to
contribute to his pension plan? What happens if that he drains
his personal registered savings plan and ends up with nothing to
fall back on.
I think that the Reform Party's proposal takes a rather
simplistic view of society and public finance. They are telling us
that the public finance problem would be resolved if there were
no public expenditures, which is rather simplistic, since it is so
obvious. Except that public spending exists precisely because
there is a public, a population, whose needs must be taken into
account by politicians.
Solutions such as the one proposed by the Reform Party may
seem attractive to someone watching us on television, while
relaxing in the living room. However, such solutions are not
acceptable to the needy.
In conclusion, since my time is running out, when faced with
proposals such as this one from the Reform Party, we must
remind our fellow citizens and politicians what social solidarity,
society and community living are all about. Nowadays, these
realities are too often forgotten. We hear about personal success,
free market and registered personal security plan. This is a
self-centred philosophy. I will not make a long speech about
sacrificing everything, including ourselves, to help others, but
we live in a society and we have a responsibility toward social
solidarity.
I invite Reform members to reflect on life in a society and to
realize that we do not live only for ourselves but also for others,
who also live for us. This is how we can all function in a society.
And this is what we hope to preserve for a long time to come in
Canada and in Quebec.
(1235)
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague from the Bloc
Quebecois had to say. He asked several questions which I think
should be answered immediately.
He asked who is saying social programs are inefficient. The
Auditor General has said social programs are inefficient. I want
to give the member some quotations from the Auditor General's
1994 report in which he says rising social program use and high
repeated use suggests that social programs may be creating long
term dependency among some users.
The Auditor General also says these social programs create
disincentives to work when benefits from social programs
compare favourably to earnings from jobs. He goes on to say
employers and employees may be using unemployment
insurance to support short term layoff strategies.
Another point the Auditor General makes is that interaction
among social programs may result in programs working at cross
purposes to each other. One of the other things he says is
unemployment insurance may be a factor in Canada's rising
level of unemployment and the lower level of outputs that result.
The Auditor General has said we need to take a closer look at
this.
My colleague then said this is an idea that rich people and
Reform MPs have thought up. My colleague seems to think
these are just our ideas. I do not think he has any idea of how the
Reform Party works and how we arrive at our policies and
principles. The very principles and policies we are discussing
here today as Reformers have been brought to us by the poor
people of Canada as an alternative to protect them.
I would like to point out to my colleague how a grass roots
party works. The idea we are debating today started with our
members, not with our leader and not with a group of academics
working on some government funded ministerial task force of
some kind. Some of the best ideas that come forward come from
the grassroots people, not from some top down, antiquated,
political, bureaucratic system of some sort. The member should
listen very carefully because these are not ideas that we have
hatched in the back rooms of some office.
I cannot understand where my colleague from the Bloc is
coming from. For a party that wants the provinces to have more
control, I do not believe he would argue with what we are
discussing today. He is supporting more federally run, big,
social programs. We are saying they should be decentralized
even to the point where local associations and individuals would
have more control over their affairs.
One of the advantages of an RPSP is that there would be a lot
less involvement of this big government in our lives. Taxes
could be substantially reduced as individuals, local associations
and charities would assume more responsibility for their lives in
the communities. I believe this knew social order he alluded to
10675
would have a positive effect even on reducing crime. He should
take a closer look at what we are suggesting.
I do not have a lot of time today to go into this, but there are
other areas, such as higher education, where we could look at
this concept. I will give a personal illustration. I have four
children. I did not feel that when it was time for them to go to
university or whatever institution they chose that I would have
the wherewithal to send them there. Therefore, I laid a little bit
aside every month when they were young. It was not very much.
It was equivalent to the family allowance given by the
government at that time.
(1240)
That small amount of money has grown to the point where
now that they attend university, this RRSP type of saving pays
for almost half of their education. The hon. member may not
know, but I do not come from a wealthy background.
The plan could be applied in so many areas. Poor people could
actually provide for their children and provide more security for
themselves.
This country is in need of a major overhaul. The very idea the
member suggests is unacceptable. Our country is not defined by
our social programs, as many members are suggesting. I do not
think Canadians can relate to the concept that we are Canadians
and what makes us different from other countries in the world
are the social programs we have.
It is individual initiative, responsibility, sharing and
co-operation. It is the charities we set up. It is caring for our
neighbours and our communities. It is the freedom, the strong
families and values we have established, the personal assistance
we give to each other, not some great social program. That is
what has built up this country.
Thirty years of Liberal social engineering took away the
personal responsibility. The very fabric of our society is being
destroyed and the morale of the people is being broken.
I would like the hon. member to comment on what I have said.
Does he not agree the government has failed miserably in
running social programs? If he does not agree with our
suggestion, what better suggestion does he have?
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few quick
comments on what my colleague just said.
Regarding the auditor general, I recall getting the impression
from his report that he blamed Mr. Axworthy, to a certain extent,
for proceeding with social program reform before thoroughly
analyzing the efficiency of Canada's existing programs.
I do not think that we can determine with any precision
whether our social programs are efficient based on what the
auditor general says. The auditor general has asked the
government to review the situation.
My second comment is about what my colleague from the
Reform Party said when he claimed that his party's proposals are
grass roots proposals. My proposals and the ideas I shared with
you earlier also came from the people. I told you that I met with
some constituents. I told you that people from
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean asked me to give Mr. Axworthy a
petition which 11,000 people signed. Therefore, I can also
safely say that my ideas come from the people. I think that
people want to keep the social network or social net, which we
all have in common.
Now, regarding the opinion expressed that I should be happy
to see social programs disappear because I am a sovereignist and
because most of these programs are federal, and their
disappearance could very well be politically opportune, simply
because they are federal, this is not how the Bloc Quebecois sees
it. Yes, indeed, we believe that the federal government should
leave social programs to the provinces, because social programs
do not lie within federal jurisdiction. What we are asking for is a
system where the provinces would administer social programs
in exchange for tax points corresponding to the cost of
administering them.
I think that federalists, like my colleague from the Reform
Party, should be more careful when they talk about the
importance of social programs, because some Quebecers say
that the railway and social programs are what Canada means to
them. The railway is being dismantled and so are social
programs. Therefore, in the opinion of many people, Canada is
also crumbling.
Regarding the question I was asked about social program
reform, I agree that the government ought to determine whether
each social program meets the end it was designed for. I do
admit that, in certain cases, it would be appropriate to adapt the
program, and in others, to restrict them because they do not
really meet any needs.
(1245)
In my opinion, Canada must continue to invest in social
programs because Quebecers and Canadians are very proud that
the neediest people in our society can still live in dignity.
The solution lies in job creation, which will ensure that more
Quebecers and Canadians are contributing money to the
government. This is how we will be able to sustain the social
programs which make us so proud and which make us the envy
of many countries of the world.
10676
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me pleasure to address the issue before the
House today.
It is clear to everyone but I suppose the Liberal government
that 30 years of social engineering have failed miserably. The
main reason social programs have become unaffordable and
unsustainable is that they create greater and greater dependency
on social programs. No matter how these programs are designed,
the end result would always be the same. More and more people
use the system and eventually it becomes unsustainable because
the government can no longer afford to pay the huge sums of
money needed to satisfy everyone's so-called needs.
This is why half the people on welfare today are described as
employable. This is why our unemployment insurance program
actually creates unemployment. Economists call this moral
hazard and people in Saskatchewan call it plain stupid. This is
something that must be addressed in the debate. The debt and the
deficit seem to be issues that people do not even consider in the
comments they are making in regard to this matter.
The Department of Human Resources Development issued a
report in January 1994 which provided an even more damning
indictment of the negative effect of the unemployment
insurance program. I want to address most of my remarks to the
unemployment insurance aspect.
The report examined over a dozen existing studies which
concluded that the changes made to the Unemployment
Insurance Act in 1971-72 resulted in an increase in the
unemployment rate in the range of 1 to 1.5 percentage points.
That is how much unemployment was raised because of the
change. The report also noted two unpublished papers that
produced estimates showing that the UI rate was as much as 3.5
percentage points higher than it should be. That is very serious.
Using the range of estimates provided in the government's
report, it means that instead of the current unemployment rate of
9.7 per cent it should be somewhere between 9.2 per cent and 6.2
per cent. That is a huge difference.
The UI program is so poorly designed that somewhere
between 64,000 and 448,000 workers are unemployed because
of it. It has not helped that we have suffered through 30 years of
incompetent government and a lack of leadership has brought us
to where we are today: on the brink of bankruptcy. Now we have
44 per cent of the people in Canada doubting whether they will
ever receive old age pension and 42 per cent doubting whether
they will receive their Canada pension even though they have
paid into it with their own contributions.
The government's incompetence in dealing once and for all
with the annual deficit by balancing the books is directly
responsible for the deteriorating lack of confidence in our social
security system. Instead of adding to our personal security, the
approach of the Liberals to social programs is adding to our
insecurity. They think if they just tamper with them a bit-and
my hon. colleague from the Bloc suggested that we should tinker
with them-they can make them better.
We have tinkered for 30 years and now we are on the brink of
bankruptcy. Not only have the Liberal social engineering
experiments failed us fiscally and economically but they have
also failed us socially. The number of single mothers is
increasing dramatically, not because teenagers are not smarter
than they were when I was young but because many provincial
welfare programs will pay welfare to teenagers who leave home
just because they have had a disagreement with their parents. It
is clear to everyone except politicians that social programs are
also destroying families.
(1250)
Today I want to look specifically at how the registered
personal security plan system we are putting forth might be used
to improve the current unemployment insurance program. The
Reform Party's policy with respect to unemployment insurance
has been developed and approved by Reform Party members at a
number of assemblies since 1988. Reformers believe the
program should be returned to its proper role as a true insurance
program to cover periods of short term unemployment and that it
should be administered by the employees and employers who
pay the premiums, not by some big government in Ottawa.
At our membership assembly held in Ottawa last October
Reform delegates, the supreme governing body of our party,
voted almost unanimously in favour of the following resolution:
Resolved that the Reform Party investigate the feasibility of replacing the
compulsory, government operated, privately funded, taxpayer subsidized
Unemployment Insurance Program with a voluntary, personally financed,
privately administered, government regulated Registered Unemployment
Savings Plan.
That is what we are bringing forward today as a suggestion
that should be explored by the government.
Reformers are not alone in thinking that the RPSP concept
might have applications beyond savings for our retirement. This
is what the Canadian Institute of Actuaries had to say about the
possibility of expanding the use of RPSPs to replace the existing
UI program in its submission to the human resources
development committee:
A well designed Unemployment Insurance Program would be one which would
encourage and reward attachment to the workforce. A capital accumulation
program would fulfil this role, as this type of plan could be set up to deposit
employer and worker contributions into a registered unemployment savings trust
account. This account would be tax sheltered and invested at the sole discretion of
10677
the worker, similar to a group RRSP arrangement. This program would be
compulsory for all workers and would replace the existing UI program. This could be
co-ordinated with CPP/QPP to enhance retirement security.
While the Canadian Institute of Actuaries is saying
contributions would be compulsory, Reformers have still not
made a decision on whether the program should be compulsory
or voluntary. The Reform Party is still investigating this concept
and it will be a number of months before we will be able to make
a final recommendation to our members.
The winning proposal selected in the Fraser Institute's 1992
economy and government competition estimated that replacing
the current unemployment insurance program with the RPSP
type program could save governments over $5 billion a year.
The proposal also estimated the greatest positive impact came
from replacing the disincentives to become hooked on UI with
real incentives to work.
Another huge benefit described was the increased economic
activity and job creation that resulted from having about $12
billion a year left in the hands of workers and employers instead
of being sent to government to be wasted by spendthrift
ministers and bungling bureaucrats.
Many other benefits were noted in the study including a $1
billion saving in government administration costs, a reduction
in paper burden and red tape for employers and employees, more
money in private hands for training and upgrading, and ending
the duplication of effort between UI and provincial welfare
programs. Surely everyone would realize that and support our
proposal on that basis alone.
Based on our initial research and the positive reaction to the
idea of RPSPs by economists, business leaders, the general
public and even the media, Reformers believe the idea is one
whose time has come. Reformers invite the government to
support our motion Work with us to help complete our
investigation of the feasibility and application of the RPSP
concept. We want to work together with government members.
They said they were going to co-operate. This is one aspect
where we can.
Reformers will initiate extensive research effort in the next
few months. We will use this background information to launch
a far reaching consultative process to get public input. The
concept will become part of the Reform Party's policy
development process and will lead to discussion and debate in
hundreds of constituency associations across Canada,
culminating in a vote and a decision at our next membership
assembly. If approved by our members the concept will form
part of the Reform Party's election platform for the next general
election. Reform will campaign using the RPSP concept, and if
elected Reform will have the mandate to implement the changes
we propose.
(1255)
The Liberal approach is the reason many Canadians become
cynical with traditional parties and old line politicians. They
never say what they are really going to do and they never really
do what they say. The Liberals are masters of old style politics
more than anything else. Reformers came here to change the
democratic system.
Voters under a Reform government would have real power as
a result of democratic reforms which would include citizen
initiated legislation, free votes for MPs, referendums, MP recall
and a triple-E senate.
Reformers know the government started out to solve the
problem but now government itself has become the problem. My
goal as a Reform MP is to get the government off the backs of
people and out of their pockets. The registered personal security
plan is one that will help us achieve that goal.
That completes my presentation as I am willing to split my
time with my colleague.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the hon. member's comments. I want to ask him
about an issue to which I alluded during my speech. What
happens to those who make bad investments? What happens
when interest rates get too low? What happens when banks go
bankrupt? It may sound a bit ridiculous that a bank could go
bankrupt, but it has happened in western Canada. It almost
happened with the old Barings bank, in England, which
experienced serious problems following some unfortunate
investments by one of its managers. What happens if the
tax-exempt money put in safe banking institutions does not
grow? What happens if, after 10, 15 or 20 years, the personal
security plan is ruined by some crisis?
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, the
question could be put to people who put their savings away
today. What happens to savings in a bank today if the bank goes
broke? I think the hon. member realizes that banks have
insurance, that those funds are insured. The system would
virtually be no different.
I would like to turn it around. What is ensuring Canadians
today with all the deposits they have made to the Canada pension
plan that they will get anything? It has been administered by a
government that has run the fund virtually into the red. It is over
$500 billion in the hole. The liabilities in the Canada pension
plan are over $500 billion. That is of a far greater concern than
possibly some bank that may go under.
The government can regulate this kind of thing. We are
putting the suggestion out there. It is something that can be
explored by Reformers and the government.
10678
A much more serious problem is being overlooked, the fact
that the government will not meet the commitment it made to
senior citizens. Years down the road it will be unable to fulfil
its commitment.
Interest at the present time is eating into our social programs
to the point where it will not be very long that we will be paying
more interest-and it may be at that point already-than we will
be getting back in social programs. This is how critical it has
become. This is why we need to look at alternatives and this is
one alternative that should be seriously considered.
(1300 )
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the introduction of the current Canada pension plan
was preceded by an intense discussion over the merit of fully
funded rather than a pay as you go social security system
Under the fully funded system Canadians would have paid
taxes to the government which would have been forced to make
private market investments with the money. The system could
never have gone bankrupt and would have increased enormously
the amount of savings in the economy and therefore the rate of
investment in economic growth.
However, such a funded system would have resulted in
unpredictable retirement benefits since the earnings of the funds
would have been uncertain. In addition it would have resulted in
high costs of portfolio management and a serious concentration
of financial powers in the hands of the managers of a very large
amount of money.
The Government of Canada decided to adopt a pay as you go
system under which continuously a currently working
generation is taxed to pay for the pensions of the retired
generation. This approach fit well into the political climate of
the time when private markets were distrusted deeply and
governments could do no wrong. The system also had political
advantages. The population was growing rapidly and was
expected to continue to do so.
As a result, the tax burden on the relatively large number of
working age people was and always would be low to provide the
pensions for the relatively small number of those retired. In
addition, the government could set guaranteed pension benefits
and cover any unexpectedly high costs by raising government
taxation rates.
Sophisticated economic and actuarial models showed that in a
world of constant population income there would be perfect
intergenerational equity as all working contributors to the
scheme would receive in return exactly the same amount they
contributed.
The Canadian pay as you go system is now in some trouble
because the predicted population growth did not take place.
Using reasonable assumptions, the unfunded liabilities of the
Canada and Quebec pension plans have a present value of $750
billion. In other words, the amount that is promised to be paid
out is smaller than the amount to be taxed under current rates. If
we sum all of those future deficiency of payments we will come
to a discounted value of $750 billion, about the same as the value
of our current debt that is so hotly disputed all the time.
In the early part of our next century the working generation
may have to pay as much as 15 per cent of its come to
pensioners. Other disadvantages of the present system are that it
has lowered the private rate of savings and investment in
economic growth. Public opinion surveys show that Canadians
have become skeptical about their ability to receive promised
benefits when they are retired. The ideals of the system for a
population free of worries about retirement finances clearly has
not been realized.
With this empirical information about the shortcomings of the
present system available now, the Reform Party believes it is
time to replace it with a fully funded, what we call private
security system. Canadians will continue to make mandatory
contributions to their retirement savings just like under the
present system, with some money coming from their pay and
matching funds from employers. These contributions are
deducted from income before taxes are calculated. There would
be reasonable maximum contributions to prevent use of the
instrument for massive deferral by high income earners.
The biggest difference from the current system is every
Canadian would have the option to pay these funds to a private
trust administered by approved financial institutions, much like
they can now under the registered retirement savings plans.
All income and capital gains earned in the private system
investments are also sheltered from income taxes. As a result,
the average Canadian worker who contributes to such a scheme
during their full lifetime may be expected to have accumulated a
surprisingly large sum. This is possible in spite of seemingly
small annual contributions they are used to now. The power of
compound interest working on a tax free income works wonders.
(1305)
Rough calculations show that persons now 65 who started to
work at age 20 and enjoyed average wages and returns on their
investments would be the proud owners of a nest egg greater
than $1 million today.
The individual Canadian would own this money and all rights
to it. Access to it would no longer be subject to the whims of
Parliament and other generations. However, because the fund
was built with deferred tax obligations provisions have to be
made that taxes are paid at some point on the assets.
10679
For this purpose the owners have the same three basic options
that exist under the present RRSP system. The entire fund can
be turned into an annuity at age 71, permitting the payment of
taxes during the remaining years at the relatively low rates
applicable to the annual annuity.
Alternatively the funds can be freed from all restrictions on
use by paying income taxes in the years it is done. The third
option is that funds can be withdrawn at minimum rates that
roughly assure the entire amount is depleted at age 94 or one
progressively higher in the future as people live longer. Taxes
are payable on the withdrawal of funds each year.
The preceding represents my own tentative ideas on the
operation of the proposed personal security system. Actuaries,
accountants and economists are needed to work out the details
and assure the viability of the system.
Much work has to be done to assure the smooth and equitable
transition from the present to the new system. I am confident the
devil and the detail will not destroy the basic vision. The system
can also be used for the tax free use of funds for mortgage down
payments, higher education, medical expenses and possibly
unemployment.
Such a universally funded and privately administered system
would take Canada into the modern age when governments have
to accept that socialism and collective approaches have failed. It
would increase freedom and economic growth. Get to it,
Canada.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during this debate members of the opposition have
raised many issues arising from the budget, in particular about
building an effective social security system for Canadians.
The motion before the House today and pronouncements from
the Reform Party indicate one perspective on social programs, a
perspective I do not share, one which no one on this side of the
House shares, a perspective not shared by most Canadians and
certainly not by the constituents in Windsor-St. Clair.
In the federal budget and in the vision sketched out by the
Minister of Human Resources Development there is quite
another vision. The difference is clear. While Reform rambles
on, indiscriminately cutting here and hacking there, the
government is taking a thoughtful approach to human resource
issues.
The government is turning the page from the strait jacket of
rigidly centralized Tory programs. The government is leaving
behind the Tories laissez faire approach of writing cheques and
to the more Tories the better.
It is an innovation, something Reform does not know much
about. It should not be the Reform Party. It should be the
regression party. It is innovative in terms of social programs far
beyond the simplistic notions of the Reform Party.
In essence the budget reinvents government for the 1990s.
These social programs and the budget are built on our belief that
Canadians want communities and individuals to have the tools
to make their own decisions while ensuring basic principles are
in place on a national basis.
It is very important to listen carefully to what Reformers say
so that one can compare what they say to the government's
vision of social security, peace and good government for this
nation.
Here come the guns. This government's approach begins with
a focus on three priorities. We want to keep our citizens alive.
We do not want them shooting each other. We are concerned
about employability. We want to find the best way to combat
poverty.
(1310)
Employability by helping people to find, keep and improve
their jobs and skills and the elimination of poverty are our goals.
We have learned there are many ways to achieve these goals.
The employment needs of a single parent led family in a housing
project in Toronto are substantially different from the
employment needs of a family which formerly made its living in
the Atlantic fishery. In a country as diverse as Canada, there is
no one size fits all, quick fix answer like Reform would suggest.
For that reason provinces and territories are joining us in
finding these new answers. They know innovation is not
reserved to one level of government in our Constitution. One
place that will become clear is the new Canada social transfer.
This will shift federal support for post-secondary education,
health, social assistance and social services into one package
starting in the fiscal year 1996-97.
Currently transfers under the Canada assistance plan come
with a lot of strings attached. Strings have become less and less
relevant to today's world. We believe some of these strings are
unnecessary. We believe they impede innovation, restrict
flexibility and increase administrative costs. They also impede
regional solutions to very real and very different regional
problems.
In short, this cost sharing approach hampers provinces that
need the breathing room to design and deliver social programs in
line with their local needs.
We believe the provinces share our goals to improve the
employability of Canadians and to reduce poverty. What they
also want is the flexibility to deal with these problems in a way
that responds effectively to people's needs.
Under the Canada social transfer we will allow this to happen
while remaining faithful to certain fundamental national prin-
10680
ciples. First and foremost the conditions of the Canada Health
Act will be maintained. In other words, universality,
accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public
administration will be respected.
Canadians also do not want to see their mobility restricted
because of minimum residency requirements. Beyond those
principles but consistent with them always there will be
flexibility and partnerships.
The Minister of Human Resources Development will be
inviting all provincial governments to work together to develop
through mutual consent a set of shared objectives that will
underlie the new Canada social transfer. By achieving a coherent
framework with provinces and territories we will be able to
tackle the core problems of employability and poverty.
This government wants to work with the provinces and
territories to increase access to good quality child care. This can
help improve the employability of many Canadians with low
income. It can offer children a great environment that helps
them learn and grow.
We would like to work out better means of helping persons
with disabilities to get jobs and to achieve greater independence.
We believe provinces and interested groups will welcome that
commitment and will help us achieve it.
In these two areas, as in our entire array of federal-provincial
relationships, we want to build new partnerships that focus on
results and that are grounded in common values.
While that is the government's approach, what about Reform?
The record is silent. Reform has nothing of substance to say
about any of these issues. Employability? Who knows.
Reducing poverty? I think we can guess what Reform's
perspective is.
Perhaps I should simply move on to some other subject on
which Reform members actually do have a policy.
Unemployment insurance is a very good example. Their
position is that we should knock $3.4 billion loose from the
unemployed by cutting out all special benefits and the interest
differences tied to local unemployment rates.
Who would pay? Women would pay. There would be no more
Maternity benefits. That is the Reform's idea of a baby gift.
Welcome to Newt Manning's Canada, little one. The sick would
pay. The sickness benefits under unemployment insurance
would be cut out. Under Reform's plan we would have to guess
that we might break our leg in advance and save up for it.
Welcome to Preston Gingrich's Canada, convalescent
Canadians. People in less prosperous regions would pay.
Reform wants to see UI entrance requirements that would be
sharply higher than they are now to bring them up to the level of
the wealthy regions. Welcome to the land of neo-Newtism,
unemployed Canada.
(1315)
Can the UI program be reformed? Absolutely, but this is not
the way. The government has been quite clear that we need to
move forward from the current unemployment insurance
program. We believe it does not do enough to help people get
back to work. We believe it can be a far more active policy. We
have set a target for program savings of at least 10 per cent.
As the Minister of Human Resources Development has
already said in the House, unlike Reform we will not achieve
these results at the expense of 165,000 new mothers a year. We
will not achieve these results at the expense of 155,000 people
who fall sick annually. We will not achieve these results at the
expense of 30,000 fishers. These are precisely the people
Reform is attacking when it claims saving for a rainy day equals
an intelligent social policy.
The same holds true for seniors and seniors benefits. The
Reform Party claims there is $3 billion waiting to be plucked
from the old age security program. I cannot wait to hear what the
seniors I meet for coffee at McDonald's on Wyandotte Street in
east Windsor have to say about that.
Like so many Reform proposals, we know the price but it will
not tell us what we would be buying. Precisely who would lose
their benefits and how much would they lose? Would it be a
clawback? At what rate? From what income level? There is no
way anyone can squeeze $3 billion from OAS without taking it
from the seniors, whom no one would call wealthy.
It is clear from the budget response Canadians support the
direction the government has taken very strongly. They see the
complaints from the opposition and from some provincial
capitals about this new direction for what they are: pure politics,
old fashioned politics, politics as usual. Our citizens know, even
if some partisan politicians do not, we must build real ways to
work together productively. They have no time for transparently
obvious grandstanding. They have no time for ideological shell
games.
The government is determined to build a better system of
social security for Canadians, one which could be sustained
financially, one which sets clear goals and one which enlists
consistent support to achieve those goals. The government's
budget is a blueprint for that system.
At the end of the day we have to wonder which approach is
better. Canadians clearly prefer the approach of the government
and reject the simplistic, facile approach of the Reform Party.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
seldom heard as much distortion of another party's policy at one
time. The member has done an excellent job of that and I
congratulate her if that is her goal. There has not been that much
distortion from a single member in a long time.
10681
The member referred to the Liberal budget and how there has
been so much flexibility given to programs under the budget.
I would like to ask the member how this budget gives flexibility
when it will still mean adding $24 billion per year, by the
finance minister's own figures, to the debt and when interest
payments on the debt will increase to $51 billion per year by
the end of the three-year period?
How does that give flexibility to social programs where
billions and billions more will have to be taken from social
programs to make interest payments? How does that give
flexibility if the Canadian economy collapses and we go hat in
hand to the International Monetary Fund asking for a loan and it
says that we have to get rid of a lot of our social programs,
otherwise it will not lend us the money? How does that give
flexibility?
Ms. Cohen: Hello. Earth to Reform. Mr. Speaker, Canadians
want the deficit handled. They want the deficit managed. We are
doing that. We are taking a little longer than Reform would
because we do not want babies to starve in the street, we do not
want children to miss their education and we do not want old
people to not have income support.
Hello. Earth to Reform. This is the real world over here.
(1320 )
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have never heard such rubbish.
Is it really an honourable debate of issues when somebody
gets up and says the superior Liberal Party doesn't want to kill
people and doesn't want babies to starve on the streets? By
implication it is suggesting the people on the other side would
have policies which deliberately would kill people and make
babies starve.
We do not by that kind of debating style advance the cause.
Let us understand that all of us wish to have the best for all
Canadians. The issue is how do we best get there. Only by
discussing the issue of how we get there is any progress being
made.
Let me take the issue of unemployment insurance. The hon.
member has never read any of the royal commissions made by
previous governments, including Liberal, on the examination of
the unemployment insurance system. They have universally
said that system was created to protect Canadians from the
hazard of unemployment. There was never any conception this
should be used to pay for people who choose to become pregnant
or who are ill, as she noted.
The point is we have different systems for taking care of these
things. It is totally inefficient and inequitable to ask some
people to pay for hazards for which they are not exposed.
Her calculations on welfare payments are totally off. We are
currently paying $20 billion in UI and government OAS benefits
to retired people. We are paying $18 billion in CPP-QPP. That is
$38 billion.
If $3 billion is cut out of that from the top, the arithmetic
shows it is not necessary to go to the lower level. That is the kind
of discussion we need, not saying we want to save lives and the
other people want to kill Canadians. That is totally inappropriate
for the Chamber. It is an indignity.
The Deputy Speaker: I would invite the hon. member for
Windsor-St. Clair not to use that phrase, which she has used
twice before. It does not contribute to the dignity of the House.
Ms. Cohen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the admonition.
Whatever the language, we just heard it. The Reform Party does
not want to support women who choose to get pregnant.
Mr. Grubel: That is not true.
Ms. Cohen: The Reform Party does not want to support sick
people. That is what I just heard.
Mr. Grubel: Rubbish.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing what we are hearing here today.
A prominent politician told me recently that politics-I know
the Liberals may not agree with this-is the art of the possible.
The member for Labrador told me that. I agree with that
statement. Politics is the art of the possible.
The Reform Party has given the House an idea. What we are
hearing is the idea being stifled, not legitimate criticism or
maybe a suggestion or two to add to the idea, but accusations and
fearmongering from the other side of the House. It is
unacceptable.
This government has one answer to the problem of poverty
and one answer to the problem of people being unemployed.
That is massive amounts of government money being thrown at
the problem when it is shown clearly that it has not worked.
The government is like a baby. At one end it has a huge
appetite and at the other end it has no sense of responsibility.
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to figure out what part of
the anatomy is at the other end from the brain where the sense of
Reform responsibility comes from.
(1325 )
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
begin by focusing on what we are talking about today. Maybe we
could begin by agreeing on the things that we agree with.
10682
We agree that all Canadians living in the best country in the
world would expect from their government good fiscal
management, so that all of our resources, all of the people with
all of their energy, with all of their integrity, would be able to
manage their affairs. Those affairs that are managed for them
by the government would be done in such a way that the benefits
are sustainable.
In my short life I have had a number of occasions where we
have been beneficiaries of living in this country. The first one is
the privilege of being able to come here.
I am a first generation Canadian but I remember distinctly my
grandparents. Long before they passed away, they use to speak
of the privilege of being in Canada. They did not want handouts.
My grandparents were rugged, self-sufficient individualists.
When they immigrated to this country they declined government
benefits. They said they will live poorly but they will make it.
They did.
I am happy to be in a family that has a rich record of helping
other people. It is not true that you can only help people by
having the government pluck the pockets of the taxpayers, spin
it around in the whirlpool in Ottawa, use up a whole bunch of it
for administrative purposes, have politicians and bureaucrats
decide of the money that is left who is entitled to it. That is a
false assumption, if you stop to think about it.
They have not created any money. They have not created any
wealth. All they have done is taken the wealth away from the
people, thereby reducing their ability to help those around them
in need.
I know of what I speak. I am old enough to remember before
all of these programs were in place. I remember as a youngster
one of our neighbours was very sadly, suddenly and tragically
killed in a farm accident. There was no government program at
that time to help the widow harvest her crop.
I remember my dad organizing the neighbours. I was probably
only five or six. I still remember that our neighbours went and
that lady had her crop harvested first. When that was done, each
one of the neighbours went back and did their own. That is the
essence of charity. That is the essence of looking after people.
There was a young couple my wife and I were familiar with
who did not have regular jobs. They had financial difficulties.
They obviously needed a lot more help than just money thrown
at them. I am very happy to say that one of the best experiences
of my life was I, one of the leaders in the group, got a number of
mutual friends together. This man who was in financial trouble,
was living in subsidized housing and the rent was high. He said
he could get into a housing program if only he could get a down
payment. There was a house builder who had really good starter
homes, but he did not have the down payment. His payments if
he got into it would be less than his rent.
The most fun I ever had was when this small group of us could
get together. Some of us made a donation to this. Some of us
gave interest free loans. We went to this couple and we said we
have arranged for the $6,000 they need as a down payment, let us
go and buy the house. That was fun. The couple picked up on that
and said that they now had an obligation to pay it back. They
became more accountable. It did not take them long to pay back
the money some of us had given them as interest free loans.
That really was a good experience. However, that was before
the government was taxing us to death. Now we are getting more
and more government intervention which prevents us from
looking after ourselves.
This plan the Reform Party is promoting today simply says:
We reject the premise that the government can look after our
long term savings, our long term benefits or our temporary need
for assistance when we are out of a job. We reject the premise
that the government can do it better than we can ourselves or
with the help of someone close to us. It is too far away and too
inefficient.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.30 p.m, the proceedings on
this matter have now expired.
[Translation]
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
10682
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from February 10, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-224, an act to require charitable and
non-profit organizations that receive public funds to declare the
remuneration of their directors and senior officers, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order. With respect to the motion for
second reading of this private members' bill, should the
question come to a vote, I think you would find there is
unanimous consent to amend the order to read:
That the bill not be referred to a legislative committee, but to the Standing
Committee on Government Operations.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
10683
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, before speaking on Bill C-224, I would like to take this
opportunity to mark St. Patrick's Day and wish all our Irish
friends a very happy St. Patrick's Day. I would also like to call
your attention to Claude Bourguignon's excellent article
published in La Presse today on this subject.
Mr. Bourguignon is a resident of my riding of
Argenteuil-Papineau. In his paper, he relates the history of the
massive presence of thousands of Irish Canadians from coast to
coast. Claude Bourguignon is also one of the founders of the
Irish Quebecers interpretation centre, located in
Saint-Colomban, in the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau.
The principle of Bill C-224, the Charitable and Non-profit
Organization Director Remuneration Disclosure Act,
introduced by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth is to
force non-profit organizations and charitable organizations that
receives, directly or indirectly, any assistance from the public
funds of Canada to disclose the remuneration and benefits paid
to their directors and senior officers.
This means that the remuneration and benefits received by the
directors and senior officers of charitable organizations would
be disclosed upon receipt of federal government or public funds.
This way, Canadians would have the assurance that public funds
do not go to the directors and senior officers.
Because it is all too often perceived as a charitable activity
carried out on an individual basis and in isolation, volunteer
work is overlooked in our political debates on the Canadian
economy. However, individual volunteers' efforts are far from
negligible given their economic impact. There is an obvious
need to promote volunteerism. This essential element of society
is also a lifestyle and a social duty.
Yet, in recessionary times, volunteer organizations will have
to use other financing methods because government assistance
is getting increasingly restricted. It must also be noted that the
survival of those services and programs people rely on is not
guaranteed.
(1335)
The old stereotypes concerning volunteers, their activities
and their motivation are no longer valid. Today, two thirds of
volunteers in Canada belong to the paid labour force and most of
them hold full time jobs.
This bill contains a few flaws, however. First of all, clause 3,
line 17, reads in part as follows:
and receives, directly or indirectly
This very broad wording could refer to a great many
non-profit organizations which do not feel they have anything to
do with the federal government. It should simply read, ``and
receives directly''.
Second, the next line reads in part as follows:
from the public funds of Canada
The expression ``public funds of Canada'' is very ambiguous
because it does not specify if these funds are strictly federal or if
they include provincial and municipal funds.
The main purpose of this bill is to avoid any possibility of
fraud by directors and senior officers of non-profit
organizations.
All Canadians and Quebecers alike recognize that
volunteerism is a great blessing to society. According to
Statistics Canada, in 1987, Canada benefited from the work of
over 9 million unpaid volunteers. Their work represented over
one billion hours, or an average of two hours per week per job
from November 1986 to October 1987, or more than 500,000
full-time jobs for a year.
The three main sectors relying on volunteer work are religious
organizations, sports and recreation, as well as education and
youth development.
Close to one quarter of male volunteer workers are involved
in recreational endeavours, while another quarter participates in
religious and educational activities. Women are more likely to
do volunteer work with religious organizations, with one fifth of
them in that sector.
Overall, 38 per cent of the volunteer work is related to the
collection of funds, 36 per cent to the provision of information,
and 35 per cent to the organization, monitoring or co-ordination
of activities.
It is surprising to see that most volunteers are not older or
retired people. Close to half of them are in the 25-44 age group;
a little over a quarter are in the 45-64 category, while the others
are 15 to 24 year olds. Volunteers in the 25-44 age group hold
close to two thirds of the jobs in education and youth
development, and three fifths of the jobs in sports and
recreation.
As the official opposition representative and critic for issues
concerning seniors, I want to point out that volunteers aged 65
and over hold close to one fifth of the jobs related to social
services, including health care and support.
Moreover, the majority of volunteers come from
middle-income households. Over 40 per cent of all volunteers
come from households whose income is in the $30,000 to
$60,000 range, 14 per cent come from households with an
income of over $60,000, while only 5 per cent come from
households whose income is less than $10,000.
Volunteers with a household income of over $60,000 are
found mostly in organizations with an economic or international
focus, the percentages being, respectively, 19 and 21 per cent.
Those with a household income of less than $20,000 are usually
in social services and represent nearly one-quarter of all
volunteers, which reflects the high ratio of senior citizens in this
area.
10684
At least 19 per cent of volunteers in social services are aged 65
and over.
In an article that appeared in La Presse on February 6, 1993,
journalist Clause Masson discussed the use of funds collected
during telethons, saying that if we consider the preparations for
a telethon, the need to maintain a permanent staff and also the
promotion campaign, the cost of producing this kind of show is
enormous and that is where a substantial amount of money
collected is spent.
(1340)
And that is where the organizations that conduct these
telethons will have to make some changes. For instance, there is
definitely something wrong when a total of $3 million is
collected and only 10 or 20 per cent is donated to the actual
cause. To make a telethon worthwhile, at least 50 per cent or
$1.5 million should go to direct services.
We must keep telethons from being a way for people and
organizations to perpetuate the so-called charity business. Just
because organizations are not for profit does not mean we should
trust them implicitly.
In 1991, Quebecers gave over $400 million to a myriad of
organizations appealing to their generosity, that is charities,
foundations, church parishes, recreational organizations, etc.
Canadians on the whole, excluding business, gave roughly ten
times more, that is, some $5 billion dollars, according to the
Canadian Centre for Philanthropy. Thus, on the subject of
transparency, it would be interesting if the organizations
receiving federal government or public assistance were required
to reveal the benefits and salaries of their officers.
Canadians could then verify that public funds used to support
charitable organizations do not simply go into the pockets of the
people administering them. In conclusion, subject to the two
points I raised earlier, we would be prepared to support the spirit
of this bill.
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-224, an
act to require charitable and non-profit organizations that
receive public funds to declare the remuneration of their
directors and senior officers. My colleague from
Hamilton-Wentworth has spent a great deal of time and
research on this matter in the interests of deficit reduction and in
the interests of the Canadian taxpayer.
Accountability has been the battle cry of the 1990s. We have
heard this cry coming from all sides: from business, from
special interest groups and most important, from the individual
Canadian taxpayer. What this bill does is provide for
accountability in the charitable and non-profit sector of the
economy, and the very large segment of the economy that it is.
This bill is about disclosure of the real value of non-profit and
charitable organizations, not only in the human resource but in
financial dollars to the Government of Canada. The people of
Canada have a right to know. The reason I believe this is that we
rationalize our growth as well as our debt against GDP.
Therefore it is very important that we have accurate information
on the real value of GDP. It should include the value to the
Canadian economy of non-profit and charitable organizations.
This bill is not intended to harm or embarrass anyone.
However it is intended to provide transparency and
accountability. While Canadians hold their government
responsible for its actions, they also trust it to report on all
public matters with accuracy, openness and truthful
representation.
These same keystones must exist for charities and non-profit
organizations which receive public funds. After all, if
government is to be fully accountable to the Canadian people
and if we are to efficiently execute our mandate as the trustees of
public funds, then it follows that we must have complete and
accurate reports on where and how public money is spent.
At the present time there is no process in place that will allow
for complete scrutiny, at least not without applying to the courts.
Even then, full disclosure may not be possible. This problem has
been a longstanding one which arises from the Income Tax Act
and the legal system.
Neither department can absolutely or clearly define which
category charities and non-profit organizations should come
under because these groups cross several lines with regard to
existence, function and purpose. They function like a business
but unlike a business they do not make a profit.
Quite often not for profit organizations make large
investments which earn interest or capital gains yet they are not
taxed on this money. They have no product or service to offer in
the normal sense of the word. However, we have heard the
complaint that a not for profit organization will operate a tavern
and pay no taxes while a small business person across the street
pays taxes on a similar operation. Is this fair competition? Is this
a level playing field?
(1345)
These not for profit groups have a social function to ease or
remedy some problems which may exist in our communities or
national settings. They receive funds in one form or another, a
portion of which are the taxes paid by hard working Canadians.
With these funds they run their programs, pay salaries and
execute daily business.
10685
As anyone can see, a clear definition as to where charities
and non-profit organizations belong is no easy matter. Since
the assent of the Income War Tax Act of 1927, the courts have
tried but have not yet been successful in absolutely defining
any organization which has as its focus the improvement of the
human condition.
This special category which charities and non-profit
organizations are given exempts them from paying income tax.
Yet there seems to be an inequality here. The amount of
information these groups must provide to Revenue Canada,
which exempts them from tax, and the accountability they have
to funding ministries is minimal. Smaller still is the amount of
information available to the very people who actually fund
them, the Canadian taxpayer.
For example, the public is made aware daily through the press
of the salary of every hon. member of the House. They are aware
of the tax free allowance and they are bombarded with
information regarding the MPs' pensions, all of this rightly so.
Would it not seem fair that the same public have access to the
same information of high profile heads of non-profit
organizations?
One that comes to mind is David Somerville, the president of
the National Citizen's Coalition, a non-profit organization. Mr.
Somerville does great work on behalf of the public so should
they not have a right to know his salary, his pension and his total
benefit package?
If Bill C-224 becomes law, within 30 days of fiscal year end
there would be full disclosure of salaries and benefits paid to
directors and senior officials of these charitable and non-profit
organizations.
I mentioned earlier that charitable and non-profit
organizations were a large sector of our economy. To
demonstrate how significant these numbers are, we know there
are more than 130,000 organizations in Canada classified as
charities or non-profit organizations. Available estimates show
that approximately $120 billion flow through these
organizations annually and that $49 billion comes from the
various levels of government.
We know these organizations act in the public interest but we
also know there is no measurement to gauge the effectiveness of
the programs. By anybody's standards, that is a big bundle of
money.
Some months ago we read in the newspapers in every city in
the country where the Chamber of Commerce in Quebec City
gave a gift to the premier of Quebec. The gift was a mansion
worth $650,000 and $150,000 worth of furnishings. This was a
gift to a politician, to Jacques Parizeau. The moneys that paid
for this political gift were moneys claimed as 100 per cent
business deductions passed through this Quebec City Chamber
of Commerce as donations to non-profit organizations and the
Chamber of Commerce bought the house as a gift to a politician.
Does the public not have the right to know how much money is
going through non-profit organizations to buy mansions for
politicians across the country? Does the public not have the right
to know how many politicians at all levels may be receiving
financial support or valuable gifts from non-profit
organizations? I think most Canadians will agree with me that
we have a right, especially since most Canadians are paying
their fair share of taxes. In the final analysis, those who are
paying are picking up the tab as well for those who are not.
If we are to be the guardians of the public trust and if we are to
be fair to all sectors of the economy then I believe we have a
great opportunity to at least take a first step toward more
fairness with the implementation of Bill C-224.
I come from rural Canada, the Atlantic region, where people
are generally very kind, very charitable with their friends and
neighbours and very generous with what money they have. In
most instances they would give you their last dollar if you really
needed it. That is the Canadian spirit. I believe in my heart that
with disclosure, the Canadian spirit of giving would be
enhanced. The openness of information would generate greater
trust and financial support to those organizations that we depend
on in our communities and the thousands of volunteers who give
so generously of their time and energy.
At this very crucial financial period in our nation's history,
when the government has taken unprecedented bold, courageous
steps to cut programs, to cut jobs and to cut spending, surely we
have that same bold courage to support this bill.
(1350 )
Canadians are generous in their donations and each of us
places great value on the work our charities and non-profit
organizations do in our communities. However, I am sure that
each of us has wondered where exactly the money goes. How
much is spent on very high paying salaries and how much really
reaches the needs of the child or the researcher for which it is
intended?
Bill C-224 provides that information to the public. It provides
disclosure. I believe that having full knowledge of where the
money is spent, Canadians will be even more generous to the
groups that are deemed worthy of financial support. I commend
my seatmate, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, for
his foresight, for his diligent research as well as his integrity and
determination to do what is right. I believe in times to come this
bill may be considered the very most important piece of
legislation that comes before this 35th Parliament.
I believe Canadians are ready for this legislation and that the
bill is very compatible and may even be considered a companion
to the very recent budget bill.
10686
In conclusion, it is my hope that all hon. members of the
House will give serious consideration to this bill and offer their
full support.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to rise to speak on this private member's bill. I
would like to congratulate my friend from
Hamilton-Wentworth for putting it before the House.
This is a bill which I do not think the Reform Party would have
any problem supporting. It is about two things which we feel
very strongly about, accountability and public disclosure.
We all have made contributions to non-profit groups and to
charities and I am sure that all of us at times have wondered just
what percentage of our dollars actually goes to the cause, which
was mentioned by the previous speaker. How much of it goes to
the cause and how much of it goes to administration and
bureaucracy? This bill will go a long way in allaying some of our
fears. There is nothing like information to put one's mind at rest.
Certainly speculation and fear of the unknown are things which
lead to more and more speculation.
While we are talking about accountability and public
disclosure, I note that the previous speaker mentioned the
pension plan. It was my understanding that there was great
difficulty trying to get the record of who had received
parliamentary pensions in the past, the amounts and also the
amounts which were put in by the member and the amounts
which were paid by the taxpayer. Perhaps a companion bill
sometime down the road, along the lines of public disclosure
and accountability for publicly paid pension plans, would be a
great idea as well.
I have to make apologies to my research assistant, who
actually wrote two speeches for me today, but I am using neither
of them. I send my apologies to him.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): It sounds pretty good
to me.
Mr. Johnston: I hope it sounds good to my research assistant
too, who should take some solace in that.
I am sure that most people in the House realize and recognize
that Reform MPs are making considerable donations in their
constituencies, as a percentage of their income, to charities. We
are all fairly well versed in the charities that are available in the
community. As the previous member also said, this is intended
in no way to call into question the good which these charities and
non-profit organizations do.
(1355 )
As a matter of fact, I could see this as being an augmentation
to the good they do. If too much of their collected funds actually
do go to administration and so forth, then I am sure the people
who have volunteered many hours to ensure these organizations
and charities are a success would be very disheartened to learn
of exorbitant salaries and fees paid to board members and
executives.
I do not intend to take up my full time on this bill. A few words
are as good as many words in a case of this type.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, until the member for Kent
comes back into the Chamber I would like to stand and support
my colleague for Hamilton-Wentworth.
This bill is an example of how a member of Parliament can
come into this Chamber and with proper research support, with a
very specific idea and with a lot of hard work can put something
on the national agenda which touches every community, every
city, every part of our country very positively. I salute my
colleague for Hamilton-Wentworth for this tremendous
achievement in bringing the bill this far.
In regard to a specific aspect of the bill, this type of
accountability for Canada's not for profit sector is going to
create internal efficiency within these organizations. We have
all read stories from time to time where various organizations
have been accused of being too heavy in administration with not
enough going to the line after the administration expenses have
been accounted for. It casts aspersions on the organization
because it cannot put all of its books and records into the public.
It also does not allow the not for profit organizations that are
acting efficiently to make their performance record open to the
public.
This bill will achieve a renewed interest in the volunteer
sector. We will be depending upon that sector more and more as
we move into a very difficult period in terms of fiscal discipline.
The organizations which are operating efficiently and which are
meeting their constituents' needs are going to be rewarded by
those in our society who appreciate that type of efficient
volunteer service.
I thank my colleague and give him my full support.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I support the hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth's bill as well. Listening to the previous
speakers, I heard the member for Cumberland-Colchester say
that it could become the most important piece of legislation
during this session. The member for Broadview-Greenwood
said it was a magnificent achievement.
I am looking for words to give it even more applause but
unfortunately, I cannot reach that high in my praise for this bill.
However, to compliment the hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth, I will say it is a good bill. It is a very
necessary bill and certainly I and my colleagues of the Reform
Party have no problem supporting it.
10687
(1400 )
When Reformers came to Ottawa we said we would not be
here on this side of the House simply to criticize the Liberal
government. The way it has turned out in this 35th Parliament
we have not had much choice but to criticize. The Canadian
people who tune in to what is happening in Parliament will know
that whenever we criticize we do at the same time offer
constructive alternatives.
This is one of the times when we really do not have to criticize
this bill because quite frankly after all the exhaustive research
we have done on it we really cannot find too much wrong with it
bill. I want to the let the House know that while the member for
Hamilton-Wentworth and his research assistants have done
exhaustive research to define the bill clearly, we have done
exhaustive research to determine whether this was a good bill or
not and indeed it is.
We basically want the non-profit organizations and the
charity organizations to become more accountable in their
bookkeeping primarily so we can find out what the leading
members of the organization are getting paid for their services.
We know the Government of Canada contributes a lot of
money to non-profit organizations, special interest groups. Of
late we have had examples where expenses have been seen to be
exorbitant because of the lack of accountability in how these
expenses are reported. We have seen many cases where these
special interest groups and non-profit organizations will skip
some of the lines on the income tax return and just put in a lump
sum showing lump sum salaries paid to some of the top people in
the organization. This will do away with all that. We are going to
get more accountability.
When I am talking about accountability I have to hold the
member for Hamilton-Wentworth blameless in this because he
seems to have a good understanding of what accountability
means. I would encourage him to apply the same principles he
did to this bill to his conversations with other members of the
Liberal Party. What the Reform Party came here to do was to
demand accountability from the government.
The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth appears to have
a pretty good handle on accountability. In supporting this bill I
want to encourage him to talk to as many of his colleagues as he
can so that we may finally get some accountability from the
government as we go forward in the 35th Parliament.
We support this bill.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
and an honour to speak in favour of the motion.
A couple of things have come to mind in the last few minutes
while I have been listening to the other speakers. I would be
remiss if I did not add to the commendation of the hon. member
who has proposed this bill. I have had the privilege of working
with him in the Bill C-43 committee. It is a very healthy sign
and gives me a little glimmer of hope that perhaps there are
some Liberals who do believe in accountability. Sometimes we
get the impression that is not there.
The hon. member was instrumental in adding to the strength
of Bill C-43 in a couple of areas, in particular disclosing. When
lobbyists receive government funds they must now disclose it. I
believe disclosure is the first step to elimination of receiving the
funds.
The best legislation in the House seems to come from private
members. It is really the only time when we have this large
envelope of unanimity. Perhaps we ought to consider changing
the rules of the House and have government business the last
time of the day on Friday and have private members' bills the
rest of the time. Perhaps we would be able to change the system.
(1405 )
I commend the member on this principle. It is close to my
heart because I believe strongly in charities and the work they
do. I also believe in accountability. If it were not for that I would
not have come here as a member of Parliament. That was one of
my prime motivations.
I remember listening to my son whom I have mentioned
before in the House. He is currently working as an administrator
in an orphanage in Rwanda for a charitable organization. He and
his wife are helping to look after some 400 children whose
parents were killed in the unfortunate occurrence there. My son
has been doing this type of work for five or six years, having
been in Somalia, in the Sudan, in Bosnia and in other areas. He
made a statement that I thought was very significant. He said
that in the areas where he has worked the non-government
organizations, the NGOs, are about twice or more as efficient as
government organizations.
He talked about salaries. When he goes there he basically gets
an expense allowance and that is about it. Whereas other people
who are supposed to be helping receive huge salaries. He said he
could not believe it. I will not mention the organizations because
that would be unkind since they are not here to defend
themselves. After working over there for five or ten years some
of the people he mentioned will come back to Canada with a pile
of wealth in their accounts because they were not spending it
over there.
A charitable organization has potential for the greatest
accountability. The whole idea of bringing the good we do to
help people down to people and away from government needs to
be strengthened. That will happen if we open the accountability
and the desire of organizations to be open and honest with the
people that support them.
10688
In my experiences I made it a policy many years ago of not
supporting private charitable organizations that will not open
their books. In some instances I have actually written and and
said: ``Please send me your annual statement for last year. If
it is not audited by an independent auditor I will probably not
help you''. I believe in that principle and it ought to be applied
right across the board.
It is refreshing to see it being done in this area of tax
expenditure. I say in the very best sense I can that I wish the hon.
member for Hamilton-Wentworth would spread this virus of
accountability throughout his caucus so we can infect every
agency of government with total openness, total accountability
and total declarations of how much money was received and how
it was spent.
I am pleased to have spoken in favour of the motion. I
certainly will be supporting it.
The Deputy Speaker: Under the circumstances the hon.
member for Hamilton-Wentworth might wish to close the
debate.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish from the bottom of my heart to thank my
colleagues on all sides of the House who spoke in favour of the
bill.
All things aside I believe the bill is important and will have a
profound effect on Canadian society in what it proposes to do.
For me as a member of Parliament the experience of presenting
the bill to the House and having the support of my colleagues on
all sides fills me with great pride in this 35th Parliament.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, this bill is referred to the
Standing Committee on Government Operations.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.10 p.m., the House stands
adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.10 p.m.)