CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 2, 1995
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12034
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 12043
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 12048
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 12051
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 12055
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 12056
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 12060
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 12064
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 12064
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12065
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12065
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 12067
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 12067
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 12068
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 12068
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12071
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12071
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 12074
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 12076
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 12078
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 12085
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 12087
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 41; Nays, 192 12090
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 47; Nays, 188 12091
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 12092
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 87; Nays, 148 12092
Bill C-291. Motion for second reading 12093
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12101
12029
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 2, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table,
in both official languages, a summary of the Treasury Board
report on the transactions relating to Canada's accounts for the
fiscal year 1993-94 by the Export Development Corporation.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
five petitions.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
present the report of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée
internationale des parlementaires de langue française, as well as
the financial report concerning the branch meeting and the
meeting of the Commission des affaires parlementaires of the
AIPLF held in Bamako, Mali, on March 6 and 7, 1995.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to present a petition from approximately 30
members of my riding. The petitioners are opposed to the
marketing practices of their cable company, more particularly
the negative option approach that was used prior to Christmas.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to instruct the CRTC to
review the entire manner in which the cable television industry
has offered the new specialty channels. They feel that the CRTC
should compel cable television companies to provide
subscribers with the option to pay for the new channels if they
want them, separate from the current channel package.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to introduce in the House a petition signed by many of
my constituents in the riding of Ottawa Centre. The petition
deals with young offenders and the Young Offenders Act.
(1005 )
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present two petitions from my constituents in the
riding of Comox-Alberni. The first contains 114 signatures.
The petitioners request that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with
section 718.2 as it is presently written, and in any event not
include the undefined phrase ``sexual orientation''.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, which comes from all across Canada and
contains 1,000 signatures, making a total of 4,100 signatures to
date, states that the undersigned request that in memory of Dawn
Shaw, the six-year-old girl who was murdered in my riding of
Comox-Alberni, this petition be brought to the attention of
Parliament.
These petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation to
change the justice system to provide greater protection for
children from sexual assault and to ensure conviction of
offenders.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
12030
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
12030
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ)
moved:
That this House denounce the will of the federal government to restrict the
provinces to the role of mere consultant by imposing on them new national
standards for all social programs through the introduction of the Canada
Social Transfer, which will enable the federal government to interfere even
more in such areas as health, post-secondary education and social assistance,
all of which come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is presented by the official
opposition as part of a very important debate that started
recently with the tabling of Bill C-76 by the federal
government.
We are accustomed to seeing all sorts of things in politics, but
I must say that in this case, the discrepancy between what the
government says and what is actually going on is beyond belief.
Last Sunday, at a meeting of the provincial wing of the federal
Liberal Party in Trois-Rivières, the Prime Minister made an
extremely aggressive speech-and this is an understatement,
considering the tone and the content of what he said-in which
he accused the present Government of Quebec of ignoring the
acute poverty problems of Quebec. The Prime Minister based
this accusation on the fact that Quebec has a very substantial
level of poverty, borne out by the announcement the week before
that more than 800,000 people in Quebec were living on welfare.
The Prime Minister exclaimed, to the sound of thunderous
applause by his supporters, that the Government of Quebec was
to blame, the government of Mr. Parizeau who was so obsessed
with the referendum question on sovereignty that he ignored his
basic duty which was to deal with the issue of poverty in
Quebec.
Personally, as I listened to the news Sunday night on
television, I had the impression that I was watching an arsonist
accusing firefighters of doing a poor job, because in this
particular case, the government that is most at fault, a
government that, since it came to power, has been totally
aggressive in its treatment of the vulnerable and unemployed
members of our society, a government that has done more than
any other to aggravate poverty in Canada and Quebec especially,
since Quebec is still part of Canada and is still in a position to be
treated this way by the Canadian federal system, by decisions
that are made in Ottawa, that government has hit hardest at the
unemployed.
We had an election campaign in which the Liberal Party of
Canada very skilfully read the mood of the people and realized
that Canadians and Quebecers had serious concerns about jobs,
maintaining social programs and maintaining the federal
government's contribution to the implementation of its own
programs. The Prime Minister managed to get elected on the
basis of three words, which were always the same: jobs, jobs,
jobs. All this is in the so-called red book which contains the
Liberal government's promises.
(1010)
However, for some time now there have been no more
references to the red book. I remember that during the first year
we were here in the House, practically every speech by a Liberal
minister or member ended with an enthusiastic reference to the
Liberal Party's commitments in the red book. The red book has
now become invisible. All we have now is a black list of social
program commitments abdicated by the Liberal government.
The facts are there. The figures are eloquent and irrefutable.
What has this government done to alleviate the problems created
by poverty? What has it done? In fact, every action taken in the
budget, every policy is aimed at aggravating the situation.
Let us go back to the beginning. In January 1994, the Liberals
tabled Bill C-3 which extended the ceiling on equalization
payments, so that the provinces would receive $1.5 billion less
during the next five years. We have no figures for this year, but
experience has shown that when equalization payments are cut,
Quebec has to pick up at least 40 per cent of the slack.
There is more. This was a good start, but there is more. In
February 1994, the federal government's first budget did what?
It started by cutting $5.5 billion at the expense of the
unemployed, which means the UI system had to do without $5.5
billion, while an additional $2 billion was cut at the expense of
welfare recipients and the education system, all in the same
1994 budget for the years 1994-95 to 1996-97.
Furthermore, according to an internal document of the
Department of Human Resources Development, in 1995-96,
Quebec alone will be stuck with 31 per cent of the cuts in
unemployment insurance benefits made in the Liberals' first
budget. This is stage two of the federal Liberal plan to aggravate
the situation of the poor and the vulnerable in our society.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we come to the February 1995 budget, a
federal budget carved out with a really sharp axe. It reduced
program funding transferred to the provinces by an additional $7
billion, and this translates into a reduction in benefits for people
on welfare, for students and the sick. In addition, funding for the
unemployment insurance system was cut by another $700
million. You may say that is quite a sum. I just hope that enough
is enough. But no, I do not think that the Liberals will stop at
12031
that, because one group has not been hit hard enough in their
opinion, and that is seniors.
Obviously, in this case, they realize how sensitive the issue is,
that it is particularly despicable and that they are walking a fine
line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, they will not hesitate to make the move because
they have already announced it. They said in the February 1995
budget that they were going to re-examine the old age pension
plan. Who could be so naive as to think that a government which
has done nothing but cut social programs since it came to power
will actually increase old age pensions when it scrutinizes that
program? Nobody.
Therefore, why the review if they are not going to increase
pensions? The answer is quite clear. They are reviewing them in
order to axe them. Obviously, old age pensions will not be
spared by the Liberals, who realize that after cutting funding for
the sick, recipients of welfare and students, another potential
target for cuts remains: pensioners.
They accuse me of demagogy. But, after citing all those facts
and figures, I challenge any Liberal member to stand in front of
me and deny even by one iota what I have just said, because I
have just given a truthful rendition of the Liberals' actions. It is
recorded in the public accounts, it is written in the reports to the
House. It is part of the harsh, day-to-day reality of all those who
suffer the consequences of this reprehensible attitude towards
social programs.
(1015)
I regret that the government decided to hit old age pensions. It
is obvious that the government is initiating a far-reaching
operation, but it will encounter an opposition blockade when
push comes to shove.
At any rate, they have already cut the net income of seniors by
$500 million through the tax increase they imposed on them in
the 1994 budget. And the same Prime Minister leading the same
government stepped up to the microphone one fine Sunday at the
end of April in Trois-Rivières in Quebec, in an area hard hit by
this problem, to say to hundreds of people frantically waving
small Canadian flags that the Government of Quebec and the
sovereignists are to blame for this.
Quebec is not yet a sovereign state. Our current state of affairs
and all of our problems and social traumas are the federal
regime's doing.
To refresh the memory of Liberal members, the truth is that
for the next three years, if we add up all of the cuts contained in
the last two budgets, Quebec will be deprived of close to $10
billion in social program financing for those years. It will be
deprived of $9.7 billion, I repeat, $9.7 billion. That is what the
arrival of the federal Liberals in Ottawa has brought.
We can look at all of this in terms of percentages, one simple
figure to sum up the past 15 years. We all well know that the
federal government has justified its existence and seen its role in
relation to its contribution to social programs for a long time
now. This used to be one of the federal regime's good points,
which, we recognize, helped to make this country more civilized
and a place in which wealth was more evenly shared and the less
fortunate were treated with compassion. But for 15 years now,
this has no longer been the case and the government has been
moving away from these principles at a dizzying pace.
Take Quebec for example. In 1980, the federal government's
share in funding for Quebec's social programs was close to 50
per cent. In 1997, the government's share will be only 28 per
cent. This represents a drop of close to half of its contribution,
an amount that will continue to shrink because we know that the
federal government is leaning towards withdrawing its share of
funding for programs, although they are essential.
Figures do not lie. We are talking about statistics, amounts of
money, resources and percentages. And other figures are so
much more telling, more dramatic: they are about people. In the
end, it is not a matter of things being left up in the air, of things
being left at a level of an academic discussion or of things not
going beyond debate in the House. No, in the end, it is a matter
of people getting it in the neck, and this is what the Liberals do
not understand. But they used to understand, and that was one of
the grand traditions of the Liberal Party, which set it apart from
the Conservative Party and from the Reform Party. Now, they
are all one and the same, because it means nothing to them
anymore. They forget, for example, that, in Quebec, since the
Liberals came to power, the number of people on welfare has
increased by 53,590. Almost 54,000 more people now live on
social assistance in Quebec since the arrival of the Liberals.
We are well aware that the new social assistance recipients,
those new people on the welfare rolls, come from the ranks of
the 40 percent of former UI claimants whose benefits were cut
off. This too is one of the fine achievements of the Liberal Party
in Ottawa. Not only did they reduce unemployment insurance
benefits, they raised unemployment insurance contributions.
What is more, they tightened restrictions so that fewer and fewer
people can access UI benefits. Conclusion: people have stayed
on welfare.
When the Prime Minister, whom I might call the social
arsonist, arrives in Trois-Rivières and blames the Government
of Quebec for the increase in poverty, there is no doubt in our
minds that he is the one responsible for the growing numbers on
the welfare rolls through his hateful restrictions. The Prime
Minister of Canada is turning people into welfare cases.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
12032
Mr. Loubier: That is the truth.
(1020)
Mr. Bouchard: So now things have to be glossed over, kept
hidden, and the best way, in the government's mind, to do so is to
use new terms. So we have a marvellous new term: the Canada
social transfer. It was preceded by trial balloons announcing the
government's withdrawal from provincial jurisdiction, its
confinement to its own jurisdictions and its transfer of money to
the provinces to enable them to meet their responsibilities, and
the rabbit that popped out of the hat was the Canada social
transfer.
We might have wondered what was happening at the
beginning, but now we know, because it is in black and white in
Bill C-76. The bill lets us know very clearly what it is all about.
It is about a centralizing assault, the likes of which we have not
seen since the shameful patriation of 1982. For the first time in
15 years, the government is charging ahead, visor raised, along
the route of massive and unequivocal centralization. It says so in
the bill.
Now the federal government will not be content just to
encroach on provincial jurisdiction. It will not be satisfied with
legal opinions from the Department of Justice. It will not be
satisfied by merely appeasing its appetite for power. It is going
to set up a legislative framework for itself to achieve its end.
This framework is known as Bill C-76, legislation that is a
charade as well, because it is one of the ways the federal
government is concealing the fact that it is dumping its poor
management onto the provinces.
It is also charade, because the government is using it to mask
the extent of the cuts it is imposing on the provinces. And it is an
even greater charade, because it is claiming falsely to eliminate
national standards. The fact of the matter is that no bill has ever
given the federal government so much power to impose national
standards. This does not apply just to the traditional social
programs; it is throughout the bill. For the first time, a bill
explicitly provides for the federal government's imposition of
standards in post-secondary education, an area that is clearly
under provincial jurisdiction.
For the first time, the federal government is empowering
itself to say: ``I do not like this educational program. You will do
it this way, or I will cut funding''. Same thing for social
programs. Do not just take my word for it. Many observers and
analysts have noted and seen very clearly that the aim of the
exercise is to confirm the $7 billion cuts announced for the next
three years and to give the federal government the power to
dictate the set-up of the provinces' social programs to which it
will be contributing less and less.
I said authoritative voices have said this. I will quote, for
example, Lise Bissonnette, who wrote the following in an
editorial in Le Devoir last week. She said: ``According to Bill
C-76, post-secondary education is now comparable to a social
program. The bill allows Ottawa to apply national standards, in
this area, as in others. The provinces, whose jurisdiction over
education is as clear as it can be in the Canadian Constitution,
are at best assured of consultation''.
La Presse agrees with Le Devoir. It may reassure the Liberals
to know that in the March 31, 1995 edition of La Presse, Chantal
Hébert writes, ``With the bill tabled in the Commons to
implement its February budget, the federal government opens
the door to the unilateral imposition of new national standards in
areas such as post-secondary education, child care, etc. In fact,
Bill C-76 now restricts the provinces to the role of mere
consultant in this exercise. The bill has no provision requiring
the provinces' prior consent to the introduction of new national
standards for social programs''.
In Le Devoir of April 21, Conrad Yakabusski himself writes,
``Although Ottawa boasted in its February 27 budget of having
freed the provinces of Canadian standards in the management of
social programs, the Chrétien government now wants to make
them adhere to a whole series of new national principles that
would apply to a wider range of programs. And although it
claims it wants the provinces to comply voluntarily with these
principles, the federal government is about to give itself the
powers it needs to impose them in case the provinces refuse to
do so''.
In closing, I will also quote Giles Gherson, principal secretary
to Mr. Axworthy, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, who said, ``What would occur after the failure of
negotiations aimed at setting national standards remains
ambiguous''.
(1025)
The bill that is the subject of today's motion clearly shows
what will occur if the announced negotiations between the
federal government and the provinces do not result in an
agreement. Without an agreement, it is clear that the
government will find in this bill all the latitude and power it
needs to impose its standards. I am very concerned when I hear
that it is preparing to tell provincial governments like that of
Quebec that if they do not comply, their funding will be cut off.
Meanwhile, a historic, essential process is unfolding in
Quebec: the preparation of a referendum on sovereignty. It is not
every day that a people can decide whether it should face its
future as a sovereign people or a province. Quebec will do this in
the fall. The federal government, which has the nerve to tell us it
will propose a type of flexible federalism after the referendum,
is clearly showing us today what Quebec can expect if it stays in
the Canadian federation.
If Quebec stays in the Canadian federation, we can expect to
live under the boot of the federal government, to let federal
bureaucrats and politicians set standards for Quebec's social and
education programs. They have the nerve to say this to us now,
when we are on the verge of making our decision. I can tell you
12033
that Quebecers are taking note of this and that this will weigh
heavily in the outcome of the Quebec referendum.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks made by the hon.
Leader of the Opposition. It is pure demagoguery. I said so
during his speech earlier, but I repeat it now for the whole House
to hear because this is how I feel about it.
I must say that quite extraordinary things were just said. We
have just heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about new
terms. The Leader of the Opposition, the expert in newspeak, as
Mr. Orwell called it in his novel entitled 1984, accused the
government of using new terms. Members opposite, who are
afraid to use the word separatism and use sovereignty instead,
who do not want to hold a referendum unless they are sure of
winning it, while rejecting federalism, talk about a federalist
sovereignty, which means sovereignty with a federal
parliament-you can see the distinction: a federalist
sovereignty, but not federalism. That is the difference in the
world according to the Leader of the Opposition.
He spoke of massive centralization, while social groups come
to Ottawa to denounce what they describe as a restriction of
federal powers resulting from Bill C-76. I say that they are both
going too far. There are those who, like the Leader of the
Opposition, are prone to exaggeration by nature and see the
devil at work everywhere. While he, naturally, sees excessive
federal presence just about everywhere, others, on the other
hand- This is a very serious issue and if the members opposite
think otherwise, maybe they should listen to something else than
their leader's speech.
I have a question for the Leader of the Opposition. He
denounced what he called national standards in child care.
(1030)
I heard him speak in support of what reporter Chantal Hébert
said. In his remarks, he supported her position, coming out
against so-called national standards supposedly set in the bill on
child care.
I wonder if he can think back to the election campaign in
which he himself ran, in June 1988. Does he remember that there
was a bill before the House at the time, a Conservative bill to
establish a national child care system, and that he voted for this
bill, that he went on to campaign with Mr. Mulroney and that,
during the campaign, the public was told that the bill had to be
dropped after third reading, after being adopted by the House,
because the Senate had asked for one more day to consider the
bill in committee? How could he get himself elected in a
government that wanted to establish a system that he now
accuses others of trying to impose?
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to make two
comments on the hon. member's preamble regarding a winning
referendum. Indeed, there is a fundamental difference between
Ottawa's federalists and us, Bloc members and sovereignists in
general. The difference is that we want a winning referendum, so
that Quebecers can be a fully sovereign nation, like a normal
people. We know full well that federal Liberals want a losing
referendum.
The federal government hopes that Quebec will once again go
down on its knees, so that it can satisfy its centralizing needs and
finish the dirty job started in 1982.
As for social groups, the member tells us that they come in
droves on Parliament Hill to urge the federal government to
impose even more standards on the provinces. First, we did not
see much of these groups and, second, I think the member is
mistaken.
These groups are not asking the federal government to set
bureaucratic rules and increase its bureaucracy to control the
provinces. They are asking the Liberal government to pursue its
efforts, so that provinces can maintain civilized social programs
which make sense. This is what people are asking the federal
government.
I have a suggestion for the Liberal member who just made that
statement. When he meets with social groups making such
complaints about the provinces while extolling the virtues of the
federal government regarding social programs, he should
provide them with figures indicating what the Liberal Party has
done to them in the last two years. He should tell these groups
that this Liberal government made drastic cuts in the UI
program, that it also made cuts in social programs through
transfer payments, that the situation will get worse year after
year, and that his government is also about to target old age
pensions. If the member tells these facts to social groups, they
will go back to their provinces, because that is where their
interests are best served. Indeed, the effort is primarily made at
that level, thanks to the generosity and compassion of Canadians
and Quebecers, not at the level of federal bureaucrats and
politicians, who are constantly finding new ways to stop
contributing to that effort.
Thirdly, the child care program goes back to 1988, which is
some time ago, but I clearly remember it. The legislation
included provisions giving full scope to the provinces, while
respecting their jurisdiction. It is the Liberal Party which
instructed its majority in the Senate to block this $5 billion
initiative designed to set up a true child care program.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the Leader of the Opposition a straightforward
question.
If the federal government gave provinces exclusive
jurisdiction over health, education, culture, language and
immigration as per the Jean Allaire report, would the Leader of
the Opposi-
12034
tion then withdraw his pursuit of separation and agree to
recommend to Quebecers to stay in Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we will all agree that it is a
purely hypothetical question.
(1035)
We only have to look at the Liberals opposite; they are
petrified at the thought that these issues might be raised in the
House. The track record of the Liberals, the federal government,
the federal system and the efforts made to renew the Canadian
Constitution and federalism has consistently been dismal.
I will be frank with the the member; I would have been
delighted by such an offer when I was a federal minister and I
would certainly have accepted it since I was ready to accept the
Meech Lake accord, which did not even go that far. But, since we
could not have the absolute minimum, we will never have the
maximum. We will not settle for anything less than Quebec's
sovereignty .
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you know, when
you are the finance minister, when you hold an economic
portfolio in a government, and even when your portfolio is not
an economic one as was the case for the Leader of the Official
Opposition, you really care about people's priorities.
Obviously, the priorities of Quebecers, and Canadians as a
whole, are job creation, and a meaningful future for their
children and their fellow citizens. This is why it is so
disappointing for Quebecers and Canadians to hear, day in and
day out, the Leader of the Official Opposition and his acolytes
talk about a political agenda which has nothing to do with the
well-being of Quebecers.
This is why it is so disappointing not to hear them talk about
deficit reduction, fiscal restraint, new technologies. They never
talk about the environment. They never talk about what really
matters to the Canadian people because they have a political
agenda which creates uncertainty and has nothing to do with a
country's true objectives in an increasingly interdependent
world.
As a result, once again, we are presented today with an empty
shell. The opposition really wants to waste the time of the House
when it should be dealing with the real challenges facing our
country and debate issues other than the fruit of the Bloc's
imagination.
Let us be perfectly clear, the objective, the plan of the federal
government was clearly laid out in the budget speech. In the
budget speech, which can be read in both official languages, one
can see that it does not intend to impose anything on the
provinces, or deliver the goods in the manner unfortunately
described by the Leader of the Opposition in the speech he just
made.
Let us be clear, under the new system, there will be fewer
conditions governing the use the provinces can make of
transfers. The provinces will no longer have to abide by rules
specifying which expenses are eligible for cost-sharing and
which ones are not. They will be free-let us be clear about
that-to adopt innovative mechanisms regarding social security
reform according to their own priorities.
A more flexible needs test will allow the provinces to make
income support and non-monetary benefits more universally
available to low income earners or to people who were on
welfare and are entering the labour market. It is for these people
that we are here. It is for these people that we made these
amendments. It is these people that each and every politician in
this House should care about, instead of trying to deceive
Quebecers with a political adventure creating constant
uncertainty in a world in great need of more certainty.
(1040)
Federal subsidies could be used to support, for example, the
PWA program in Quebec and other types of income supplement
programs for low income families and workers. That was not the
case previously. Also, the Minister of Human Resources
Development will invite all provincial governments to work
together, through mutual consent. This means that absolutely no
condition will be imposed to the provinces. Mutual consent
means mutual consent. Both parties will have to be in
agreement. They will meet to develop a set of shared principles
and objectives that could underlie the Canada social transfer.
Through today's motion, the official opposition is trying to
turn our project, which was so well received by the people in
Quebec and in all of Canada-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): -to turn the development
of a set of shared principles into a contrived issue. These hon.
members would like the House, Quebecers and Canadians to
believe that this whole process is nothing but a plot to
underhandedly impose new conditions, methods or penalties.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that it is not so.
Just in case the Bloc members were daydreaming that day,
although I do not believe so, let me remind you of what I said
during the budget speech I delivered on February 27, 1995: ``I
will be inviting all provincial governments to work together on
developing, through mutual consent, a set of shared principles
and objectives that could underlie the Canada social transfer''.
This is exactly the commitment we are making in Bill C-76,
without adding or deleting anything.
12035
Of course, if there are problems, we will introduce
amendments, but the goal of the government is clear: we do not
want to impose anything on the provinces, we want to help the
provinces and the federal government to put their financial
houses in order and to give provinces a lot more flexibility. This
is why I am so pleased to confirm today what the opposition
leader has a little trouble with, which is our commitment to
propose to the appropriate committee the following
amendments.
To establish interim arrangements to finance social programs
in a manner that will increase provincial flexibility. The
amendment reads as follows:
Maintaining the national criteria and conditions in the Canada Health Act,
including those respecting public administration, comprehensiveness,
universality, portability and accessibility
and the provisions relating to extra-billing and user charges.
Also, to apply the national criterion stipulated in section 19
which requires or allows no minimum period of residence as a
condition for eligibility for social assistance. The amendment
reads as follows:
Promoting any shared principles and objectives that are developed,
pursuant to subsection (3), with respect to the operation of social programs,
other than a program for the purpose referred to in paragraph (b).
The Canada Health and Social Transfer shall consist of, (a) a federal
income tax reduction in favour of the provinces that would enable the
provinces to impose their own tax measures without a net increase in taxation;
and
(1045)
(b) a cash contribution not exceeding the amount computed in accordance
with section 14.
The Minister of Human Resources Development shall invite representatives
of all the provinces to consult and work together to develop, through mutual
consent, a set of shared principles and objectives for the other social programs
referred to in paragraph 1(d) that could underlie the Canada Health and Social
Transfer.
[
English]
When I spoke on the budget I made it clear that the
government's objectives were to clean up the nation's finances,
to put the country once again on a sound financial footing and, at
the same time, to give the provinces far greater flexibility in the
elaboration and the design of a multitude of social programs.
We made it very clear we were imposing only two conditions
on that transfer. The first was that the objectives of the Canada
Health Act must be respected. It is a covenant of the government
with the Canadian people. We will never allow that to be taken
away.
Second, the only standard that would be imposed on other
social transfers would be that no minimum residency
requirement be necessary for CAP. We would not allow
provinces to take welfare away from people because they had
not had a long term residence within that province.
[Translation]
I said very clearly in this House that we had no intention of
imposing anything else on the provinces, that we had no
intention of imposing new national standards, that the minister
simply wanted to sit down with his provincial counterparts to
discuss freely with them issues such as Canadian values and the
smooth running of both federal and provincial governments.
It is hard to understand that, with all the opportunities we have
of working together to create jobs for our young people and to
reduce poverty in Quebec, the members opposite have chosen to
sidestep this issue. They come here with an artificial problem
that has nothing to do with the truth and the reality of our
country and of our budget.
[English]
The Bloc Quebecois is the official opposition. It has a
responsibility to Canadians to speak for the nation. Members of
the Bloc Quebecois talk about having an economic union. They
talk about working with Canada. Let Canadians understand the
way members of the Bloc Quebecois see working. Will they
speak for the nation? No. Will they speak for national interest?
No. Will they speak for Canadians' desire to have jobs? No. Will
they speak for those who would take Canadians out of poverty
and give our children a chance for a decent life? No.
What do they do? Day after day they come into the House and
stand up with artificial questions that have nothing to do with
the Canadian reality. Day after day they come in, as they have
done today, and make up a problem. This country has problems.
[Translation]
We do have problems. We do not have to invent them. Why
not work with us to solve the problems we have as a country?
Why not join Canadians from all the provinces in saying that the
real challenges lie beyond our borders? Competition comes
from Japan, Germany and the United States. Competition is not
between Quebecers and Albertans, but between Canadians and
Japanese, between Canadians and Germans. That is where we
have to look if we want to build a strong future for ourselves.
Instead of that, the Bloc Quebecois tried to create a problem
because it had to find something to discuss on this opposition
day. It decided that maybe it could mislead the people of Quebec
by saying that the government wants to impose new national
standards.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you and I can assure the leader of the
opposition that this is not true.
12036
(1050)
The Leader of the Opposition has been a member of the
federal cabinet. He knows very well what kind of country
Canada is, with an outstanding potential.
Let me be quite clear. This government is going to stand up for
the Canada Health Act. There is no doubt about that. It will not
deviate from that policy. It will also make sure no province
imposes residency rules that would deprive Canadian citizens of
social benefits.
We have also clearly stated that we do not intend in any way to
impose national standards on any province through the budget or
the Canadian social transfer legislation. The minister intends to
have discussions with the provinces on whether there are other
values or Canadian goals we should concentrate on.
The Leader of the Opposition is sidestepping the issue for
political reasons that have nothing to do with the day-to-day
life of our fellow citizens.
He and the Bloc Quebecois are once again looking for ways to
create acrimony and uncertainty. Instead of fostering the
well-being of Canadians, the Bloc Quebecois is trying to create
a problem where there is none.
[English]
Let this country understand that the official opposition
refuses not only to speak for the national interest but in this
debate is refusing to speak for the interests of Quebecers.
There is no intention to impose anything on any province.
There is one intention and that is to create jobs. There is one
intention and that is to give our children a decent future. There is
one intention and that is to protect the Canada Health Act. There
is one intention and that is to make sure that residency is not a
condition for welfare. There is one intention and that is for this
country to realize every bit of its potential. It is to give this
country and its citizens the opportunities that it has as a result of
the tremendous talent that exists within the ground and the talent
that walks upon it. That is what this country is all about.
[Translation]
The time has come for Bloc Quebecois members to join
Quebecers who want to build our great country, Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we just heard the Minister of Finance, the one
person responsible for cuts in this government. He was the one
who cut unemployment insurance, social programs and transfer
payments. Then he has the nerve to tell us: ``In the budget
speech, one can see that the government does not intend to
impose anything on the provinces''. Has he forgotten already
that he cut social programs and education by seven billion
dollars for the next three years? It takes some nerve, Mr.
Speaker.
It takes nerve also to say that the important issue is job
creation when this government has failed completely in this
area. This government has done nothing for job creation. The
only job creating program mentioned in the red book, municipal
infrastructures, was reduced by 200 million dollars in the recent
budget.
So I believe people will have to be careful to sort out reality
from inflated patriotic language and repeated protestations.
Reality is extremely harsh and inescapable; it shows this
government has taken a turn to the right and has decided to
attack the unemployed, the have-nots of our society. It did
impose 100 million dollars of additional temporary taxes on
banks but, at the same time, decided to take 700 million dollars
from the unemployed. This government has launched the worse
attack ever against the have-nots of Canada.
So when the Bloc speaks in the interest of those people it is
talking in true legitimacy. We are very proud to say what we say
in this House. If we were not here, nobody else would defend
social programs and the right to strike.
What we represent in this House is legitimate all across
Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1055)
Mr. Bouchard: Previously, the Liberal Party and the NDP
assumed that role, but the former now is the government and the
later has all but disappeared. We are the only ones left in
Canada, not only in Quebec but in Canada, to speak in this House
for the poor, those who are the victims of this minister, the
victims of this government. No ministerial or prime-ministerial
speech in this House will make us forget that these people are
persecuted by the federal government.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: Second, we are being told that we are wasting
the time of the House by discussing Bill C-76. What an
undemocratic attitude. Have we reached the point-because we
are sovereignists, elected as such by the people of Quebec,
democratically, 53 of us out of 75 seats in Quebec when the
governing party only got 20-where we can no longer express
the reasons for our being here?
Have we reached the point, now that the government is
imposing new national standards in the context of an unusual
legislative framework, where we no longer have the right to say
that this does not make any sense, where we can no longer speak
on behalf of the provinces or the poor, where we can no longer
say that, yes, we are here to promote Quebec sovereignty,
because we believe this is the only possible solution to extricate
ourselves from the current mess, the kind of deception we are
witnessing today?
12037
I can tell you that there is not one member here who is not
proud to assume this historical role, and we are confident that in
the fall the people of Quebec will prove wrong those who have
not yet understood the Quebec reality.
I have a question to ask the minister. He knows Quebec and, as
a rule, he is quite democratic. I do not think his speech today was
really democratic, but as a rule he is. He knows very well that in
Quebec there is a consensus on the issue of manpower training.
We talk about a lot of things, administrative arrangements in
every possible area, but there is one thing that everybody agrees
on in Quebec and it is that manpower training programs and the
resources devoted to them should be in the hands of the
Government of Quebec.
This would do away with a lot of arguing, would prevent the
neutralization of efforts and the wasting of energies. We could
have better designed programs, specifically geared to Quebec
needs. Everybody in Quebec thinks like this, including the
leading federalists, including people like Ghislain Dufour,
president of the Conseil du patronat. There is general agreement
on this in Quebec.
Being a democrat and seeking the best for Quebec, as he said,
what is he waiting for to convince a reluctant Prime Minister-I
know he is most reluctant-to convince his government to
transfer all manpower training activities to Quebec with the
necessary resources?
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of
the Opposition has just accused me of being undemocratic, of
accusing him of wasting the time of the House of Commons. Let
us be perfectly clear: of course, the Bloc Quebecois has not only
the right but also the obligation to enter the debate on the
government budget.
They certainly have the right to present their views but when,
instead of discussing the budget, they create a phoney issue and
make up their own budget that has nothing to do with the one we
presented, I certainly agree that they are wasting the time not
only of this House but also of the Canadian people.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is starting
to change his tune somewhat. Today's opposition motion reads
in part as follows: ``-by imposing on them new national
standards for all social programs-'' That is patently untrue.
The motion goes on to say: ``-through the introduction of the
Canada Social Transfer, which will enable the federal
government to interfere even more in such areas as health,
post-secondary education and social assistance''. That is
patently untrue, Mr. Speaker. As I said in my budget speech and
in the budget itself and as I reiterated again today, there is no
intention of imposing anything on the provinces or to interfere
in provincial matters.
(1100)
To make things even clearer, this morning, I submitted to this
House the amendments we intend to refer to the committee that
will consider the budget.
Let us set the record straight. The Bloc Quebecois's motion is
a sidestepping tactic and has nothing to do with the truth. When I
say that you are wasting the time of the House, it is not because
you do not have the right to discuss the budget but because you
are making up your own budget to better attack it. I think that we
have just received a compliment. You have just shown that it is
impossible to attack our budget by making up your own budget
so you could attack it.
Second, the Leader of the Opposition raised the issue of
transfers to the provinces. Let me tell you that when I met with
provincial finance ministers, they told me, ``Give us notice. Do
not take us by surprise like the previous government''. So we
gave them two years to adjust.
Third, they told us, ``If you are going to hit us, make sure that
you will be hit harder''. That is what we did. We made deeper
cuts at the federal level than at the provincial level.
Fourth, these cuts represent less than 3 per cent of provincial
revenue and less than 20.5 per cent of Quebec revenue. It must
be said that, at a time when all governments must put their fiscal
houses in order, we simply fulfilled our obligations.
I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will talk to the head
office, because he obviously exerts a great deal of influence
there, and that the next time he talks to them he will suggest that
they bring down a budget designed to put their fiscal house in
order to create in Quebec a climate that would help the federal
government create jobs.
Since the Leader of the Opposition has so much influence on
the head office, perhaps he will talk to them about their own
cuts, because he is blaming us for the cuts they are making in
money areas.
I think that they should not say two different things. But
perhaps it is possible for the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to say
one thing and for the leader of the Parti Quebecois to say another
thing. We face real economic and social problems. We know
that. We know about the poverty problem and we see how
painful it is. We know what is happening and we want to work
together.
In closing, I ask the Leader of the Opposition and the Bloc
Quebecois, instead of creating phoney issues and provoking
empty debates, to help us tackle the real problems of Quebec and
Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
12038
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians watching the debate today are probably not sure
whether the concern here is political point making or whether it
is the welfare of the people of Canada. I hope as legislators in the
Chamber we keep in mind the welfare of the people we represent
and the people we serve.
There are strong feelings on issues that are perhaps unrelated
to the absolute welfare of Canadians. Perhaps there are agendas
that would seek to use some of the issues as springboards.
However it is very important today to focus on what can best be
done to assist the people and to keep in mind there are needs and
concerns shared right across the country.
(1105 )
We need to be honest and point out that governments can only
do so much, whether it is a federal government or a provincial
government. To my knowledge there has not been a government
in history that has been able to eradicate poverty or has been able
to relieve all citizens from hardship, from difficulty in their
lives, from the insecurities of life with which we are concerned.
Somehow there is a feeling or a belief that governments can
look after all of us and prevent us from facing hardships and
difficulties. It is not fair to Canadians to suggest that if we talk
enough, if we accuse each other enough, if we promise enough
or if we fight enough, everyone will be looked after.
We can direct our minds to working together not only as
legislators but as fellow citizens, to assisting each other, and to
doing all we can to help those who cannot help themselves. That
should be the real focus of the debate today.
There is a transition in the country with respect to security for
Canadians. For quite a few years many security programs have
been premised on two assumptions that have proved to be false.
The first assumption is that mother government will, can and
should look after its citizens, support them and protect them
from all the difficulties and contingencies of life. The second
assumption is that government can and should do so by
borrowing money.
We have spoken so often about the dangerous assumptions
and the wrong headedness of the assumptions that it is
surprising we do not start from the premise right away. Clearly
we do not. The reason reductions are being made in the funding
of programs not just by the federal government but by all levels
of government is that more and more of our income, more and
more of our economic product, is being eaten up in compound
interest accrued on the borrowing we have done to put the
programs in place. Arguing about who did what to whom and
whether cuts should be made here or there really obscures the
central question of how we are to manage the situation we are in
while making a firm and proper commitment to help the people
who are truly needy.
My friends in the Bloc have a very legitimate point of concern
which they have raised today about how the situation is being
addressed. It is a situation that will not change. We are spending
more and more of our income on interest payments. We are at the
point where we cannot continue to fund programs on borrowed
money. That inevitably leads to spending reductions. The
question is not whether there should be spending reductions but
how they should best be managed. If the debate today is intended
to legitimately and honestly address the situation, it is very
proper and very needed.
(1110 )
Quite frankly no plan has been advanced or proposed by the
government or by the ministers responsible to give us a road
map, a sense of direction on where we are going in light of the
realities of the economy and the reality that government cannot
deliver on the promises that it made in the past to be all things to
all people and to preserve and protect us in every difficulty.
I listened carefully for the visions, proposals and
recommendations of previous speakers to Canadians who want
security for themselves in the future. I did not hear any such
proposal. I heard blame being assigned. I heard denials. I heard
ridicule of concerns. However I did not hear any leader in the
House say so far what he intends to do to address the serious
concerns of the people.
In many places of the world the concerns of people in
difficulty and distress who need relief and assistance have often
been used as vehicles to promote political agendas. I hope very
much that will not happen in our country. Promising people
something that no level of government can really deliver is a
dishonest approach to a problem that we do not want to duplicate
in Canada. It also does not address what we should be and could
be doing to better serve the people of our country.
The finance minister is correct when he says that the
legislation put before the House to implement his budget does
not impose any new national standards on the provinces. I have
examined the legislation very carefully and there are no
proposals for new standards. I do not believe the provinces are
being required to do any more than they have in the past as far as
delivery of services are concerned.
There are however two concerns which my friends in the Bloc
have raised that we should acknowledge and address as much as
we can. One concern is that there is no co-operative plan or
process to facilitate the development of a co-operative plan to
ensure the proper, effective and efficient delivery of services
that Canadians need.
The government has said that it would reduce its spending and
talk about what we will do together later. That is not a good
service to the people. A far better thing to have done would have
been to immediately work to facilitate a discussion and a
co-operative approach to how services will be delivered instead
of making unilateral decisions and then saying we can talk about
it later. All provinces justifiably have concerns about that type
of process. It could have been managed a great deal better.
12039
The role of the federal government in the delivery of the
programs has to be addressed honestly. The federal government
is continuing to apply its own criteria to how the programs are
delivered and to make judgments, pronouncements and give
direction on how things will be structured as far as the delivery
of programs is concerned. My friends in the Bloc are correct
when they point out that it is an intrusion into areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
(1115 )
People look for income support when they cannot provide
themselves with the necessities of life. Some of these people
have suffered from a catastrophic illness or they are young
people who are looking for the training and education needed to
build a strong future for themselves. I do not think these people
really care very much about how and at what level of
government these services are delivered. They simply know
they need the assistance and programs that will best enable them
to look after the contingencies in life.
Canadians watching the debate today have probably felt quite
frustrated at the suggestions that you should do this or we should
do that; that you did not do this right or they did not do it right.
Quite frankly, Canadians just want to know who is going to do it
right.
The principles outlined by the Reform Party suggest how we
can best deliver programs and structure the spending of public
money to give Canadians health and security. The programs are
most efficiently and effectively delivered by the level of
government closest to the people being served. I believe the
people who framed our Canadian Constitution saw it that way as
well. Clearly, they put these matters into provincial jurisdiction.
If my friends in the Bloc are suggesting that it should fall
within the jurisdiction of the provinces to deal with matters of
post-secondary education, delivery of health care services and
the support of citizens who are destitute and unable to provide
for themselves, then Reform completely agrees with them.
These services are best delivered by the provincial government
and institutions and organizations in the provinces.
It would be the federal government's role to provide
equalization of the financial ability of each province to provide
good delivery of those services. It would also work
co-operatively to facilitate a strong, coherent approach to the
delivery of those services right across the country.
This is a very mobile society. People can now move easily
from one end of the country to the other and to different
provinces many times in their lives. We want to make sure there
are proper services, proper education, proper health care, that
we are caring for people to the best of our ability no matter
where they live in Canada. The federal government does have a
role which is to ensure the proper co-ordination and proper
delivery of services across the country.
This confrontational approach, the big stick of additional
funding and threats to withdraw funding if the federal
government's will is not carried out will simply not be workable
in the future. We must acknowledge that. We must move to a far
more co-operative approach where we simply work together as
legislators at the federal, provincial and lower levels of
government to simply do our job, which is to serve the people we
represent and with whose money and futures we have been
entrusted. We need to work together to do that well.
It both concerns and disappoints me when we quarrel and
fight rather than work together for the benefit of the people we
are responsible to help and to serve by making good decisions. I
appeal to my colleagues in this debate to look at the
practicalities of how best we can achieve the good of all
Canadians rather than simply using people's legitimate needs
and concerns to advance agendas which really have nothing to
do with giving them the help and the kind of government they
need and deserve.
(1120 )
We could work co-operatively and we could respect the
decisions that have been made as to how best to help people. We
could respect our jurisdictions and the proper roles each level of
government has. If we could do that, all Canadians would be
much better served.
As members know, the Reform Party has put forward a
number of proposals to better meet the health care, education
and social welfare needs of Canadians. We have done this in
light of the realities we face today, in light of the fact that some
of the past assumptions simply have not proven to be correct or
workable. Today is not the time when I will talk specifically
about those.
It should be the will of all of us serving as federal or
provincial legislators, or as municipal officials, at whatever
level we are trying to meet the needs and protect the interests of
the citizens we serve to work co-operatively. We must work to
find ways where each of us can make the best contribution for
the good of our citizens, where we can bring our country
together, where we can work together and build a strong future.
With that in mind, I move:
That the motion be amended by adding immediately following the word
``denounce'' the following: ``for the sake of national unity''.
When we work together in a unified way, we will best serve
the legitimate and very real needs of all the people of this
country.
12040
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The amendment proposed
by the hon. member for Calgary North is in order.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I had prepared a speech but, given what I have heard
here this morning, particularly from the Minister of Finance, I
will start by replying to the Minister of Finance. I was
flabbergasted to hear the Minister of Finance say what I heard
him say this morning, when he talked about employment,
compassion for the poor, people on welfare, the 808,000
Quebecers who are currently on the welfare rolls. He said, his
hand to his heart, that he had done all he could to help these
people and that it was our turn.
He is the one responsible in the first place for the hardship
experienced by these people in Quebec as well as in the rest of
Canada. It is his doing. He is the one who, out of compassion for
the unemployed, cut $7 billion from the UI fund. He is the one
who pushed some of the unemployed and more to come, with
their families, onto welfare because of tighter requirements
brought about by his cuts.
Now he has the gall to tell us to call upon our head office, in
Quebec, to establish real policies to fight poverty when he
himself, as the Minister of Finance, his government, and his
Prime Minister in particular, are seriously interfering not only
with economic recovery but also with improving the lot of the
most unfortunate families in Quebec and Canada.
(1125)
That is dreadful. I will tell the Minister of Finance right away
that he better stop taking his instructions from the Power
Corporation head office or that of the Bronfmans and the rest
and start working for and serving the people who elected him
instead of his friends, the large corporations, who benefit from a
tax system of an unprecedented generosity because there are so
many loopholes in it that it looks like Swiss cheese. The
Bronfmans, the Desmarais and the rest take advantage of such
loopholes.
I have a hard time containing myself sometimes when I see
how few measures he takes and consider his personal situation,
but I will not dwell on that because we, Bloc members, are too
polite to engage in this kind of thing. But I find it despicable that
such a man can say that he is compassionate, given that he is the
one responsible for the hardship of these people.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: He said that instead of creating economic
uncertainty by talking about sovereignty, we should join them.
First of all, he is the one creating uncertainty by not proposing
budget measures. Moody's realized that in February. Moody's
understood that when it downgraded Canada's rating. We truly
regret that, but the agency recognized that the Minister of
Finance had demonstrated his incompetence over the past year.
The minister took no appropriate action for a medium-term
control of Canada's deficit and debt. He is the one creating
uncertainty. He is the one who is confusing the economic
situation and leading the country on the road to ruin.
So, we urge him to stop talking about uncertainty, to look in
his own backyard and to ask himself what he has done in the past
year as finance minister to regain control of public finances,
what he has done other than to offload his deficit problems onto
the provinces and plan an eventual transfer of the federal
government's rating cut. These are the real questions he should
have asked this morning.
Coming back to Bill C-76, the legislation maintains the
national standards in the health sector, and introduces new
national standards in the areas of social assistance and
post-secondary education. If the provinces do not respect these
standards, the federal will cut their funding as it did to the
unemployed and welfare recipients, and as it is about to do to our
seniors. These measures would limit the provinces' autonomy in
their own jurisdiction and would apply to a sector as vital as
education for Quebec's cultural identity.
The Minister of Finance proved us right this morning when he
came up haphazardly, in an almost unprecedented fashion in this
House, with a series of amendments which he intends to
eventually table. We do not know when for the minister was so
flustered that he did not tell us. But he proved us right. He told us
that we were right to fear federal interference in areas which
come under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction, such as education
and social assistance.
The Minister of Finance intends to eventually table
amendments. We will wait for these amendments. So far,
nothing is official, but the minister felt cornered. He knew that
the official opposition was right, and is always right, because we
are dealing with a bill. So, the minister hurriedly came up with
these things in an off-hand, almost arcane manner.
Try to imagine-we are referring to Bill C-76-what it means
to have Canada's English speaking majority impose education
standards on Quebec. Do you have any idea of the implications?
Try to imagine what it means to Quebecers, given our particular
historical background.
Canada-wide standards in education would mean that
Ontario, Newfoundland and Canada's English speaking
majority would define, to some extent, Quebec's education
system, a system which perpetuates our identity and our culture
from generation to generation.
12041
Can you imagine for a moment Clyde Wells, in
Newfoundland, and his elected friends in Ottawa, his associates
and accomplices, defining the content of Quebec's education
system through the direct use of Canada-wide standards? Does
this mean that, for post-secondary education, we would only
have 25 per cent control over decisions, while being constantly
blackmailed by the federal government regarding the level of
transfers?
(1130)
Through this bill, the finance minister and his government are
pursuing two aims: first, to crush the legitimate claims of the
Quebec government in its own jurisdiction, a fight that has been
going on for at least 30 years; and second, to hide from people of
Quebec and Canada the real situation with regard to the cuts in
the transfer payments to provinces and the impact of these cuts
for next year in particular but especially two years from now.
The government is seeking to hide the real situation about the
budget transfers as a whole by talking about cash transfers, not
tax point transfers. The Minister of Finance is confusing the
population when he says that transfers will not decrease over the
next few years, because he is talking about tax points and cash
transfers whereas only cash transfers should be considered. That
is what the federal government has under its control. That is
what the federal government can use to blackmail provinces, not
tax points. Even the government agrees that tax points are there
to stay. They are provincial entitlements. So he mixes
everything up, tax points and cash transfers, resulting in a
distorted picture of reality.
Here is the reality. The financial transfers as a whole,
meaning the federal cash transfers paid to the Quebec
government, will decrease by 32 per cent-and this is not
peanuts-from 1994-95 to 1997-98 because of the cuts in
transfer payments to provinces. It is important to understand
that these transfer payments are not a gift from the federal
government but are taken from the $30 billion paid by Quebec
taxpayers to the federal government.
I have to point out that these taxes have increased to such an
extent since 1982 that it is incredible that the finance minister,
who has been in charge for 16 months now, has not thought about
considering the situation with regard to taxation. Since 1982,
taxes paid by Quebec taxpayers to the federal government have
increased by 143 per cent, whereas federal transfer payments to
Quebec, cut year after year, and even more since he became
finance minister, have increased by only 50 per cent.
On the one hand, taxes paid by Quebec taxpayers have
increased by 143 per cent, to $30 billion at present, and on the
other hand, transfer payments have increased by approximately
50 per cent over a 10 year period. That is the situation. It is
tangible evidence that this system is not working. When taxes
are raised so steadily while the rate of growth of transfers is
being reduced, surely there is a problem somewhere, there are
inefficiencies of some kind and some chronic malfunction in the
system.
In the coming year alone, cuts announced in the last budget of
the Minister of Finance will result in losses in revenues of $1
billion for Quebec. The direct impact of transfer cuts amounts to
$650 million and the indirect impact, to $450 million. In 1997,
the shortfall resulting from the federal budget will stand at $2.4
billion.
When we see such things, when we realize the federal
government wants to quell legitimate aspirations of the Quebec
government and that, at the same time, it is trying to hurt the
Quebec fiscal situation and make it even more difficult for the
Quebec government to prepare its next budget, we see the
Minister of Finance for what he really is. His lack of
responsibility becomes obvious. We see his centralist views,
that are encouraged by his Prime Minister who took part in all
struggles against Quebec during his whole political life. We now
see the truth.
Through the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition
and the Bloc Quebecois, we want to restore some order so that
the government will not get away as easily as it would have liked
to with the shameful measures it took and the almost
unprecedented attacks it launched, without warning, against
Quebec and its jurisdiction.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If I understand the hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot correctly, he is going to
share his time with one of his colleagues. The remarks of the
hon. member will be followed by a five minute period for
questions and comments.
(1135)
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, let me point out a small mistake my colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot made when he said that the finance
minister had his hand pressed to his heart when he talked about
his deep compassion for the destitute. To me, it looked more like
it was hovering over his pocketbook, or more precisely over the
financial interests of the friends of the government in order to
protect their pocketbooks. That is how it looked to me.
Also, during the speech made by one of the members
opposite, I heard a statement which is frankly beginning to try
my patience. We keep hearing that Canada is the best country in
the world. I am sorry, but enough is enough.
This reminds me of a family which was earning a lot of money
fifteen or twenty years ago. Without thinking, they bought a
beautiful house, a second home, a nice car for the husband, a
nice car for his wife, but in these hard times, they find
themselves crippled with debts. Everyone keeps saying that the
12042
owners live in the most beautiful house in town, that they are the
richest people in the area, when in fact, behind this facade, the
owners have to scimp on child care and sacrifice their children's
education in order to pay their debts. So, this best country in the
world is just a facade behind which we can hardly afford child
care.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let me
first say that I was deeply shocked by the remarks of the
Minister of Finance.
There may be words which are not parliamentary, but there
are also ideas which can be best expressed by saying that the
Minister has considerably distanced himself from the truth.
This budget, like the measures taken by this government, has
a centralizing effect. Even though the Minister, before trying to
discredit us, has made the effort to propose, in a way which is
absolutely not parliamentary, amendments to a bill which he has
tabled himself and which was interpreted by the reporters and by
everybody who has analyzed it exactly as it was by us, he is not
fooling anybody. Because we can say that the cuts to UI
proposed last year by this government, by this Minister of
Finance, have begun to hit people hard, particularly the young
people who are not entitled any more to UI benefits because they
have not worked for a sufficient length of time and the women
who go back to work and who are not entitled to UI benefits
either. All these workers who suddenly see their benefit period
shortened and the amount of these benefits reduced have been
hit hard.
People who sometimes watch these debates have experienced
and continue to experience daily the effect of these cuts and they
know it. But what they still do not know is that these cuts were
used this year to accumulate surpluses of more than 3 billion
dollars for next year and of 5 billion dollars for the following
years. These surpluses will shelter the federal government from
the next recession, whereas the provinces where transfers were
cut dramatically will see their number of people on welfare rise.
Imagine, during this so-called period of prosperity, 5,000
more people each month go on welfare in Quebec. But there is
more. Not only will the federal government be sheltered, but it
has also announced a new reform of UI which will impose new
cuts of $700 million next year, and of $1.5 billion the year after,
on top of all the other ones my colleagues spoke of.
(1140)
These amounts will be put into a new fund which is not
mentioned in the act implementing the Budget, a fund which
will be used at the sole discretion of the Minister of Human
Resources Development. This fund is called the Human
Resources Investment Fund and can come directly into play in
provincial jurisdictions. It can focus more on employment
development services, such as needs assessment, counselling
services, literacy and basic skills training, training and
experience in the workplace, child care support, and income
supplements for people on welfare.
The truth is that this government proposes, with this
discretionary fund, after having starved the provinces, to force
them to take the heat because of the cuts they will have to make.
It is Quebec's ministers who are being blamed for cuts which
were decided by the federal government.
After that, the central government will have a fund and say:
``So, you are having problems? We will-'' As if the money did
not come out of the same pocket. The central government will
say that it has come up with a certain amount from UI premiums
and employers premiums, from amounts which will have been
cut elsewhere. And then, the government will be able to show
itself in the best light. Not only that, it will be able to ignore the
provinces' conditions.
For the other provinces of Canada, maybe this is not a
problem, but Quebec is a distinct people and nation. In 1965-66,
when René Lévesque was the minister responsible for family
and welfare, he said that we should regain control over the
family allowances program in order to transform it into a system
adapted to our society and to our particular needs.
Thirty years later, far from having been able to build a system
adapted to our own needs, to the particular needs of Quebecers,
we see ourselves increasingly choked in the jurisdictions where
the federal government forced us to retreat. Furthermore, the
federal government keeps funds that are not available to pay for
services that would conform to its own standards but would
nonetheless be designed by Quebec so it can use it to intensify
its direct action by handing out yellow cheques bearing a maple
leaf.
Not only is that a move toward increased centralization, but it
is a radical reform of the regime where Quebec thought that it
had a state in which, moreover, it felt it was destinated to realize
its potential. But the more things evolve, the more that state,
which seemed to be a given, is stripped of the very means that
were supposed to serve to protect the interests and the civic life
of its citizens. From now on, the federal government, which has
shown itself unable to manage its own affairs, wants to dispense
all the services directly.
On the one hand, it wants the provinces, Quebec, to make the
cuts and the painful choices that will make them look insensitive
while, on the other hand, it will keep its spending power, its
power to add to the debt. By using the unemployment insurance
premiums paid by workers and businesses, it will be able to
12043
impose not only its standards, but also its own programs, its own
ways to deal with the needs.
(1145)
It goes further than ever. It interferes directly, no longer
through standards, no longer by requiring-as we have seen in
the 40s-constitutional reforms because the only constitutional
reforms this country has ever seen are those which provided for
the transfer of provincial powers to Ottawa, never the other way
around. Not content with having done that, not content with
having starved provinces which had put in place programs
according to their own requirements, the federal government is
now preparing to provide these services, in total contravention
of what seemed to be the beginning of a contractual relationship.
The people of Quebec, the nation of Quebec has specific and
distinct needs. It is a people, a nation according to all national
standards. It is a people, a nation wishing to control its own
destiny because, it is unthinkable that under the present
circumstances-with 808,000 persons on welfare, more than
400 000 unemployed, young people who have no longer any
hope-the current situation can continue, and to be told that
instead of discussing these issues, we should accept the federal
government's invitation that the finance minister presumably
sent us, is simply outrageous!
It is outrageous! Words fail me; it is senseless! From the very
beginning the people of Quebec have always wished to obtain
minimum recognition. Their efforts were always answered with
a blatant and insulting no. Now, in view of the economic and
social mess this country is in, a situation we are trying to get out
of by any means possible, they tell us to co-operate, to
collaborate. It is an insult, not for us, not for the members of the
Bloc Quebecois who were sent here to defend the interests of
Quebec, to protect the future of Quebec, but it is an insult for all
Quebecers, for all those who are suffering from these policies,
for all those who can no longer tolerate that Quebec is unable to
go about it alone.
Sure, there is a debt, sure there will still be a debt afterwards,
but at least we will be able to set our own priorities and to use
our resources for the development of Quebec and for creating
hope. Far from being useless, this debate will have given us
another opportunity to reveal the true face of this government,
whose only goal is to subjugate the people of Quebec once and
for all.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member for
Mercier and her colleagues said a little while ago. I always find
it difficult to understand the Bloc's logic, and today is no
exception.
The Bloc is always seeking a little bit more autonomy for
Quebec regarding federal expenditures. The budget gives
greater autonomy and flexibility in transfer payments, and the
Bloc sees in this flexibility less autonomy and more
centralization. It wants to hold a referendum to separate Quebec
from Canada, but now that it believes that it might lose it
because, increasingly, Quebecers are saying, through polls,
other media and forums, that they are not interested in the
proposed separation, it is starting to realize that the referendum
it decided to hold is doomed; it wants to blame the federal
government for the fact that it is going to lose the referendum.
(1150)
The hon. member mentioned the need to get our financial
houses in order, not only at the federal level whose expenditures
are, for the main part, transferred directly to the provinces,
including Quebec, through equalization, social transfers and
other mechanisms offering more and more freedom to the
provinces. We are looking for ways to co-operate with the
provinces and with Quebec, but we are accused of always trying
to centralize. It is impossible to co-operate with someone who
does not want to.
My question to the member is in connection with the motion
before us today: How does the social transfer give less freedom
to Quebec to manage its own finances within this envelope?
What are the new conditions set by the Canadian government in
this envelope?
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first, my hon. colleague says he
does not understand. I think this is evident. It is also evident that
Quebecers have seen over the years that this central government
does not understand, that maybe it is not even listening, that the
budget includes some centralizing measures. I spoke about the
human resources investment fund which is an extremely
important centralization measure.
I will answer the question very precisely and would ask the
member to refer to clause 48 of Bill C-76, a fundamental part of
that bill, which says two things; it is a two faced budget and it is
a two faced clause. On the one hand it says it will increase
flexibility for the provinces and, on the other, it maintains
national conditions established in the Canada Health Act and,
where appropriate, national standards for the operation of other
social programs. Those other social programs are explained
later on, in clause 53; they are health, post-secondary education,
social assistance and social services. So my answer is very
precise, it comes directly from the bill.
If some of us here do not understand, it is the members from
the other side. I think they have not read the bill or, if they have,
they feel they must do like the Minister of Finance who thinks he
has to announce some amendments before he can talk, before he
can answer. He used an approach which, I repeat, is entirely
unparliamentary. I wonder if my hon. colleague saw those
amendments because we read directly from the bill here in the
House. If we were to listen to what we hear, to what the
12044
government says are its intentions, we would find the
government has many intentions, which are often contradictory.
We are members of Parliament and we work with bills. This
bill entitles, even forces the Bloc Quebecois to take the
positions it is taking this morning, on this opposition day. We
would not be doing our job if we neglected to take such
positions. The best proof of that is again that the Minister of
Finance, before speaking to us, felt he had to announce some
amendments we have not even seen. We are eager to see them.
(1155)
Something else also confirms that we are right and that is, I
repeat, that the minister felt he had to use an unparliamentary
approach and announce amendments. So I can easily understand
that he does not understand.
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will share my time with the hon. member for Vaudreuil.
Since my arrival in this House, I have come to the conclusion
that the surprises will never end. The opposition, which never
misses an opportunity to label the government a ``champion of
the status quo'', has risen today to denounce this initiative.
This same opposition which constantly advocates
decentralization, is today objecting to the government
transferring greater responsibility to the provinces in the area of
social security. Although they continually preach that
federalism is a system that is too rigid, they are now opposing a
measure precisely intended to allow greater flexibility in the
application of programs.
Because this is exactly what the new Canada health and social
transfer (CHST) announced in last February's budget is intended
to do: to give the provinces more latitude in the area of funding
and management of health care, post-secondary education and
social services.
On April 1, 1996, the new program will replace the Canada
assistance plan and established program financing for health
and post-secondary education. Under the new program, the
provinces will receive block funding for social assistance and
social services, health care and post-secondary education.
It is known that the current Canada assistance plan is an
obstacle to innovation because of its overly restrictive
cost-sharing requirements.
[English]
The Canada health and social transfer will give the provinces
the flexibility they need to implement innovative approaches to
social programs so they can be more effective in meeting the
specific needs of their clients. For the provinces this is good
news, because it establishes social assistance and income
security measures, which for all sorts of technical reasons are
not always eligible for funding under the Canada assistance
plan.
It is good news, in particular, for Quebec, which is always in
the forefront of innovation in the area of social security. For
example, Quebec's APPORT program provides wage assistance
to low income families with children and encourages parents on
welfare to return to the labour market and helps low income
parents keep their jobs.
[Translation]
Since its inception in 1988, this program has never been
eligible for cost-sharing under CAP because it was not based on
needs testing and therefore did not meet CAP requirements. It
was the same thing with its ancestor, the work income
supplement program, introduced in 1979.
In the 1970s, various social measures aimed at protecting
disadvantaged children in schools could not be cofinanced under
CAP either because they did not meet the definition of ``social
protection services'', which excluded education-related
sercices.
Probation services for young offenders were excluded from
funding under CAP for a similar reason: the definition of
``social protection services'' also excluded correctional
services.
Several other progressive measures implemented by the
provinces were not eligible for funding under CAP because they
were not based on needs testing or did not meet the definition of
``social protection services''. This was the case for a number of
programs aimed at assisting persons with disabilities or
impairments, such as self administered care programs,
community-based services and para-transit services.
(1200)
All these measures are presently ineligible for funding under
the Canada assistance plan. CAP's excessive rigidity tends to
discourage provincial initiatives and innovation. Yet these are
social programs and services that are effective in meeting
people's real needs. They provide assistance that is geared to
specific needs and situations. And all of these measures will be
eligible for full funding under the new Canada health and social
transfer.
[English]
As a Quebecer I am appalled that my provincial government
refuses to see any other issue than the separation of Quebec.
Even today's discussion will be used to fuel its separatist
arguments.
I have before me examples of projects and agreements
reached between the federal government and the other provinces
which have taken strong initiatives in addressing the specific
problems they and their citizens are facing. Unfortunately the
PQ government has one issue on its mind. As the Prime Minister
said this past weekend, I am ashamed the PQ government cannot
look beyond the Constitution and the real problems facing
12045
Quebecers today, especially the poor in Quebec and in my riding
of Saint-Denis.
The federal government is looking forward while the PQ
government is looking constantly backwards with public money.
It is doing it with my taxpayer money. It is using that money to
fuel separatist sentiments. The PQ government shows no
leadership at all. There is no creativity or innovation in terms of
sitting down with the federal government to look at what types
of programs will help the most disadvantaged and the poor in
Quebec.
This is the type of country members of the PQ want to create,
where there is one issue only: let us separate. They do not look
beyond that but place the blame on the federal government. I am
tired of the same violin story playing all the time. They continue
to say the federal government is the culprit of all the ills that
befall Quebec society. That is totally false.
Why were many actions taken by the government with other
provincial governments through negotiation and collaboration?
I will name a few. The Atlantic provinces have been hit the
hardest in terms of unemployment and the current economic
climate. Why were these provinces able to sit down to negotiate
agreements with the federal government, thereby helping the
more disadvantaged and the unemployed in their provinces?
Why did my provincial government not do the same thing?
It organized commissions with taxpayers' money, prepared
documents with taxpayers' money, talked and talked and
continues to talk and all for one reason, to achieve the dream of
separation; a dream the majority of Quebecers do not share.
They do not share that dream yet the PQ government, with its
friends on the other side of the House, continues to talk about
one thing. As we all know, it continues to talk about it in
different languages. Its only concern for the poor, the
unemployed and the most disadvantaged is to accuse the federal
government of a lack of vision and a lack of leadership.
[Translation]
With this new program, the provinces will have all the latitude
they need to implement and fund pilot projects and new
employability measures. They will no longer have to submit to
rigid and restrictive requirements, as they currently have to. If
they want, they will even be able to combine social assistance,
health or education measures.
In fact, with respect to social assistance, the provinces will
have to meet only one requirement under the Canada health and
social transfer. They will not be able to deny social services to
people who are entitled to social assistance because they have
not fulfilled a residency requirement.
[English]
I repeat the only real national requirement under the Canada
health and social transfer with regard to social assistance is that
which concerns health and residence requirements. That
requirement is not based on the idle whim of the federal
government. It reflects the wishes and expectations of all
Canadians. It reflects our desire to preserve the notion of
freedom of movement within Canada between provinces.
(1205)
[Translation]
It seems just as contradictory to say that the government
wants to limit the provinces to a mere consultative role when, as
I just explained, they will be able to apply the social programs
they deem most appropriate in whatever manner they see fit, and
will be the ones in charge in this area.
The Canada health and social transfer is an important
initiative that responds both to today's social imperatives and to
the fiscal pressures facing government. And it is also a striking
demonstration of the flexibility of Canadian federalism, which
allows us, simply by means of legislation, to make major
adjustments within areas of jurisdiction.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the remarks made by
the member who just said that Quebec is the country's poorest
province because of eight to ten months of Parti Quebecois
government. This province has been a part of Canada for 128
years and, before the PQ took office, we had ten years of
provincial Liberal government, which proves that federalism is
neither desirable nor cost-effective for Quebec.
Furthermore, it is one of the basic reasons why we will
separate from Canada. It is very important to us to become
responsible for our own development and to stop relying on
transfer payments. In this respect, the federal government is
sending us a most interesting message, saying that it can no
longer borrow funds at the expense of future generations as it
has done for the last twenty years.
You are trying to hide this behind a transfer of responsibilities
to the provinces. Try this in any other area, Madam-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I remind hon.
members that they must always address the Chair.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment to the
member. Try cutting anybody's budget by 15 per cent and telling
them that they have all the flexibility in the world to do what
they want with what is left. There is something wrong with this
approach, which will inevitably lead to the balkanization of
Canada.
The Council of Canadians, an organization certainly that
cannot be called separatist, told the finance committee last
12046
week, concerning this bill, that if the federal government wants
to impose national standards without providing the necessary
funding, it will simply come up against a wall of negativity from
the provinces.
The federal government cannot ask the provinces to maintain
Canadian standards if they do not have the money to do so. And
they will not have the money to do so. As the saying goes, ``once
bitten, twice shy''. How can the provinces, which were
humiliated once by the oh so wise federal government when it
decided to hold a forum on health without making sure of the
provinces' participation, how can they agree to take part in a
process that is biased from the start?
Mrs. Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have already
said that, at any rate, the Government of Quebec does not want
to participate in the initiatives already taken by the federal
government. Every province in Canada wants to participate,
except Quebec.
I think that the official opposition should be very careful
when talking about links with the federal government, because
we have already proposed administrative agreements. Several of
them, which could, in fact, have helped Quebecers, were not
signed by the Parti Quebecois government. Now, the hon.
member dares to raise such an issue.
I think we have to look at what is behind what is happening in
Quebec, and I think that I put my finger on it earlier, and that is
that the current government, the Parti Quebecois, has only one
goal, and that is to bring about Quebec's separation from
Canada. They have devoted all of their energies, human
resources and money to this cause, and have taken no other
initiative in the past six months.
(1210)
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
Rome burned, Nero fiddled. He was out of touch with the day's
reality. Similarly, I find this motion out of touch with reality.
The members of the opposition try at all cost, take every
opportunity, to discredit the federal government, particularly
with regard to interprovincial and government jurisdictions.
The only thing Canadians and Quebecers want from their
government, be it provincial or federal, is action. Let us stop this
stupid business about jurisdiction of power.
[English]
Canada is undergoing nothing short of a revolution. Our
economy is being transformed from a traditional resource based
and labour intensive one to one that is globalized, information
based and knowledge intensive. The effects are being felt by
business and industry. They are certainly being felt often
painfully by workers, be they loggers, farmers, fishermen,
miners or even assembly line workers. They are being felt by our
teachers and students and they are being felt by governments at
all levels.
Nowadays we warn young people preparing to enter the
workforce that they will probably change careers several times
during their working lives; I am talking about not just jobs but
careers.
We have engaged once again in a sterile debate on jurisdiction
while our constituents, including those of the Bloc Quebecois,
are looking to their governments to create the environment to
guarantee continuing jobs and ensure the training to match the
skills needed for tomorrow's jobs.
The Government of Canada is determined to remain steadfast
to that goal. The government was swept to power with a
resounding victory and a vote of confidence by Canadians and
Quebecers who were clearly ready for change. They believed in
our commitment to create jobs and to prepare people for those
new jobs.
[Translation]
While the members of the Bloc Quebecois contemplate their
navel and get lost in jurisdictional discussions, the government,
fortunately, is not letting Canadians down.
[English]
Since the government came into office no less than 454,000
full time jobs have been created; strong evidence of enough
employer confidence in the economy to offer stable full time
employment rather than part time jobs. This job creation
performance has surpassed even the most optimistic predictions
including those of the OECD.
The OECD predicted Canadian employment growth of 1.2 per
cent last year. It was almost double the rate, growing at 2.1 per
cent.
I remember a former prime minister said we would have to
wait until the year 2002 to see unemployment fall below 10 per
cent. Fortunately she did not get elected and today we are
enjoying an employment rate of 9.7 per cent. We hope to do
better. We must do better.
The OECD estimates Canada's employment growth for
1995-96 will be the highest among all G-7 countries, even
surpassing the United States. Given our track record so far there
is every reason to suspect these predictions will once again
prove to be modest.
[Translation]
The members of the Bloc Quebecois should also recognize
that Quebec has benefitted by Canada's efforts.
[English]
In the employment figures for the last two months of this year
Quebec has experienced strong employment growth with a gain
12047
of 14,000 jobs in February alone. The employment rate in
Quebec declined from 11.5 per cent, the lowest since 1991.
Job creation initiatives by the government directly and in
co-operation with the province have contributed a significant
share. Since October 1993 some 120,000 jobs have been created
and almost 36,000 Canadians were provided with training
through initiatives of their government such as the
infrastructure program, youth internship and strategic
initiatives, to name a few.
(1215 )
Statistics are very cold. They do not tell us the human stories
behind the job creation figures. They do not describe how so
many Canadians have regained their self-respect knowing they
are no longer dependants but contributors to this fine country.
Statistics do not show the efforts of determined people and
co-operative government action and how they can be made to
work for the good of all Canadians.
Statistics do not tell us, for example, about Le relais des
jeunes adultes du Sud-Ouest de Montréal. It is a job search
training organization funded by the federal government in
partnership with two Quebec departments. Human Resources
Development Canada provided nearly $800,000 last year.
Sixty-five per cent of the participants in this program have
found work.
Statistics also do not tell us how 250 people are participating
in entrepreneurship development jointly funded by Quebec and
Canada, where 21 entrepreneurs have set up their own
businesses.
Statistics also do not tell us of the federal-Quebec effort that
arose from the closing of the Hyundai plant in Bromont. Some
$8 million federal funds helped 556 participants, 80 per cent of
whom have found work or gone on to further vocational training.
I could go on citing such projects. None of them are earth
shaking in themselves, however they constitute the real story
behind Canada's good fortune in terms of job creation.
The other straight fact to which members opposite have
turned a blind eye to time and time again is that co-operative
action among governments, including the federal government
and Quebec, does succeed in helping Canadians help
themselves.
Canada's economic prospects have not looked this good in a
very long time. Productivity has surged. Canada's cost
competitiveness is at the highest level in more than 40 years.
Our trade surplus is up. All of this is not by accident.
From the speech from the throne which formed the
government's agenda, through to the most recent speech by the
Minister of Finance, the Government of Canada has introduced
cohesive and concerted strategies aimed at advancing the
agenda for jobs and growth.
Last October the Minister of Finance tabled ``A New
Framework for Economic Policy'' which proposed a broad
framework for policies for economic growth. Then ``Creating a
Healthy Fiscal Climate'' takes steady aim at the deficit. Equally,
the Minister of Industry released ``Building a More Innovative
Economy'', a series of measures and strategies to create a
climate of economic growth and job opportunities throughout
the country.
In February the budget delivered on the government's pledge
to get the country's fiscal house in order, restoring investor
confidence and clearing the way for further employment
growth.
Taken together, these efforts are radically reshaping
government involvement in the economy. They are already
producing results. The policy initiatives, coupled with strategic
partnerships with the provinces, territories, business, labour,
educators, community workers and committed individuals are
creating jobs for Canadians.
There is a message for all of us in this. Healthy economies in
today's highly competitive and internationalized world are not
made without consistent, concerted efforts on the part of all
citizens, all businesses, all institutions and all levels of
governments.
If Canadians are not up to the competition, job creation will
simply not continue. We are a small market in global terms. It
takes the strength of united effort to ensure competitiveness.
The workers of many nations are quite ready and, in today's
global economy, quite able to jump into the breech should
Canadians flag in their efforts.
[Translation]
It is the job of governments to do everything in their power to
ensure the best possible tools are in place in order to develop an
effective program to create quality jobs and to equip our workers
to find and, more importantly, keep jobs.
[English]
It does not serve our constituents well in any part of Quebec or
Canada to fiddle while Rome burns with petty jurisdictional
concerns. The Government of Canada is prepared to challenge
conventional wisdom, to adopt new policies and fresh
approaches.
We have made it clear that the government is willing to work
closely and co-operate with the provinces and the territories.
(1220 )
A number of new measures from strategic initiatives of the
human resources investment fund have already been outlined to
address problems with labour market development. We
recognize the need for flexibility. Labour market demands vary
from province to province. Each region of the country has its
own vision and its own agenda. We understand that and local
people best respond to local needs.
12048
I suggest to members opposite that their constituents do not
care what logo is on the letterhead as long as efficient, quality
service is provided and prospective employment income can
improve.
The federal government must clearly work with the provinces
to maintain national standards, ensuring that the skills people
develop are recognized and portable throughout the country and
keep us competitive with the world.
The federal government is ready to go to work. It is confident
that we can perform this role in a complementary fashion that
will support and reinforce the labour force development efforts
of all provinces and territorial governments.
In conclusion, I take as proof of our ability to succeed
Canada's recent record of growth and job creation, the envy of
every G-7 member. It demonstrates the soundness of the course
charted for Canada by the government. With less bickering it
would undoubtedly have been much better.
Now is the time for co-operation. Canadians demand it. Our
task is to explore how we can work together to reform,
restructure and rebuild our communities and our country to
ensure that each and every Quebecer, each and every Canadian
has the opportunity to share in our future prosperity.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
must say I was very surprised to hear the hon. member for
Vaudreuil accuse the official opposition of playing the fiddle
while Rome burns. The question is, who started the fire in the
first place? The hon. member for Vaudreuil should have listened
to the Leader of the Opposition when he said that what is
happening in Canada today reminds us of the arsonist who
blamed the firefighters for doing a bad job, because these fires
have been burning for a long time in Canada.
When we realize that for the past 12 years, the Canadian
government has cut transfer payments to Quebec by a total of
$14.4 billion, which means more than one billion annually, is it
any wonder this would have an impact on the public finances of
the Government of Quebec? This year, the federal government
maintained this trend by cutting another billion. Next year-not
this year, because of the referendum campaign but next year-it
will be $2.4 billion, reflecting the government's increasingly
devious plans to make cuts at the expense of low wage earners.
I want to commend the hon. member for Mercier on her
excellent and very instructive speech in which she explained
that the unemployment insurance fund does not belong to the
federal government. It consists of the premiums paid by workers
and employers, but the federal government is appropriating this
money, so that after bringing the provinces, including Quebec,
to their knees, it can then say: If you do not have enough money
for your social programs, we do, thanks to the way we managed
these funds which do not belong to us-the unemployment
insurance premiums paid by workers and their employers.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Vaudreuil what he
thinks about all this, what he thinks about the announcement in
the budget speech which was mentioned by the Leader of the
Opposition and what he thinks about this committee that is
looking into the administration of old age pensions, to increase
them, of course.
Mr. Discepola: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Rome is burning. They used
to talk about the ``beau risque''. Now it is a ``beau virage'', and
today, we have this separatist mirage Quebecers are being asked
to embrace, but no one is really interested.
(1225)
That is why I said that Rome is burning, or rather that Nero is
fiddling instead of dealing with the real problems in our society.
The hon. member said that the federal government just
happened to leave out equalization, because equalization always
benefits Quebec. But if we include equalization, the tax burden
on the province of Quebec represents only 1.4 per cent of their
total revenue. That is their tax burden: $350 million. But when
we talk about money, it is always the same money and the same
taxpayer.
The municipal government takes it out of your left-hand
pocket, the federal government takes it out of both pockets and
the provincial government takes it out of your right-hand
pocket, but the pockets all belong to the same taxpayer. Yes,
some responsibilities have been passed on to the provinces, but
they were also allowed some flexibility. Flexibility in how they
manage their programs and structure them according to their
needs.
This is not a burden on the provinces. In fact, six provinces
have already brought down balanced budgets. It is now up to the
Province of Quebec to do likewise before the referendum.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
really, the things you hear in this House. As the critic of the
official opposition for regional development it is with pleasure
and interest that I rise during this official opposition day. The
federal government's attitude, denounced by the Bloc
Quebecois, which consists in restricting the provinces to a
strictly advisory role by imposing new national standards
following the budget of the Minister of Finance in February, has
a direct negative effect on regional development in Quebec.
Bill C-76. an act to implement certain provisions of the
federal budget for 1995-96, far from eliminating the intrusions
of the federal government in areas under provincial jurisdiction,
12049
allows it, by imposing national standards, to multiply its
interventions while increasing the impact of its intrusions.
We know that following this budget Ottawa had decided to
merge in a new ``Canada social transfer'' its whole package of
contributions to the provinces in such areas as health care, social
services and post-secondary education. This decision of the
federal government represents in the short term some savings
and Liberals call that a fight against the deficit.
The fact is that as a result funds allocated to the provinces are
cut by $2.5 billion in 1995-96 and by $4.5 billion in 1997-98. In
1997-98 the Canada social transfer envelope is going to be
allocated among the provinces according to a criterion yet to be
negotiated. If the chosen criterion is the present mode of
distribution, which is not very likely, Quebec will suffer a $1.2
billion shortfall.
Rather, the objective of the federal government and its
Minister of Finance is to allocate the Canada social transfer
envelope on a per capita basis, so that Quebec will in fact bear
41.7 per cent of the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces
across Canada in 1997-98. With this distribution criterion, the
loss of income for Quebec jumps from $1.2 billion to $1.9
billion.
With the new Canada social transfer and the implementation
of new national standards, the federal government, while
relegating the provinces to a purely advisory role and further
centralizing action, will once again impoverish Quebec and
threaten regional development.
In the last budget and in Bill C-76, we see that the Minister of
Human Resources Development intends to use the savings from
unemployment insurance reform-that is $5 billion in cutbacks
in 1994 plus $700 million more in 1995-to create an human
resource investment fund.
(1230)
This fund will be used, among other things, to finance
manpower training programs, a power unanimously demanded
by Quebecers. Clearly, this has a direct impact on regional
development. With initiatives such as the Canada social transfer
and the cuts in unemployment insurance, the federal
government will use all the money it is going to save elsewhere
for massive, centralizing and discretionary interventions,
totally disregarding totally the policies of Quebec in the area of
regional development.
In fact, the goal of the measures contained in the February
budget is to direct the economic development of Quebec, to
refuse to recognize the distinct character of that society by
assimilating the evolution of Quebec into the Canadian policies
on regional development.
In Quebec, companies, trade unions, local authorities and the
co-operative movement no longer fear to take their
development into their own hands. In forums such as the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission, they reached a very wide
consensus and demanded that the government of Quebec be the
only one to control the economic development of these regions.
With the budget measures I already mentioned, there is no
doubt about the intentions of the federal government. It wants to
stimulate Canada's gross domestic product by promoting an
area, an industrial region. So, the economic climate really takes
precedence over the structural dimension in most of the
interventions of the federal government in the regions.
We know that today, the federal government is interested only
in small and medium size exporting and technology firms, in
total disregard of the overall strategic regional structural
development plans which concern all areas of activity in a
society. This attitude, and the interference of the federal
government in regional development, will be harmful, in the
long run, to the development of Quebec.
We have to remember that regional development is not
covered under the Canadian Constitution, and that forces
Quebec to enter into endless negotiations to conclude
agreements or ``agréments'', as the member for
Brome-Missisquoi says.
Those agreements inevitably open the way to numerous
awkward intrusions by the federal government in regional
development. Bill C-76 proves that. These are obvious, clear
and open intrusions. The Quebec regions suffer from the
numerous interferences in regional development and from the
lack of consistency of government policies.
While dropping its financial involvement in the provinces,
the central government is leaving its administrative structures
there. Consequently, duplication and overlap not only remain,
but are sanctioned. Even if those administrative structures are
becoming more and more symbolic, they are even more costly
and hinder the dynamics of regional development in Quebec.
The Federal Office of Regional Development is a good
example of squandering by the federal government. When will
there be a comprehensive structural reform of the federal
regime? In spite of the decentralization measures that the
government announced at the beginning of the year, the Liberals
have not made any changes. More and more, they are using
national standards as a means to centralize. Centralization is the
golden rule of federal Liberals.
The objective of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition,
is to make the federal government realize that it has to withdraw
completely from regional development in Quebec and recognize
Quebec as the sole master of regional development. For over
forty years, there has been, in the nation of Quebec, a much more
12050
efficient and responsive attitude, in terms of regional
development, to the needs of peripheral regions. I repeat that at
present, there is a series of general agreements between the
government of Quebec and its 16 administrative regions.
(1235)
Each region has conducted its own strategic study on small
business and industrial development. These genreal agreements
confirm the importance for Quebec to be close to these regions
and to decentralize within the province, contrary to the what the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec is doing, in
the light of federal imperatives based on a mythical and
centralizing vision of what industrial development should be in
Canada.
The new role of the Federal Office of Regional Development
is merely a duplication and overlapping of jurisdictions. Merged
with the Department of Industry, it has become a business
service centre, whereas there is already in Quebec a totally
adequate information service and strategic assistance analysis
entity available to small business, including exporting firms.
The existence of a parallel network of 13 regional offices within
the Federal Office of Development-Quebec is inappropriate, a
duplication of services and, ultimately, a waste of public funds.
Because of cuts to provincial transfers as the result of the
Liberals' February budget and Bill C-76 implementing it,
financial transfers to Quebec will decrease by 32 per cent
between 1994-95 and 1997-98. That is viable federalism, I
would even say that is Ottawa's new administrative flexibility
towards Quebec: cut, cut, cut.
It is important to understand that financial transfers are not a
gift from the federal government, but are funded with our taxes.
A sovereign Quebec would recover about $30 billion in taxes
that Quebecers are paying to the federal government. It would
recover this amount and administer it itself, according to its own
priorities and its own strategic development plans. But because
of cuts made by the federal government to provincial transfer
payments between 1982 and 1993, taxes paid by Quebecers to
the federal government increased by 143 per cent, while
financial transfers from the federal government to Quebec only
increased by 50 per cent. In terms of regional development, this
situation has had the following effect since 1983: annual federal
funds for regional development increased by only 50 per cent in
Quebec, while they increased by 250 per cent in the Maritimes
and by 300 per cent in Western Canada.
In conclusion, as far as Quebec is concerned, this means that
the Quebec State and its regions should manage their own
policy. And when Quebecers have decided their political
autonomy by basing their development on education,
professional training, dialogue between unions, businesses,
universities and communities coming from the 16
administrative regions, then Quebec will have total control over
the tools for its own development. There will then be an open
and happy country.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that
my colleagues of the opposition would want to debate on a
motion which says that the federal government will impose
standards on provinces. I read the document tabled in this House
by Mr. Martin on February 27, 1995 and nowhere can I find the
word ``impose''. It only says that the federal government wants
to start discussions with the provinces in order to establish
standards and goals, so that there will be minimum standards all
across Canada.
I do not understand why my colleague is so allergic to the
words ``goal'' and ``standard''. There is nothing different there.
(1240)
I would simply like to mention to the hon. member that in the
Hansard of May 4, 1989, on page 1291, Mr. Bouchard who was
then a conservative minister, said and I quote:
That being said, the best way to guarantee that social programs will be
preserved is to maintain a strong government that is able to intervene and to
stand by its commitments to our neediest fellow Canadians.
So stated Lucien Bouchard on May 4, 1989, page 1291.
I agree with what Mr. Bouchard said in 1989 and as a matter of
fact I-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I simply wish to
remind the House that as parliamentarians we should always
refer to one another as the member for such and such riding, the
minister of such and such portfolio, the Leader of the
Opposition, but not by our names.
Mr. Harb: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask my colleague of the opposition if he agrees
completely with what the Leader of the Opposition said in 1989.
I would like my colleague to tell me if he agrees with what his
leader said in 1989.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I
thank the member for his question. I just want to remind him that
the most vicious aspect of this venture is the use of the words
``national standards'', and we know why.
When the federal government had the power to spend money
borrowed from future generations, there were no national
standards. The federal government was spending money and
interfering in provincial jurisdictions as much as it pleased.
12051
Now that the federal government must slash its budget, it
prefers to talk about flexibility rather than spending power.
However, your government's flexibility is strictly a matter of
passing the bill to provinces and telling them: ``You will make
your own decisions while applying our national standards''.
That is underhanded.
Now, regarding the quote you gave us, one of your
colleagues-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. Again, I
perfectly understand that today's topic is very important and
members who rise have very strong ideas to communicate.
However, I would like all the remarks to be addressed to the
Chair.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, as my
colleague says, it is a warm exchange of views.
Concerning the National Forum on Health, I wish to quote
comments made by the member for Saint-Henri-Westmount
when she was a provincial minister: ``The federal government's
behaviour is absurd''. That is what the Quebec Minister of
Health, Lucienne Robillard, said in an interview on the phone.
``How can we even think of reforming the health care system
without the participation of the provinces who are responsible
for delivering the services? It is simply unacceptable''. That was
reported in the September 27, 1994 issue of La Presse.
This is what your colleague said, the one that is now among
us, your courageous colleague who was not elected but
appointed as a member of Parliament. A member had been
democratically elected, but he was given a plum position in the
Prime Minister's office in exchange for his riding, where this
courageous minister had to struggle fiercely to be elected.
I want to quote this same minister in response to your
statement. Here is what she said as minister. ``I say things as I
see them'',-this is what your colleague for
Saint-Henri-Westmount said-``in Quebec the provincial
government is still the level the most directly, exclusively and
inextricably linked to the future of our society. A distinct
society which, whatever we might think or say, is able to
conduct its own destiny and prepare its future''. That is what we
want to do in Quebec-prepare our future by becoming a people,
by becoming a country''.
(1245)
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I could hardly wait to rise in the House on
this allotted day to take part in the debate on an issue which is
crucial not only in Quebec but especially in Quebec.
Let me read you the motion, because I think it is important to
put this debate in its proper perspective, especially since our
Liberal colleagues seem to get lost in all kinds of
considerations. The motion put forward reads as follows:
That this House denounce the will of the federal government to restrict the
provinces to the role of mere consultant by imposing on them new national
standards for all social programs through the introduction of the Canada
Social Transfer, which will enable the federal government to interfere even
more in such areas as health, post-secondary education and social assistance,
all of which come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
That is under our current Constitution, of course. This is the
motion now before the House.
First of all, I would like to say how stunned I was to see that
the Minister of Finance was the main spokesperson for the
government, the individual chosen by the members of the
government to speak on their behalf at the beginning of this
debate, even though the motion concerns the Minister of Human
Resources Development more directly.
Where is the Minister of Human Resources Development?
Why is he not taking part in this crucial debate where we would
be very pleased to hear what he has to say about the federal
policies and their impact on areas of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction? In my humble opinion, I think the Minister of
Human Resources Development should be called the Minister of
Human Resources Discouragement and Impoverishment,
because that is exactly what he is.
We are now faced with a government whose main objective is
to pick on the destitute. They were elected under false pretences,
because during the election campaign, they said they would
defend our social programs, the permanence of our social
programs and the rights of the poorest members of our society.
Right after the election, in his first budget, the Minister of
Finance, or rather the minister of provincial impoverishment,
made cuts in transfers to the provinces and in unemployment
insurance, and as if this was not enough, he struck again in his
second budget with even greater force.
Last weekend, I was shocked, as were, I am sure, the majority
of Quebecers, to hear the Prime Minister criticize the Quebec
P.Q. government and all the sovereignists for focusing the
debate on the Constitution instead of tackling the real problems
facing all Canadians and particularly Quebecers, problems such
as the high levels of unemployment that we are experiencing
these days.
I was shocked because the Prime Minister and several of his
colleagues are constantly saying in this House and elsewhere
that if the Constitution is being discussed in Quebec right now, it
is because of the sovereignists. Nothing could be further from
the truth. It is sheer hypocrisy. The Liberals who are saying this
are nothing but hypocrites. They say things that they know are
12052
not true. They know full well that, over the last thirty years, it is
the federalists who have fuelled the constitutional debate.
(1250)
I will simply cite some figures to demonstrate how much the
federalists, and not the sovereignists, have negotiated, gossiped
and wasted time over the past few years on the issue of the
constitution. Please allow me to cite some very telling figures.
Between 1960 and 1992, they held 56 conferences, sessions
and meetings. It was getting so ridiculous that they had to keep
presenting them under a different light to try to ensure that the
population did not realize what was really going on. And I am
only talking about meetings at the political and not the
departmental level. I am talking about all of the energy spent by
the ministers of the federal government in each of the provinces
to prepare for these meetings and to follow up on them.
There have been a total of 19 commissions, committees,
working and advisory groups, for example, the
Laurendau-Dunton Commission at the end of the 1960s, the
Pépin-Robarts Commission in the 1970s, and the plethora of
consultation panels leading up to the demise of the Meech Lake
Accord and the breakdown of the Charlottetown negotiations.
Nineteen commissions since 1965, all of them at the political
level.
Now, on to the cases which have come before the Supreme
Court of Canada regarding the constitution. A total of 212 cases,
notices and rulings by the court affecting the federal
government and a provincial government. That is the result of
the constitutional debate led by and for federalists. And this
leads me to conclude that the federalists, particularly the Liberal
Party, of which the Prime Minister has been a member for at
least 30 years, and this Liberal government have been and still
are responsible for keeping the constitution industry alive and
well. They have sunk billions of dollars into it, which has
contributed to the enormous debt we now face.
That is our real constitutional problem. We sovereignists do
not want to talk about the Canadian Constitution. We are
proposing a solution to our current problems. What we want is
our own Quebec constitution, which is what we were told in
February by 50,000 men and women across Quebec. They came
to tell us about the values on which Quebec society should base
its constitution.
There is a very broad consensus on the subject among the
people of Quebec. We as sovereignists have a way to solve the
constitutional problem. We do not want to talk about the
Constitution, about constitutional renewal or fence mending.
We want to propose a definitive solution.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to give an example of
the impact of the Canada Social Transfer, of what happens when
the government interferes in areas under provincial jurisdiction.
Consider post-secondary education, an area over which the
provinces have sole jurisdiction. According to the federal
government's policy, the policy of the Minister of Human
Resources Development, transfer payments to the provinces for
post-secondary education will be cut while, of course, certain
standards will be set, which was unheard of in the past.
(1255)
This would include reducing the amounts of bursaries,
obliging universities to raise their tuition fees and letting
students borrow more. It seems to me that what the federal
government, after putting us into debt over our ears, to the tune
of more than $500 billion, what the Liberals and the Minister of
Human Resources depletion are suggesting now is to let students
get into debt individually as well.
Now that we are in the hole as a country, they are telling
students to do likewise. That is the federal government's policy
and that is what this motion wants to condemn today.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Guelph-Wellington I
am pleased to speak to the motion of the hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
My constituents have expressed to me their concerns and their
hopes for the future of social services in Canada. They have
participated in a number of ways in my constituency. They have
come to a town hall meeting sponsored by me and attended by
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development. They have written letters and made
many telephone calls to me. They have completed the booklet
that was developed by the minister of human resources.
They have given me one clear message: they want social
services that protect those most vulnerable and will ensure that
Canada and every province in Canada remain prosperous for
many years to come.
The Leader of the Opposition is wrong when he attempts to
suggest that the Canada health and social transfer restricts the
provinces to the role of consultants. What we are attempting to
do is create a genuine partnership with the provinces and
territories and continue to build a strong and evolving
relationship in our Confederation.
The people of Guelph-Wellington welcome any effort to
better administer social services and to give the provinces more
flexibility to allocate the resources where they believe they are
most needed. They have also asked me to ensure that national
standards remain and that the federal government not only
continue to provide funding to provinces but also ensure that
medicare and social assistance standards and principles remain
intact.
12053
They admire the Canada Health Act commitment to public
administration, comprehensiveness, universality, probability,
and accessibility. They know that these principles are part of the
reason the World Health Organization today declared Canada
one of the world's five healthiest countries in which to live.
If this government were to abandon the principles of this act
we would betray the trust that has been placed in us by all
Canadians. My constituents have elected me to be a part of a
government that is realistic and compassionate, one that
recognizes the changing times, the new realities, and demands
new solutions.
The people of Guelph-Wellington are hard working and
dedicated to their families and their communities. They believe
that these principles must remain the foundation of the Canada
Health Act and health care in our country.
The Leader of the Opposition and all members of his party can
rest assured that Canada's health care system, a system that
helps define this great nation to itself and to the world, will be
fully protected by our government.
Our country has had a long tradition of compromise and
dialogue. From the very beginning our Confederation has
evolved, and the people of my riding have supported this
evolution. They know that if Canada is to remain the best
country in the world the government must respond to new
challenges and work together to secure our future.
(1300)
The Minister of Human Resources Development will
strengthen our social programs by inviting his provincial
colleagues to work together through consultation and mutual
consent to develop and improve programs which will benefit all
Canadians.
My constituents have told me very clearly and often they want
all levels of government to work together. They want our
confederation to continue to protect them and their families
from unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances. They know one
of the reasons we are the best country in the world is that our
social security network and our health system offer safeguards
and protection from loss of employment or illness.
The Leader of the Opposition encourages unfounded rumours
that the federal government has singled out the province of
Quebec and is imposing special standards on the provinces
under the Canada health and social transfer. This simply is not
true. The Quebec government has been a leader in developing
innovative social programs. For example, it has developed a
program which encourages low income families with children
on social assistance to increase their employment earnings and
it inspires low income earners not to fall back on social
assistance. These kinds of programs are exactly what my
constituents have asked for; programs which encourage
independence and build up the human spirit rather than
programs which encourage the cycle of reliance.
In the past programs like these have not been shared under the
Canada assistance plan. Cost sharing requirements under CAP
are too restrictive. As well, the previous Quebec government
came up with proposals for delivering social services for school
children but these too were rejected because they did not meet
the definition under the Canada assistance plan of welfare
services.
It is because of these new and innovative programs sponsored
and encouraged by governments like Quebec that the Canada
health and social transfer is needed. The new transfer affords
flexibility and allows the provinces to continue their important
work in encouraging social service recipients and others to
better care for themselves and for their families. Under the
Canada health and social transfer Quebec and other provinces
will have much greater flexibility; flexibility with
responsibility to experiment with imagined ways of delivering
social assistance and social services. What more could we ask
for?
From these examples I hope the Leader of the Opposition and
his party would be giving full support to the Canada health and
social transfer legislation.
All of us were elected under unique situations and
circumstances. Each of us in the House is here because our
constituents were tired of politics as usual. They were tired of
one level of government blaming the other and they no longer
wanted to hear excuses as to why their best interests were not
represented. They have asked us, no matter what party
affiliation, to make the country better and to make its systems of
social security and health better.
We have a choice. We can move ahead or we can linger in the
old way of blame and suspicion. My constituents want better
from me, better from the government and better from the
opposition. They want us to work together to ensure Canada
remains the best country in the world in which to live. They want
positive new ideas. They want innovative approaches. Most of
all, they want Canada to remain united for their benefit and the
benefit of Canadians from coast to coast.
On October 25, 1993 the people of Canada gave us their hopes
and their dreams for a better country. They want the provinces to
manage what they do best and they want national standards
which safeguard every single Canadian. They know the
government is not conspiring to weaken the social fabric of
Canada, but instead is attempting to strengthen it.
I invite the Leader of the Opposition to work with us, for his
constituents and for mine, to build up the weak, to give aid to the
sick, to protect the most in need and to encourage independence
12054
to those who rely on government. The people of his riding and
mine demand no less.
(1305 )
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity today to talk about
medicare and the Canada Health Act. I want to explain how and
why the government supports medicare and why we on this side
of the House will continue to support it.
The federal budget tabled in February was one of the most
widely supported budgets in the history of Canada. Some
people, in particular the Reform Party, say the budget raises
questions about our commitment to health. They ask whether we
will continue to have the capacity to maintain a national system
and they ask whether we will uphold the principles of the
Canada Health Act.
There are no grounds for dire predictions that the federal
government will not be able to uphold the Canada Health Act or
that Canada's health care system will disintegrate as a result of
the budget. Take the new Canada social and health transfer. It
will not diminish, weaken or erode the strength of our health
system.
On many occasions the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Health have been quite clear on the matter. Let me remind the
House how clear the budget speech was on this matter. The
Minister of Finance said no change will be made to the Canada
Health Act.
The Minister of Health was equally clear when she spoke to
the Canadian Hospital Association last March: ``There is no
change in the government's commitment or in my own
commitment, to uphold and enforce the principles of the Canada
Health Act''. As the Prime Minister said in Saskatoon, for
Canadians these principles are non-negotiable.
The word health was added to the title of the new transfer
when the enabling budget legislation was introduced to the
House. This was no accident. It confirms the government's
intention to remain active in enforcing the principles of the
Canada Health Act.
The new transfer agreement will be in a block funding
arrangement. That move may worry some members but let us
not forget block funding for health care and post-secondary
education is now 18 years old. The established programs
financing funding mechanism put in place in 1977 is a block
funding arrangement. There is no requirement in it for provinces
to spend money on health. However, what is there and what was
nailed down in 1984 when the Liberal government passed the
Canada Health Act is the requirement that provinces deliver
health care services in compliance with the five conditions of
the act or face a deduction from money transferred to them.
Some worry that under the current thinking about the Canada
social and health transfer no clear dollar amount will be denoted
as a health portion. Again it is worthy of emphasis that under the
EPF funding there was no longer a relationship between what
was called the health portion and the actual provincial
expenditures. It was merely a historical artefact based on the
national averages of some 20 years ago.
Nothing in the budget will change the government's technical
ability to enforce the Canada Health Act's principles. The
enforcement mechanism remains the same. The deductions from
transfer payments are necessary; they will be made. Canadians
can rest assured the Canadian social and health transfer will not
reduce the federal ability to enforce these principles. We will
enforce them because the principles of universality,
accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public
administration are ultimately rooted in our common values;
Canadian values such as equity, fairness, compassion and
respect for the fundamental dignity of all. We will also enforce
the principles of the Canada Health Act because we support an
economically efficient health care system.
(1310)
It is worth reminding opposition members that the principles
of the Canada Health Act are not just words. They have meaning.
I want to touch briefly on each of the principles.
The first principle of universality is that all residents in a
province must be insured by the provincial health plan if it is to
receive federal support. This means we must all have access to
services. People cannot be deinsured because they might be too
costly for the system to cover. We cannot be turned away from a
hospital door because we have not paid our annual tax bill or
some provincial premium. If we need health care we will be
treated in the same manner as everyone else.
Accessibility on uniform terms and conditions is the second
principle. It means we should not face any financial barriers in
receiving health care or extra billing, user charges, facility fees
or up front cash payments. If the service is medically necessary
we will get it at a time defined by medical considerations, not by
the size of our wallet.
The next is comprehensiveness. This principle recognizes
Canadians have a range of health care needs and that those needs
should be met. If we scratch the surface a little more we will see
that comprehensiveness again means the practice of fairness. It
would not be fair to ensure only some medically necessary
services and not others. I do not believe we should choose at the
federal level which services are medically necessary. In my
view we should continue to interpret the Canada Health Act as
requiring coverage of all medically necessary services.
12055
The government will continue to take a position that if a
province insures any part of the cost of a service it is an
indication it believes it to be medically necessary and all of the
costs should be covered.
Justice Emmet Hall in his original royal commission on
medicare recommended a very comprehensive package. Liberal
governments in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s accepted the
concept of comprehensiveness, although not quite as broad a
concept as Justice Hall's. Liberal governments in the 1990s will
not turn their backs on these principles.
The fourth principle is portability. It means Canadians
maintain their health care package when they travel or move.
The portability principle is rooted in one fundamental element;
underpinning our federation, it recognizes our mobility.
Canadians are free to work and travel anywhere in the country
without fear of losing their health care insurance coverage.
Portability is what makes our national health insurance system
truly national. Each separate health insurance plan may be
provincial in origin but it is recognized nationally in every
province.
The fifth principle is public administration.
(1315 )
Our health insurance plans must be operated by provincial
governments on a non-profit basis. In my view these principles
never seem to get the same attention as others. But they should.
It is the core of our ability to contain costs in the system and thus
to deliver quality care at an affordable price. One would think
that of all five principles our Reform friends across the way
would certainly be able to relate to this one.
Public administration is a means by which to ensure the
principles. Health care insurance is operated and funded through
governments. We can guarantee that our health care is universal,
accessible, comprehensive, portable, and that we have direct
control over it. It is through public administration that we
demonstrate our collective responsibility to the health care of
Canadians.
I look forward to further comments this afternoon.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my
colleague on his remarks in which he stressed the principles
advocated by the federal government, enabling it to impose
national standards on provincial governments, particularly the
Government of Quebec, in areas of jurisdiction that are strictly
and exclusively provincial.
The hon. member, my colleague, can therefore convey to us
the importance of these principles for the federal government,
how dear they are to the Liberal Party. However, if we look at the
facts, including Bill C-76, we discover the real principles
behind the government's wanting to get involved in provincial
jurisdiction, even though it no longer has the means to do so.
After getting us in debt, as I said a few minutes ago in my
remarks, the federal government, which will have roughly a 28
per cent share in the cost of the social programs of the
Government of Quebec, after 1998, still wants to impose, it
insists on imposing, national standards. But what are these
principles so dear to the heart of the federal government?
Clause 37 of Bill C-76 speaks eloquently in this regard. I will
take the liberty of quoting it:
In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to
in section 5-
that is, the transfers in health care,
-the government of the province-
(b) shall give recognition to the Canada Health and Social Transfer in any public
documents, or in any advertising or promotional material, relating to insured
health services and extended health care services in the province.
In concrete terms, it is the old ``flag on the hood'' principle,
so dear to our Prime Minister. We remember the Prime Minister
when he was the minister responsible for the adoption of the
constitution in 1982, he was the one who made us swallow the
current constitution, which excluded Quebec. He said: ``All that
interests the separatists is a flag on the hood. They like driving
around in France, in Paris, with the Quebec flag, thus mocking
their own people, the representatives of the Government of
Quebec''. Now here we are in 1995 with the ``flag on the hood''
principle in the Canada Social Transfer.
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this
principle, which we see in black and white in Bill C-76, where it
says that the Canadian flag must appear on documents, cheques
and so forth, when the federal government is involved, even
though it is less and less involved.
(1320)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Unfortunately, the hon.
member has very little time to respond to the remarks of the
member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead.
[English]
Within no more than a minute I would ask the member to
respond to the comment and question of the member.
Mr. Culbert: Mr. Speaker, I will try to respond as quickly as I
possibly can to my hon. colleague across the way.
The number one point I would like to make is that it is called
responsibility. A responsible government sets a commitment, a
goal and a challenge. It is prepared to meet the challenges that
were set in a very balanced and responsible fashion for all parts
of Canada, including the great province of Quebec which I
greatly respect.
12056
As I mentioned in my speech, it should be done with the
Canadian values of equity, fairness, compassion and dignity for
all Canadians in mind. That is the way to do it in a balanced
fashion.
If members of the Bloc concentrated their efforts on some of
the areas indicated in the Prime Minister's speech on the
weekend, they would be far better off than they are with their
discussion of separation and dividing the country.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad
to have the opportunity to speak to the Bloc's motion concerning
the Canada health and social transfer.
While its wording is a little extravagant and its claim
somewhat exaggerated, the motion's analysis of the CHST that
it does not go far enough toward the decentralization of health,
advanced education and social assistance is one that we as
Reformers could agree with.
Like the Bloc, Reform believes that the federal government
must give the provinces, which have exclusive constitutional
jurisdiction over the programs, more freedom to design and
administer social programs. We share the Bloc's belief that
programs of this nature should be delivered by levels of
government closest to the people rather than by distant federal
bureaucrats. Unlike the Bloc, however, Reform differs in how to
decentralize the powers.
The Bloc has only one solution to our nation's problems,
separation, but we in the Reform Party do not want to destroy
Canada. We want to build it.
Reform believes that the solutions to our problems lie not in
separation but in legislation and negotiation. Our Constitution
already grants us the flexibility we need. Over its first 128 years
the Canadian federation has proved to be extremely malleable. It
has bent and reshaped itself to meet the needs of the day. Even in
the absence of full scale constitutional reform I am confident
our federation will adapt again to the needs of circumstances in
the next 128 years.
In defence of the government, the Canada health and social
transfer is a modest example of rebalancing the federation
through legislation. While the government's primary motive in
creating the Canada health and social transfer was to save
money. a secondary intention is undoubtedly to further
decentralize programs. The most promising element of the
CHST is the government's decision to remove all federally
imposed restrictions on welfare funding except the residence
requirement.
By shifting to unconditional block funding the federal
government gives the provinces more freedom to experiment
and to innovate. It will allow the people of each province to
decide how best to deliver the services the citizens want.
Unfortunately this decentralizing thrust is not extended to
health care and advanced education, the other two components
of the Canada health and social transfer.
The federal government's refusal to amend or reinterpret the
Canada Health Act and the pooling of health, welfare and
education funds into a single transfer payment give Ottawa an
even bigger stick with which to beat the provinces into
submission. It is a backward step that will make it more difficult
for the provinces to control their health care costs.
(1325 )
This aspect of the Canada health and social transfer is a
perfect example of the federal government trying to have its
cake and eating it too. In the budget the Liberal government
unilaterally reduced its cash transfers for health, education and
welfare by some 40 per cent, yet at the same time it is continuing
to insist that the provinces play by its rules.
This just is not right. If the federal government wants to set
the ground rules in areas of provincial jurisdiction then it has to
pay its share of the burden. If it is no longer willing or able to put
up the dollars, which describes the present situation in Canada
fairly accurately, it must be prepared to step aside and let each
province decide how best to provide for its citizens' health care
needs.
The truth is that the federal government cannot afford to use
its spending power the way it did in the 1960s, the 1970s and the
1980s. The country is broke. It does not have the funds to deal
with the programs as it has in the past. The federal debt, as we all
know, is somewhere around $550 billion.
Just as important in political terms, further centralization is a
non-starter all across Canada, not just in Quebec as the motion
indicates. People are demanding the power and decision making
be pushed down to the lowest level of government, to the
grassroots. The Liberals are strong believers in central
government. We can believe in rigid national standards but we
can simply no longer afford them either fiscally or politically.
Nor are they administratively responsible at this time in our
history.
There is an alternative path we can follow toward a more
flexible and decentralized federation which will offer provincial
governments the freedom they need to make the choices they
want for their respective citizens. To illustrate the alternative
vision I look at the Reform taxpayers' budget that was presented
to this assembly.
An amazing fact that no one picked up on in the budget is that
the Liberals, the party of compassion, cut almost twice as much
from the programs that make up the Canada health and social
transfer as Reformers recommended in their alternative budget.
In our taxpayers' budget we recommended reductions of $800
million in health, $200 million in education and $2.5 billion in
welfare, for a total of $3.5 billion of expenditure reductions over
a three-year period. In contrast, the government's budget
reduces the cash transfer components of the Canada health and
social transfer by $6.6 billion over the same three years. Who
12057
has the most compassion in terms of the social needs of
Canadians?
What distinguishes our proposal from the Canada health and
social transfer is the decentralizing aspects of the taxpayers'
budget. I would like to talk briefly about one element of the
decentralizing initiative, the unconditional transfer of tax points
to the provinces, which the budget of the Liberal government
denies the provinces and Canadians.
The most significant difference between the CHST and our
own Reform proposal is that we would transfer additional tax
points to the provinces, whereas the Liberal budget would not.
This is important for two reasons: first, because it provides
increased flexibility and, second, because it ensures the stability
of funding for the provinces.
On the first point, we all realize that the federal government
can no longer continue to spend money it does not have. We in
the Reform Party have openly acknowledged that and have
stated publicly that as part of the Reform's deficit elimination
plan we would cut $3.5 billion over a three-year period in the
areas of health, education and welfare. Reformers also realize
that if provincial governments are to absorb reductions of this
magnitude they will need the freedom to innovate and to
discover more efficient ways of delivering services.
(1330 )
That is why our tax point transfer is unconditional, with no
strings attached. It is designed to provide maximum flexibility
to the provinces of Canada.
On the second point, if provincial governments are to
effectively provide these services then they must be given the
resources to fulfil their responsibilities. They must be able to
count on stable, long term revenue resources. Yet under the
CHST this security does not exist. The federal government can
unilaterally, at any time, reduce or alter the transfer to the
provinces. This provides provincial governments with neither
stability nor security.
Under the Reform's tax point transfer alternative, provinces
would no longer have to guess how much Ottawa was going to
send to them; they would know. This would allow them to extend
their planning horizons, confident that money is going to be
there. In addition, since the value of the tax points grows along
with the economy, Reform's proposal would effectively
increase funding for these programs over the medium and the
long term.
In conclusion, Reform and the Bloc agree on the need for
greater decentralization of powers to local and provincial
governments. We also agree that the government's new Canada
health and social transfer does not adequately meet this need.
However, unlike the Bloc, we do not advocate destroying the
country; we advocate rebuilding it. I would hope the suggestions
we offer as the Reform Party here today, including the concept
of transferring additional tax points to the provinces, will mark
a positive beginning in this rebuilding process in our Canadian
social fabric.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a case of strange bedfellows
when we see the hon. member for Lethbridge joining forces with
the Bloc: one is trying to separate us, the other trying to
balkanize us, a different form of separation.
They propose we give all of this money to the provinces with
no strings attached. Code word: break up the national health care
program; do not give a standard payment for welfare; shaft those
who have no consensus from one side of the country to the other.
Those are the code words they use in the House every day. It is
not fair to those who can least defend themselves.
On the welfare payments, you go to certain provinces and they
ask you to take the next bus to British Columbia. That is the kind
of compassion that comes from this kind of proposal.
The federal government has a right and a responsibility to stay
in touch with those in need. When they set a national standard
they should see that the money they transfer goes to meet that
standard. That is the case with every program, and that should be
put in.
For those people from Newfoundland to British Columbia and
those in between it is important to see that their services are
delivered equally. No one group in Canada should get better
services than another when it comes to health care.
I am sick and tired of hearing remarks like: ``We will give
them the chance to do whatever they want''. That is a great
statement. They can do whatever they want with those who
cannot defend themselves.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, in response to the
hon. member I want to say this. In this federation we are trying
to build it is time that we start to trust our partners. The partners
we must trust are the provinces. The 10 provinces of Canada
must be trusted to take on responsibilities to meet the needs of
their citizens, determined by the priorities of the citizens in their
respective provinces.
I have witnessed in my political career for 32 years situations
where provinces often had a greater care and a greater
compassion than the federal government with regard to the
priority needs of the provinces.
When I come to this House it is disappointing to hear someone
who has been around this assembly for some period of time and
to hear the Liberal government, which thinks it has all of the
answers and wants to centralize everything in a centralized
bureaucratic system, tell the provinces what to do. They think
12058
that under that system they are going to meet the needs of the
citizens. We will not build federalism with that kind of mistrust.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my colleague from the West mentioned, in his speech, that he
was committed to keeping the country together. He also stressed
how important it was to negotiate.
(1335)
I would like to remind him that Quebec has long been asking
in vain for a special status within Canada, in recognition of its
unique French culture. This is not negotiating. The 1982
Constitution was forced on Quebec. We did not accept it, we
tried repeatedly to negotiate. It would appear that the federal
government is no longer interested in negotiating with Quebec.
Once again, Quebec is losing. These are two reasons why
Quebec wants to separate from the rest of Canada.
In his speech, the member also said that the federal
government was bankrupt. Not only is it bankrupt, but as we
saw, the Liberal government has no vision. It makes cuts
everywhere. Without any vision, it lacks compassion for the less
fortunate. This is not reassuring.
I want to tell you that another reason why we want Quebec to
become sovereign, is that we will do better on our own, we know
what our needs are, and we know how to solve our problems, if
only the federal government did not interfere. This is why we
want to separate.
[English]
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, very briefly,
number one, I would fight and stand shoulder to shoulder with
Quebec and any other province in this nation so that we are all
treated equally. That is a very important principle.
I had the opportunity over the years to negotiate with the
federal government and stand shoulder to shoulder with
ministers from Quebec to fight for our fair share of health
payments: social service payments, housing grants and moneys
from the federal government. The province of Alberta and the
province of Quebec at the negotiating and bargaining table over
and over again, and I can say this without exception, always had
the same point of view. We were partners in negotiating with the
federal government to get our respective share of either federal
funds or legislation that was required to carry out our
responsibilities.
We were never in conflict with our objectives. That was part
of the federation that was very important. A part that is often
overlooked by Quebec and by other people in Canada is that
Quebec did have allies in Canada fighting for the same cause and
the same purpose. That should continue in this federation. I
would be disappointed if it did not.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to have the opportunity to address this problem.
I had an opportunity to meet with some graduates in my
constituency last Friday from three classes of high school
students in three different areas. I asked each one of these
classes, ``Why do you think health, post-secondary education,
and welfare are being reviewed in Canada today?`` They said to
me: ``We think this is a political agenda. This somehow is
something the politicians must do.''
When I explained to them I took from some brand new federal
documents from StatsCan the following figures. These figures
are a fascinating indictment of some of the things we have tried
to do in our country. Servicing the federal government debt will
cost $1,522 per person in 1994-95. The federal government in
1994-95 will spend $268 per person on health and $168 on
post-secondary education. That is $1,522 compared to $268 and
$168.
The students in those three high school classes said to me:
``Isn't that the problem then? Isn't that the problem for Quebec?
Isn't that the problem for Alberta?'' My answer is yes, that is the
problem.
It would be very easy to be an opposition member and point
fingers and blame the Liberal government. I do not think that is
helpful.
In the same report it goes on to say-just in case those in
Quebec think they can point the finger only at the federal
government-that the provincial debt in Quebec is the highest in
Canada, at $8,413 per person.
(1340 )
These figures go on to show all the provinces lined up in terms
of their debt. The next closest is Nova Scotia, with $8,405, all
the way down to Alberta, at $1,404 per person. I invite members
to look at these documents. They are publicly available.
It is not sufficient to stand back as an Albertan and say it is the
problem of the federal government. This is a Canadian problem,
a problem far too big to be pointing fingers at.
I have had occasion to try to determine who is leading the
debate in Canada. My big interest is health care, and I find that
the public is far ahead of the politicians in this debate. The CBC
has just done a four-part program on the future of our health
care system, something that is unheard of in Canada. At the end
of their four-part program it did a survey and asked Canadians if
health care, the way it is set up today, is affordable. This
question was not asked in a political sense; it was asked to
practical, commonsense Canadians: Can we afford health care
the way it is set up today?
Before I go to the answer, 57 per cent said health care was the
most important government social program. I agree. However,
about 90 per cent of Canadians polled in that survey said they
expected medicare would cover fewer services in the future; 45
per cent predicted all necessary services would be retained;
12059
another 45 per cent said only the most essential services would
be covered and that most people would have to pay for much of
the other health care needs.
When Reformers stood in the House last Thursday to initiate
the first debate on health care in the House literally in years, an
old time parliamentarian said to me: ``Is it not interesting who
should initiate this debate on health care? There has not been
such a debate for years.'' When we stood in the House and
initiated this debate, the press said you cannot talk about this, it
is a sacred program; you cannot talk about changes to health
care. However, the public in Canada says otherwise. I think the
public is ahead of the politicians.
Can we trust the government to do what is right? Can we trust
the party opposite, the government of the day, to do what is
right? I do not believe that we could hope for anything but. On
health care, this government will do what is right. Canadians
value this program so strongly that no one could get away with
doing what is wrong on health care. Can we trust the government
to move in the right direction on health care reform?
I listened to the Prime Minister say he felt that health care
needed to return to basics. When my province asked for a
definition of the basics, the hands went up and the answer came:
``No chance for that''. A senior medical practitioner in Quebec
said virtually the same thing. And this is new information. It
comes from the senior general medical practitioner in Quebec
who said there needs to be a change in the way health care is
delivered because ``the Quebec public health care system is on
the brink of bankruptcy.'' Those are Dr. Clément Richer's
words, not mine.
Is the rhetoric sufficient on social program review? It is not.
Are promises that were made in the red book 18 months ago
sufficient on social program reform? They are not. Quebec is
asking and I believe the Bloc is asking to be treated fairly under
the new proposals. I support them in that request. They deserve
to be treated fairly as does every citizen in Canada. Shall we
blame, argue, point fingers? My advisers say no, we need to find
solutions.
(1345)
The motion the Bloc has presented is well intentioned,
however, it does not point to any solutions. It seems to me to be
pointing fingers. Members of the Bloc should look at Quebec's
own debt. Look at the $8,400 worth of provincial debt. Consider
that with the $18,000 of debt which is federal. The two go hand
in hand and are extremely important.
I ask the question, what will keep Quebec in Canada? Surely
that is my desire. Quebecers need the freedom to nourish their
culture and their language. They need authority over areas of
provincial jurisdiction. I feel that Quebecers looking at Canada
as most Canadians look at Quebec, equals working toward a
common goal. The rhetoric will die out. Practicality will win
out.
I listened to the Minister of Health ask on Thursday, how
would Reformers coerce the provinces into following national
standards, and I shake my head. The provinces do not need to be
coerced into following social program review. They need to
have the tools. They need to have the information. They need to
have the co-operation. They need to have the work of every
single man and woman in these chambers.
It is a privilege to be a member of this House. When
parliamentarians argue and gripe and frown and grimace at one
another it sometimes detracts from the importance of the job
that we do here. I dedicate my service to try to make sure that we
have good social programs in Canada, programs that will
survive the economic crisis we are in. That service is too
important to be denigrated by arguing.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the
pleasure of meeting with a representative of a community group
on Somerset West in my riding of Ottawa Centre. The subject of
discussion was the Canada assistance plan.
Groups have called on the federal government to enter into
discussions with the provincial government in order to ensure
that there are standards, objectives and goals and that the
priorities are set straight. Also, they have called on the federal
government to ensure that community groups such as the
organization I mentioned are involved in the process when it
comes to the delivery of programs or the setting up of principles.
I support their demands.
I bring to the attention of my colleagues section 36(1) of the
Canadian Constitution. It permits the federal government as
well as the provincial government jointly to promote equal
opportunities for the well-being of Canadians to further
economic development and to reduce disparities.
In fact, the federal government has a significant
responsibility to ensure vertical equity among Canadians as well
as horizontal equity among the country's regions. That is
exactly what the government set out to do in the 1995 budget. I
refer to page 53 of the budget.
The Minister of Finance stated that the federal government
under the leadership of the Minister of Human Resources
Development will invite all provincial governments to work
together on developing through mutual consent a set of shared
principles and objectives that could underlie the new transfer. In
this way, all governments could reaffirm their commitment to
the social well-being of Canadians. In other words, the
government is committed to building consensus among the
provinces and not imposing it on the provinces.
12060
The submissions of both opposition parties seem to be
clashing with one another. They are flying in different directions
and missing the point of what this government is trying to do.
What this government has tried to do is to consult with the
provinces.
(1350)
Did the hon. member have any representation from his
constituency, as I did in mine, on the need for consultation and
the need for setting minimum standards and goals and objectives
when it comes to CAP transfers or block transfers to the
provinces?
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I can frankly say that I have
not had any such consultations. In my part of the country the
general consensus is that the federal government is too intrusive
and has lost its moral authority. The $1,522 debt that it has
discharged on every person in Canada has left them without the
ability to do what they have traditionally wanted to do.
Therefore there is no sense of that in my part of the country at
all.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my Reform
Party colleague for his presentation. He spoke about the Quebec
debt being very high, as high as $8,400 per capita, and said that
Bloc Quebecois members should look at what is happening in
their own province before they point a finger at the federal
government.
I think there is not one Bloc Quebecois member who rose in
this House to say that Quebec's debt is unimportant and that we
should not be concerned, quite the contrary. Members of the
Bloc Quebecois and of the Parti Quebecois government know
that during the ten years of Liberal government, the debt has
more than doubled and that something has to be done about that
situation.
The member also accuses our Bloc colleagues of not
proposing solutions in this debate. Let me remind him that
solutions were proposed, again by all stakeholders from the
Quebec government. I would like to hear what he has to say on
that point. When we speak about manpower training, there is a
consensus in Quebec. All stakeholders, whatever their political
affiliation, want the federal government to withdraw completely
from that area and let Quebec take over. We ask the same thing
for health and education. We want the federal government to
transfer tax points and let us manage those areas. We will do so
very efficiently.
[English]
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from
Lethbridge said, there is a common ground between Quebec and
many other parts of the country. On this issue where it speaks
specifically about withdrawing from areas of provincial
responsibility we do have common ground.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to have a few minutes to participate in this
opposition day debate on the Canada health and social transfer
initiative put forward by this government.
Many things have been said about the recent budget by the
Minister of Finance, mostly good things. Canadians have
significantly expressed their support for this budget in poll after
poll. On radio and television talk shows they expressed their
support in vast numbers for the federal government's recent
budget. This budget, I might add, will no doubt go down in
history as a significant step forward for this country.
As Canadians see this budget as an opportunity to put the
government's finances back on track after so many years of
mismanagement, it would seem that the NDP in Ontario see this
as an opportunity of a different sort. Our Bloc colleagues in this
House see the budget as a chance to take something away from
what has become a very positive discussion for Canadians.
Let me take a few moments and relate my thoughts on what
the NDP is attempting to do in Ontario by focusing on the
federal budget. It is clear that the NDP in Ontario does not have a
record it can reliably depend on to get it through the Ontario
election which is now under way. In fact, some of my colleagues
may have received in the mail a package from the Ontario
government called ``The 1995 Ontario Budget Plan''. It is a
small document outlining what the NDP claims to have done and
will do if re-elected.
(1355)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would caution the
hon. member on the use of accessories or props. If he is going to
quote from a document, I understand that full well. Otherwise I
would caution him on the use of props.
Mr. St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of referring to this
document is to bring to the attention of my hon. colleagues that
the NDP has attempted to hang its success on the federal budget.
I dare suggest to the Ontario NDP that this attempt will fail.
Canadians have too much respect and regard for their federal
finance minister to be taken in by a plan such as this.
In fact, the Canadian Federation of Students made a
presentation to the finance committee earlier today. They
expressed concerns about the budget but they put forward
positive ideas. I suggest that the Ontario NDP should be looking
for positive ways to make this country work.
Our Bloc colleagues are attempting to use the budget as an
opportunity to make gains on their own agenda. The agenda of
the Bloc is quite obvious. There is no need to remind the House
and Canadians what the Bloc agenda is. As the motion says in
part, the Bloc is questioning what it alleges to be an imposition
of standards on the provinces. Nowhere in the federal budget is
12061
the finance minister or this government imposing standards on
the provinces which in the first place are not there, or in the
second place are standards which Canadians do not want.
I know that during my election campaign in the fall of 1993-
The Speaker: My colleague, of course, will have the floor
after question period.
It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to statements by
members.
_____________________________________________
12061
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Canada's
firefighters.
This week firefighters from across the country are meeting in
Ottawa for the International Association of Firefighters fourth
annual legislative conference.
These brave men and women are an integral part of every
Canadian community. With little regard for their own personal
safety they battle in the most dangerous of conditions, providing
Canadians with peace of mind.
Their exposure to infectious diseases is a major reason
firefighting is one of the world's most dangerous professions.
Firefighters routinely provide emergency medical treatment in
unsanitary field conditions on patients they know nothing about.
This results in firefighters being occupationally exposed to a
variety of dangerous contagious diseases.
Firefighters who have been exposed to infectious diseases
need to be further informed of this fact so they can seek medical
monitoring and modify their behaviour to avoid further
transmission. It is my hope that the federal government will
soon provide this information.
I salute Canada's firefighters.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
because of a difference in the French and English versions of the
federal income tax return, French-speaking Canadian taxpayers
living temporarily outside Canada will pay more income tax
than their English-speaking counterparts.
Line 419 of the French version refers to a 4.56 per cent surtax,
while the surtax in the English version is only 3 per cent.
The Commissioner of Official Languages, Victor Goldbloom,
was totally justified in saying in his 1994 report that the
bilingualism policy was still poorly implemented more than a
quarter century after its adoption.
How can the government justify such a lack of rigour where
the equitable treatment of francophones in Canada is
concerned?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, firefighters
and paramedics respond when we call 911 for their help. They
rush to our aid with little regard for their own personal safety.
Sometimes they are injured. Sometimes they are infected. They
approach Parliament this week with a simple request: ``Inform
us if we have a risk of infection''. This proposal will not produce
new testing, will guarantee patient confidentiality and would
never result in someone going without the help they desperately
need.
In a sense the firefighters are calling 911 to the Minister of
Health but she has put them on hold. They deserve better. I call
on the health minister to act now.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence announced the
Liberal government's acceptance of the proposal to double,
perhaps triple, the number of low level military flights that take
place over Innu territory in Labrador and Quebec.
The military aircraft fly at 30 metres above the ground,
disrupt wildlife and imperil hunting and fishing grounds.
Caribou are often found starved, too frightened to eat. The Innu,
who live off the land and its animals, worry about the future of
their traditional way of life.
The government is aware that its environmental assessment
panel admitted the impact on the environment and aboriginal
rights is unknown and refused to listen to issues raised by
aboriginal people relating to their land.
The Innu have never signed a treaty with the Canadian
government for the use of their land and the government has
never asked permission to conduct these military flights over
that territory. All the Innu people want is a life of peace.
12062
All people deserve respect. As the minister of Indian affairs
said recently: ``It's their territory. They have a concern. It's a
legitimate concern''.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the
morning of April 17, 1943 a Lancaster bomber with a
seven-man crew, part of the 83rd Squadron, crashed in German
occupied France after a raid on Manheim, Germany. The pilot,
Pilot Officer Glen McNichol, was killed in the crash and the six
survivors were taken prisoner.
Pilot Officer Harold Beaupré, one of the survivors, was
liberated from a prisoner of war camp in Lubeck, Germany on
May 2, 1945. Today marks the 50th anniversary of Mr.
Beaupré's liberation.
Two months later, on July 2 Mr. Beaupré became a prisoner of
love and married his wife Margaret. Mr. and Mrs. Beaupré
raised four children and continue to run their business, Beaupré
Stamps, in uptown Waterloo. They continue to contribute to the
social and economic life of their community.
To Mr. Beaupré and to all Canadians who served in the two
world wars, the Korean war and the ones involved in past and
present peacekeeping, we give our thanks and admiration.
We will always remember the sacrifices they made and
continue to make for Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, during the last federal election a political party in
Canada promised to lower spending on federal administration
and reduce subsidies to businesses. This party also promised
cuts to national defence and argued for improved social
spending by refocusing benefits on those most in need. These
promises were made by the Reform Party in the blue sheet.
However when the Liberal budget delivers and improves on
these promises the Reform leader calls them dishonest and
cowardly.
Canadians have made it clear that they do not want politics as
usual. They reject doom and gloom and Reform Party sophistry.
Canadians want leadership and compassion. That is why in poll
after poll they continue to support their Liberal government.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week the International Association of Firefighters is holding its
fourth annual conference in Ottawa.
Professional firefighters risk their lives daily in an effort to
save the lives and property of their fellow citizens. They are the
largest providers of field emergency medical care. In the course
of saving lives firefighters and emergency medical personnel
are exposed to danger, disease and hazardous materials.
The International Association of Firefighters is committed to
ensuring that all firefighters are provided with the most
accurate, updated information regarding the emergency
situation to which they must respond.
Along with my colleagues in the House, I congratulate and
thank all firefighters across Canada and around the world on a
job very well done.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs could not resist pulling another dirty trick on
Quebec at the convention of the Quebec wing of the Liberal
Party of Canada last weekend.
Showing incredible contempt, Quebec's political godfather in
the federal cabinet said that the referendum report was hurting
Quebec City's chances of hosting the Olympic Games in 2002,
even though both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime
Minister told us that all Canadian diplomats were actively
supporting Quebec City's bid to the International Olympic
Committee.
We hope that the Canadian embassies and consulates
responsible for promoting Quebec City's bid will do their job
without paying attention to their boss's comments.
After the Prime Minister said that Quebec City was prevented
from hosting the G-7 summit because the Canadian flag does
not fly in front of its city hall, the federal government is once
again resorting to threats in the matter of the 2002 Olympic
Games.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the governing Liberals are proving once again that
they are no friend of Saskatchewan. The last federal budget hit
Saskatchewan with cutbacks in agriculture, the Crow rate and an
increase in fuel tax.
In the face of this sacrifice in Saskatchewan the minister of
public works has the nerve to announce that the government is
giving $4 million to the Harbourfront Centre in Toronto.
12063
The government cannot find money for farm support, but it
can fund cultural centres. It says it no longer has money for grain
transportation but it will continue to fund fat, gold plated MP
pension plans.
The Liberals have no cash to stop booze and gun running into
my province from the United States but it can find millions of
dollars for gun control registration that will have no effect on
crime.
The Liberal government can borrow billions of dollars to fund
its own pet projects at the expense of hard working, taxpaying
farmers.
It is clear that this government is no friend of Saskatchewan
and her future generations.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, exposure
to infectious disease is a major reason why firefighting is one of
the world's most dangerous professions.
Firefighters routinely provide emergency medical treatment
in unsanitary field conditions and are exposed to infectious
disease.
I would like to know why the Minister of Health has failed to
commit to a national protocol regarding infectious disease
notification. Will the minister commit to a national system for
the safety of our firefighters, their families and the rest of
society?
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
world community is looking to Canada and other industrialized
nations to set a good example on the pressing issue of climate
change.
Certain gases, most notably carbon dioxide, collect in the
earth's atmosphere and trap heat. Most carbon dioxide is
produced in industrial nations from burning coal, oil and gas.
Thus we must find ways of reducing the consumption of these
fossil fuels.
Climate change is not only an environmental issue, but also an
ethical issue. If Arctic ice caps melt and oceans rise, the lives of
millions of coastal and island people around the globe will be in
danger. It is important that Canadians understand the cause and
effect of climate change.
Therefore I urge the government to do everything in its power
to launch a public education and awareness program to explain
the complexity of this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in
Le Journal de Montréal this morning, the Bloc
leader is quoted by Martin Leclerc as saying that the solution to
poverty issues lies in a sovereignty plan. The things you hear.
The Quebec separation plan creates pervasive uncertainty and
aggravates the problems confronting us, including poverty.
With its plans to separate, the Bloc Quebecois will do anything
to win its ideological war, even sacrifice an entire generation of
young Quebecers.
[English]
Let us try to convince the Leader of the Opposition that we
should work together to win the real war, the war against
poverty.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week, National Composting Awareness
Week, we celebrate the benefits of composting, both to reduce
waste and to create nutrient rich earth.
Composting facilities across Canada process almost 700,000
tonnes or about 11 per cent of the organic waste produced each
year, but it is believed that about half of the total waste stream
could be composted.
About a million Canadian households also divert 200,000
tonnes of their kitchen and yard wastes through back yard
composting. I commend those that realize the importance of
composting and I urge all Canadians to get involved in this
valuable program for life.
We must reduce the amount of garbage in our landfills if we
no longer want to be counted among the most wasteful people on
the planet.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of National Defence announced yesterday that he fully
endorsed the report of the panel reviewing the issue of low level
flights in Labrador and Quebec. Interestingly enough, the
Minister of the Environment, to whom the report was also
directed, did not speak up. Her silence can only mean that her
colleague's decision defies even the most elementary rule of
prudence, which says that the impact of such a drastic increase
in the
12064
number of flights should be assessed before a decision is made,
not after, as the defence minister is suggesting.
The Minister of the Environment, who boasts about making
Canada a world leader in environmental matters, will have to
bear the political burden of this decision, which is contrary to
the principles of sustainable development, caution and
prevention she talks about day in and day out.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the coast guard lightstation services project went to 28
B.C. locations and cost $202,000. Its report is now more than
one month old and will be released today.
I hope the current minister responsible has read it and will
conclude what the B.C. public has concluded. Public
consultations with 1,397 residents, mariners and aviators,
representing hundreds of thousands of users, indicate that
opposition to destaffing B.C.'s lightstations is widespread,
often vehement and overwhelming.
The rationale is solid. Public safety, drug interdiction, science
and sovereignty are paramount. The only minister from B.C.
stated he would support keeping staffed lightstations if coast
guard consultations said the public wants them.
The people have now spoken.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the main problem of the P.Q. government is its
obsession with Quebec's separation, regardless of the real
problems affecting its citizens.
In his book entitled Moi, je m'en souviens, Pierre Bourgault
clearly outlines the problem and I quote him: ``There is
something more important than the fight for independence and
that is the fight against poverty. Why put aside these social
concerns, which have always been part of separatist thinking?
Ultimately, would it be the separatists, much more than the
people, who are inconsistent?''
It is high time that the P.Q. and the Bloc Quebecois realize
that Quebecers expect from their elected people that they deal
with the real problems and put an end to their obsession with
separation.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to reflect on the courage, strength and
determination of the Vietnamese community in Canada. This
past week marked the 20th year since the end of the war in
Vietnam.
The war was not just a convulsive era in world history. It was a
horrific nightmare for its victims. A Vietnamese proverb
teaches that if a parent is cruel, the children will choose another.
When the war ended it did not bring peace to the people of
Vietnam. Refugees fled a cruel parent in rickety boats, risking
their lives to escape. Many of them made it to Canada. In fact,
Canada has resettled more than 145,000 Indo-Chinese asylum
seekers since 1979.
The boat people, 23,000 of them, came to Canada where they
faced new challenges, but as part of a welcoming Canadian
family. These brave people have brought success born of their
industrious nature. They have also enriched Canada's diverse
social fabric.
On behalf of this Parliament I would like to pay tribute to the
Vietnamese community in Canada. Vietnam's loss has been our
reward. I would like to pay tribute to Vietnamese Canadians and
to applaud the spirit of generosity and hope that brought them to
us and to give thanks that today Vietnam is a place of peace, not
war.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Sunday I spoke at the Holocaust Memorial Service
held in Fredericton. This year's service marked the 50th
anniversary of the liberation by allied forces of the Nazi death
camps.
These camps are the graveyards for millions of individuals,
the vast majority of whom are Jews. They committed no crime.
They broke no laws. They did nothing to deserve the medical
experimentation, tattooing, forced labour and gassing they
endured. It is a blight against humanity that anything so
unspeakable could occur in what we think of as a civilized
society and that it could go on for so long.
(1415)
If anything can be gained by the inhuman crime that was the
Holocaust, I hope it is awareness on the part of every individual
to be on guard against attitudes that could lead to anything
resembling this atrocity from ever happening again.
12065
12065
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, early in April, the Minister of Canadian Heritage
made a discreet trip to Los Angeles, on the very day Seagram's
took over MCA. He went to Los Angeles accompanied only by
his executive assistant, without any senior officials and without
any advance briefing by his department, which is customary
prior to a minister's trip abroad.
My question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
How can he say he did not talk to the people at MCA and
Seagram's in Los Angeles on April 10, when according to the
Hollywood Reporter, he was MCA's guest of honour at a dinner
the day after MCA was acquired by Seagram's?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true I had lunch in the cafeteria or just
outside the cafeteria at MCA.
Some hon. members: Ah?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dupuy: If any details are required, here they are. We had
chicken and ice tea.
I met representatives of major U.S. studios located in the Los
Angeles area. I was never even remotely involved in any aspect
of a transaction between Seagram's and MCA. I said it before
and I say it again, I was there to defend Canadian interests, the
interests of an industry that is important to Canada-the film
industry-and I would expect the opposition to support these
efforts to defend and promote the interests of an industry that is
Canadian and located in Quebec as well.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I knew that Foreign Affairs was cutting down on
spending by ministers abroad, but making them have lunch in
cafeterias is going a bit too far.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: How times have changed.
Mr. Bouchard: Indeed they have.
Will the minister admit that he went to Los Angeles at the
invitation of Allan Karp, president of Cineplex Odeon which
belongs to the Bronfman family and MCA and is a party to the
transaction concluded the day he arrived in Los Angeles?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have contacts with all players in the
Canadian film industry, whether they are in distribution,
production, post-production or movie-theatre chains. So it is
entirely normal I should have contacts with Cineplex Odeon,
one of the big chains. However, at no time during my contacts
with Cineplex Odeon did I discuss what was happening, in other
words, the acquisition of MCA by Seagram's.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, would the minister confirm that two of the guests
of honour at his lunch on April 10, Mr. Wesserman and Mr.
Sheinberg, the two top executives at MCA, were actually having
lunch in the room next door with Edgar Bronfman senior and
junior?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not be in two places at the same time.
I was where I said I was. Where Mr. Bronfman and the others
were? I was not there. I was not a witness. It is too bad the
Leader of the Opposition keeps flogging a dead horse.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
recently learned that Cineplex-Odeon, which belongs to the
Bronfman trust and to MCA, proposed to merge with Cinemark,
an American company, to create a North American mega movie
theatre company called Cineplex International. According to the
Globe and Mail, if the transaction is completed, Americans will
have a 42.6 per cent interest in Cineplex International, while the
Bronfman/MCA group will hold 38 per cent of the shares of that
company.
Considering that such a transaction would put
Cineplex-Odeon under American control, will the Minister of
Canadian Heritage tell us if he expressed his strong
disagreement to Cineplex-Odeon's president, Mr. Karp, who
happens to be the person who invited the minister to Los
Angeles, given the impact of such a merger on the control of
Cineplex-Odeon movie theatres by the American majors?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I never discussed this issue, either directly
or indirectly, with Mr. Karp. The ownership of Canadian or
foreign businesses does not fall under my jurisdiction, but under
that of the Minister of Industry. I can confirm that this issue is
neither directly nor remotely related to my department.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
somewhat surprised by the minister's answers. He behaves as
though he were not a member of this government. Is he still? We
think so.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not agree that, as the
minister responsible for culture and communications in Canada,
his primary responsibility is to clearly tell those who might be
tempted to conclude a transaction deemed unacceptable by
Canadian cultural groups that he and his government will fight
tooth and nail to protect the Canadian industry?
12066
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that I strive to protect
Canadian content on the information highway and in the
audiovisual sector as a whole. I do it here in Canada, I did so in
Brussels during the G-7 meeting and I will continue to do so.
Why protect Canadian content? So that we have our own
identity, our own culture. How are we going to do it? By
supporting cultural industries which produce this Canadian
content.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's red book contains many high-flown
promises including one to proceed full steam ahead with the
undefined concept of aboriginal self-government and generous
interpretation of treaties.
Could the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development give us an update on what he and his department
are doing to fulfil these promises?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is community based
self-government with about 40 First Nations. There are the
so-called land chiefs negotiations.
In Alberta we struck the first deal for moving gas and oil to
aboriginal people, probably followed by another four or five.
In Saskatchewan there are nine co-management agreements.
We are starting co-management in Saskatchewan.
In Manitoba we have dismantled the whole province. The
province is now at the table.
An hon. member: They will be pleased to hear that.
Mr. Irwin: The member asked a question. I am sure he wants
to be informed.
In B.C. the treaty process is moving. I am pleased to announce
it is now supported as of the weekend by the Lutheran bishop,
the Ukrainian Catholic bishop, the Anglican bishop and the
Roman Catholic bishop for the first time.
In Ontario we are negotiating with NAN for dismantling and
moving jurisdiction of education in treaty 3 that is around Fort
Frances, which the hon. member never gets to.
(1425 )
In Quebec we are working with all 10 First Nations plus the
Inuit.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry to hear the minister is dismantling the
province of Manitoba.
The minister implies that the government is committed to the
concept of self-government and resolving treaty issues.
However at the same time the minister's officials are advising
him in a slightly different direction.
I quote from the minister's leaked briefing notes which advise
the minister to bring the high expectations of the aboriginal
community to manageable levels so that the federal government
will avoid being placed in a position of trying to explain why it
is not keeping its red book promises.
My question is for the minister. Why is the minister in his
public statements raising high expectations with respect to
aboriginal self-government while being advised in private by
his officials to reduce high expectations for self-government
and to avoid red book promises?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the leader of the
Reform Party, what I say in private is exactly what I say in
public.
With the aboriginal people I say just this. We have to scope
out exactly what this means. That is part of the treaty process. If
the leader of the Reform Party wants to know what I saw in my
briefing books he should have been at the opening meeting with
treaty 6 where I said just that. I signed a memorandum of
understanding with treaty 6 in Alberta and said just that. It is in
the public speech that was released. He probably got it from one
of the Calgary papers.
We have to scope out exactly what this means. It is exactly
what we did publicly in the treaty 6 memorandum of
understanding. It is exactly what we will do with the Iroquois,
with the Murray treaty in Quebec, always publicly and always
straight up. We are making progress.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this advice is contained in ministerial briefing notes
dated April 18, 1995. Many Canadians suspect from the
minister's past behaviour that he does not read his briefing notes
or follow the advice from his officials.
In the rash statements made by the minister with respect to
self-government, do we not yet have another instance of an
impetuous minister operating oblivious to the concerns of his
officials and making rash statements publicly that he is advised
against making privately?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for the
famous aboriginal policy of the Reform Party. The leader has
12067
done once again what he usually does. When he cannot deal with
merits, when he cannot deal with compassion and when he
cannot deal with issues, he personally attacks me.
I am doing my job. The hon. member should be doing his job
if he is serious about helping the native people of the country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The minister will announce today the appointment of a
committee chaired by a friend of the government, Mr. Pierre
Juneau, whose task will be to examine the operations of the
CBC, the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada. Now, the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage should table its
report on the CBC by the end of this month.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage rationalize the
appointment of a special committee chaired by a friend of the
government when a committee of the House of Commons is
preparing a report on CBC operations?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nobody can question the qualifications of
Mr. Pierre Juneau, who is a distinguished Canadian, one of the
greatest experts we have in this country, and a French-speaking
Canadian on top of that. I am outraged at such a disgraceful
attack.
As to the review that is being launched, it was announced in
the budget, and it is not at all incompatible with the report of the
standing committee.
(1430)
The task of Mr. Juneau and of other committee members is, in
fact, to examine the standing committee's recommendations,
and they must take those recommendations into account.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we
to understand that, by setting up that new special committee, the
minister is about to repeat what happened in the case of Power
DirecTv, where he appointed a panel whose made-to-measure
recommendations backed the federal government's decisions?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very kind for the hon. member to
suggest I wield so much power I can pull the strings. That is not
the case. That committee will be totally independent. Its terms
of reference will allow a thorough examination of the issue.
When the report is handed to me, I will consider it. That is all.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the secret
briefing document mentioned by the member for Calgary
Southwest the minister states: ``By responding to treaty issues
the federal government will avoid being placed in a position of
trying to explain why it is not keeping its red book promises.''
Clearly the minister is cynically going through the motions.
He is following an incoherent and unprincipled approach.
In light of the revelations in the secret briefing document, will
the minister admit he does not actually have an effective and
practical treaty policy?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us talk about principle.
The hon. member's riding is 30 per cent aboriginal. Within his
riding I saw a certain generosity, which I do not find in the
member, from the people of Terrace, Prince Rupert, Stewart,
Smithers, Kitimat and Port Edward.
Out of curiosity last week I checked with the Vancouver office
and did a comparison on Jim Fulton who represented the same
area as the member. Jim Fulton sent 600 letters in four years
regarding aboriginal people. This member has sent two letters in
a year and a half-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Irwin: On principle from the hon. member I will not wait
for his letter.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the leaked
briefing document the minister warns his cabinet colleagues that
after 18 months of confusion: ``The federal government cannot
postpone the development of an effective and practical treaty
policy''.
Obviously the minister has no such policy. Will the the
minister promise that if he ever does manage to develop a
coherent policy he will share it with minor players like
Parliament and the Canadian people?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question.
The Speaker: I invite, without preamble the putting of the
question. The hon. member for Skeena.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister promise that if he ever does manage to develop a
coherent policy he will share it with minor players like
Parliament and the Canadian people?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I disagree that Parliament
and the Canadian people are in the same category as my hon.
12068
friend suggests. I am quite happy to share the treaty process on
inherent rights with Parliament as soon as it is available. I hope
to have it available fairly quickly.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Following a Croat offensive against the Serb enclave Krajina,
Serb forces retaliated by taking 115 police officers and
peacekeepers hostage. In addition, the UN's special envoy, Mr.
Akashi, left Sarajevo yesterday without a signed agreement on
extending the ceasefire in Bosnia.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs update us on the situation
of the hostages and can he reassure us that everything has been
done to protect Canadian peacekeepers stationed in Bosnia and
Croatia?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the situation is certainly very serious and we hope
that the representative of the United Nations, Mr. Akashi, will
be successful in negotiating with the parties, on the one hand,
the release of the hostages, and, on the other, a ceasefire which
would bring lasting peace to this part of the world.
I can reassure the hon. member and the other members of this
House that we are taking appropriate measures, in collaboration
with the other countries which have contributed to this UN
peacekeeping mission, to protect the soldiers participating in
this mission as much as possible.
There are risks inherent in being a soldier, by the very nature
of the work, but we are also aware that we cannot keep troops in
a situation where the role they are intended to play as
peacekeepers no longer has its place. That is why we are in the
process of re-examining the whole issue in collaboration with
the other governments concerned.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister has said a great deal about negotiations. Can he
confirm that the UN has made no progress during its
negotiations with the Serbs on the reopening of the humanitarian
airlift into Sarajevo, and will he admit that he fears that the end
of the ceasefire marks the beginning of out-and-out war?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we regret that the parties did not accept to extend
the ceasefire period. However, we hope that the fact that the
ceasefire is over does not necessarily mean a new onslaught of
hostilities. Efforts have been made to bring the parties to use
restraint and to not resume hostilities, even though they have
chosen not to renew the ceasefire.
We are perfectly aware that the situation could deteriorate.
That is why we have placed our trust in the representative of the
United Nations, whom we support in all of his efforts.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has recently appointed a chief federal
negotiator to help interpret the recently recognized 1760 Murray
treaty. This leaky brief, or should I say leaked brief, of the
minister states: ``Our participation could not be postponed for
fear of being perceived as not wanting to discuss the treaty and
allowing Quebec to take the lead in a tense political climate''.
If the government is only participating because of the Quebec
sovereignist agenda does the federal negotiator have a real
mandate to interpret the treaties in contemporary terms as
promised in the red book?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Murray treaty was signed
by General Murray. The Iroquois, who were allies of Quebec,
found themselves on the wrong side of the battle line. It allowed
them to get back into Quebec. However, it is vague.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Very vague.
Mr. Irwin: Why does the hon. member not check that? He has
probably never heard of the Huron and probably does not even
know where the Murray treaty launched them. I will give him
this lesson.
Max Gros-Louis is the leader of the Hurons. Both the
province of Quebec and Mr. Cliche through the premier and the
government want to negotiate the Murray treaty, and we are. The
negotiator is there. It is up and going. I am sure that when the
results come out, long after the government has been
defeated-pardon me, after the Reform Party has disappeared,
Freudian slip-this will be very-
Some hon. members: Order.
(1440 )
Mr. Irwin: Let me finish. This will be very important because
it will give the leader of the-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George-Peace
River.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was chuckling because of the difficulty the minister
has as he stumbles over the word plan. He has no plan.
12069
Quoting once again from the leaked document: ``The aim is to
develop a strategy to address the red book commitment, manage
expectations and develop federal views on the substance of a
contemporary treaty process''. The government does not intend
to address treaty issues until this fall and until then, ``there will
be no authority to commit to substantive treaty processes''.
How is it possible for the federal representative to negotiate in
good faith with First Nations in Quebec when he has no
authority?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do have authority. My
friend talks about a leaked document. Perhaps he should talk
about a stolen document which would be more appropriate.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: In the sense of the word and the way it was used
I ask the hon. minister to please withdraw the word ``stolen''.
Mr. Irwin: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word. I would not
suggest the Reform Party would steal anything, let alone a good
idea.
If the question is whether we have authority and are
negotiating, the answer is yes. We are negotiating and my
negotiator does have authority. We will be working in concert
with the province of Quebec.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
On April 13, in an unprecedented decision, the federal
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans revealed his plan for managing
snow crab in 1995, which will deprive Quebec fishermen of 400
tonnes of crab, which will be transferred to Prince Edward
Island and Nova Scotia. This improvised transfer will mean the
loss of 40 plant jobs and over $3 million for fishermen of the
Gaspé and Magdalen Islands.
How does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans justify his
decision to transfer 400 tonnes of crab fishing quota from
Quebec to Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and
for his interest in the management of the snow crab fishery in the
gulf since this fishery is extremely valuable for all of the
participants.
The member will know that literally thousands of inshore
fishermen, small boat fisherman throughout Atlantic Canada,
including fishermen in Quebec, have been asking for a share of
this resource during a time when prices are at a historic high and
when landings are at a historic high.
Therefore, I have taken a decision which gives many
fishermen in Quebec an opportunity this year to participate in
the snow crab fishery on a temporary basis when prices and
landings are high. As those prices and landings turn down, the
historic share between the provinces in snow crab returns
exactly to normal.
If my friend is telling me, and he may want to correct himself,
that he does not want anybody but those who already have access
to the resource, those who already have big incomes, to share in
the wealth, then perhaps he can tell me that is the position of the
Bloc Quebecois, but I would be surprised.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister talks of sharing, but is he aware that this is the third
decision by the federal government in only six months that is
unfavourable to Quebec fishermen?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot absolutely assure the member there
is no change in the structure, no change in the sharing
arrangement in access on a permanent basis for those who have
permanent licences in snow crab.
(1445 )
If the member's concern is fairness, then I ask him to listen to
what I am saying. The only change this year is temporary.
Literally some of the boats in the midshore made $600,000 to
$700,000 per boat last year. It is to take some of that tremendous
wealth and for this season with high prices and high quotas to
share some of the resource.
I believe my hon. friend would want to support that kind of
initiative to ensure that the fishermen of Quebec are given a fair
and balanced share of the resource.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as well.
For the past few months Canadians have applauded and
supported the federal government's tough stand on what has
become known as the east coast turbot dispute. There is an
equally important fishery on the west coast which is under
pressure from environmental factors as well as unresolved
disputes with the United States.
12070
Will the minister assure this House that he is prepared to take
equally principled and responsible measures to ensure the long
term viability of the Pacific salmon fishery?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question on the
Pacific salmon fishery. Indeed an important part of Canada's
heritage is the tremendous resource called the Pacific salmon in
the greatest river bar none in this country, the Fraser River.
I want to assure him and all the fishermen in the House that as
recently as last week I met with the U.S. ambassador and the
negotiators for both Canada and the United States. We are
looking at the possibility of bringing in a mediator to resolve our
outstanding differences in the Pacific salmon treaty.
In the interim I assure the House and the people of Canada that
we will have the toughest conservation regime which has ever
been put in place to ensure the preservation of the Pacific
salmon stocks in 1995.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development.
I have in my possession a leaked secret document from the
minister's department which states: ``The fisheries situation has
become volatile as more and more aboriginals try to exercise
perceived fishing rights to the detriment of a properly regulated
fishing industry''.
Why does the minister continue to allow the native fishing
protest on the east coast and why does he continue to defend the
aboriginal fishing strategy on the west coast when his own
advisers are confirming that native fishing is not properly
monitored and has become a severe threat to Canada's fishing
resource?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon.
member on one point. There has to be monitoring of any system
we put in place. As the minister of fisheries made quite clear, we
have to have monitoring internationally. We have to know
figures, so I agree with that.
As far as the volatility is concerned, I will tell the hon.
member why there is volatility. It is because on April 28 on a
B.C. open line show he called the natives of B.C.
non-contributors.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Shame.
Mr. Irwin: He said: ``Well certainly, Ben, and the whole thing
that is dividing the native and non-native population is the fact,
you know, so many people are just not in agreement with
non-contributors'', referring to the aboriginal people. As long
as Reform has this attitude there will be a volatile situation in
B.C.
Going back to what I said, the majority of the people in B.C.
want to do the fair thing with the aboriginal people who live
there.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, consider that these secret documents speak of the
detrimental effects of native fishing. Consider that millions of
west coast salmon went missing in 1994. Consider that the
Fraser River report slams the AFS pilot sales project as not
being effectively monitored. Will the minister today take the
advice of his own officials and protect our fisheries resource by
immediately calling for a suspension of the aboriginal fishing
strategy?
(1450 )
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the questions about the
aboriginal fishing strategy which is administered by the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Let me respond by saying to the member that it is tragically
easy but patently irresponsible for people to stand and suggest
that one category of Canadians is responsible for all of the
problems in the fishery. All of us bear responsibility from every
community to the fishery. It is transparently partisan in the
worst sense of the word to single out one community and blame
it for the problems we have had.
There are 35 recommendations in the Fraser panel report. All
35 recommendations within an hour of being publicly launched
were accepted by this government. All 35 recommendations are
going to be implemented. The cost of conservation will be borne
by First Nations peoples yes, and by everybody else who
participates in the fishery as well.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question as well is for the indian affairs minister.
The government agreed to an increase in the number of low
level flights over Labrador and Quebec. Despite aboriginal
protest, the government's decision will result in close to a
threefold increase in the number of low level flights. This
position faithfully reflects the Canadian army's point of view
and does not take into account the people concerned nor the
opinion of many environmentalist groups.
Can the minister tell us if he endorses the decision taken by
his defence colleague and how he intends to justify it to the
aboriginal people concerned, who are steadfastly opposed to
these flights?
12071
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
decision I announced yesterday which accepted most of the
recommendations of the environmental assessment panel report
is a government decision. It is a collective decision. It is a
decision that was taken in the best interests of all Canadians
with respect to the obligations we have to our allies as part of the
NATO alliance.
It is one where the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador
will continue to benefit in excess of $100 million a year. Over
1,000 people will continue to be gainfully employed, 30 per cent
of them from the aboriginal communities.
To assure those who believe that the continuation and even the
expansion of the number of flights is perhaps environmentally
unsafe, we have accepted the recommendation to set up an
institute for monitoring the environmental concerns. A third
party will be appointed to make recommendations in the setting
up of that institute. We fully expect the aboriginal communities
to be equal partners in the establishment of the institute.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is still for the indian affairs minister.
How can the indian affairs minister, who is letting the national
defence minister answer for him, be an accomplice in the
decision taken by his defence colleague, in view of the fact that
he is the trustee of the rights of the aboriginal people and the
custodian of their interests throughout Canada? I want the
minister to answer this question.
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Department of National Defence is the lead ministry on this file.
In the deliberation on the environmental assessment panel's
report a number of ministers were involved, including the
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, my
colleague from Newfoundland, and of course, the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development. At all times we were
very sensitive to the concerns of the aboriginal peoples and in
particular, the Innu who have some difficulty with the
recommendations and will have some difficulty with the
implementation of this report.
We are inviting all aboriginal Canadians concerned,
especially the Innu, to take part in the institute to absolutely
assure all of us that the monitoring is done in a proper and safe
manner so that these flights can continue.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are quoting directly from this leaked document.
The minister of fisheries should put his smart remarks to the
minister of Indian affairs.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1455 )
The Speaker: Colleagues, perhaps on both sides we are
getting more and more into debate rather than questions and
answers. I would invite the hon. member to please put his
question.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, this document
from Indian affairs shows over $32 million has been handed
over to 10 Indian groups to negotiate self-government. To quote
from the document: ``Central agencies are concerned about cost
and dispersal of effort on aboriginal files. DFO and health want
action on treaties to support operational policies''.
Will the minister of Indian affairs confirm the tremendous
significance of this statement that not only does he not know
what he is doing or what in the world his policy is, but he is also
dragging down and impeding the initiatives of other government
departments which are pressuring him to get on with solving his
problems?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what category
the hon. member is talking about. If he is talking about
community based self-government, this program had gone on
for about eight or nine years before we arrived back in
government. If he is not, he will have to clarify it later.
As far as what Reform is doing here today, I have this
reflection. The Reform Party does not care about the 1760
Murray treaty or the Hurons, the Cree, the Ojibway, or Treaty 6.
What Reform wants to do is to go to its last issue in B.C. and
disrupt the B.C treaty process. That is Reform's agenda.
We have spent the better part of a year and one-half getting
120 First Nations to the table. That is something the Reform
could never do in the millennium. They are negotiating and we
are committed to the B.C. treaty process, no matter what the
Reform members do or how disruptive they are.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is very interesting that the hon. member knows the Reform
agenda. Perhaps this question might help him out a little bit.
Since 1991, $4.6 million has been granted to the Siksika first
nation in Alberta to negotiate a self-government agreement. We
now learn from this document that the Siksika dropped out of the
process so it could pursue negotiations from a direction beyond
12072
the mandate of current federal policy. In fact, we now learn there
is no federal policy, so is it any wonder it dropped out.
Can the minister tell the House if there is any recourse to
recoup the $4.6 million blunder?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, by way of background, in
Alberta where the Siksika are, the treaty is sacred. They say it is
sacred and they do not feel we have fulfilled the spirit and intent
of the treaty.
Chief Strater Crowfoot is one of the pre-eminent chiefs in this
country. He has had a difficult time with his first nation. The
difficulty is that he wants to establish trust with the federal
government. We will work with him and hope that he gets back
into the system.
Rather than saying that Strater Crowfoot and the Siksika are
temporarily out of the process, I want to go back to what the
Minister of Justice said when members of the House voted for
gun control. Forty First Nations are still in the process and still
working toward completion.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
This government has always supported small business and it
is the government's belief that small business is the key to
continued prosperity and the creation of employment. Will the
minister outline for us some of the government's current plans
and actions to assist small business to grow and prosper?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is nice to hear a question with a preamble I agree
with.
First I would like to acknowledge the excellent work of the
Standing Committee on Industry and members of the House of
Commons who contributed to the work on small business. As
well there are the committees chaired by Phil O'Brien and Brien
Gray. They did excellent work in advising the government on
small business.
(1500 )
I would like to mention that reform of the Federal Business
Development Bank mandate and lending authorities is coming
soon. We have extended and increased the limit under the Small
Businesses Loans Act. We have maintained the small business
deduction and the capital gains exemption for small business.
We have increased the funding for CANARIE, in its efforts to
bring the small business community on to the information
highway. We have increased funding for tourism promotion,
which is going to help small business across Canada. We have
seen improvements in the-
The Speaker: Order, please.
The final question: the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the government.
As the government knows, the international firefighters are
having their convention in town, and they are very frustrated by
the lack of progress with respect to the setting up of an
infectious diseases protocol. There is wide support for this
protocol in the House, and I would like to ask whoever is
speaking on behalf of the government on this issue today why
there has not been progress. When will there be progress? Will
the government commit to bringing in this protocol before the
end of the year?
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that
this government supports that process very much. It is very
concerned with the health and protection of frontline workers
such as firefighters.
As a result, and because of that commitment, the government
has assisted firefighters in setting up a meeting in January of all
the stakeholders to discuss this issue. That will be followed up
with a meeting in June.
The government also has protocols on the agenda for the
ministers of health conference. Setting up protocols is in the
provincial jurisdiction. It does not have to do with hospitals.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would like to draw to your
attention today the presence in the gallery of two laureates for
the Nobel prize in chemistry: Dr. Gerhard Herzberg in 1971, and
Dr. Michael Smith in 1993.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address a matter of
privilege today.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege is raised
when an individual member of this Chamber feels that
something has occurred that infringes upon the ability of that
member of Parliament to do his or her job.
A matter of privilege should be raised at the earliest
opportunity, and just this morning I received a letter that has
prompted me to rise today on this matter.
12073
(1505 )
The point I wanted to make is prefaced by comments
concerning a recent Board of Internal Economy decision
relating to the production of minutes for committees. I feel that
the Board of Internal Economy provided us with extra support
when it decided that the minutes of committees could be
transferred electronically. I supported and I do support the
decision by the Board of Internal Economy that allowed us to
have quicker access to committee minutes via the computer
process.
However, the printing branch of the House of Commons has
interpreted a decision of the Board of Internal Economy in a way
that I believe jeopardizes my ability to do my job well. That
decision is as follows. As a result of the minutes not being
printed by the House of Commons any more and simply put on to
electronic transfer, individual members of Parliament such as
myself have to print off the minutes from our computer in order
to read them, review them, have them handy, carry them on an
airplane and that sort of thing. The minutes are no longer
available from the House of Commons committees branch or
printed anywhere.
I have a number of constituents upon whom I rely for advice in
helping me to understand certain pieces of legislation, certain
bills and certain matters before the House. When committees
meet to study those issues I have always had minutes of the
committee available to circulate among the people within my
constituency upon whom I rely for advice to do my job.
Today, on a request of mine from Thursday of last week, the
printing unit of the House of Commons refused to print copies of
minutes reproduced off my computer so that I could then
circulate that to members of my constituency who would
provide me with the advice I need to help me do my job. I need
the feedback from the people in my constituency on the work
that is going on here in Ottawa to ensure that the work I do here
represents their interests and also ensures that I understand
completely the impact of government legislation, programs, and
policies on the people of my own constituency as well as across
Canada.
Earlier this year, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, because we
communicated on this matter, on the firearms legislation I had
asked if I could print copies of the firearms legislation to
distribute in my constituency. I was informed that was not an
option for me to consider.
The Minister of Justice has now appeared before the House of
Commons committee on justice studying Bill C-68, the bill that
I could not print in order to circulate to my constituency. I
wanted to reproduce the minutes of the minister's statement to
the committee, and the printing branch of the House of
Commons told me that I could not have anything out of
committees printed. As a result, I cannot service the people in
my constituency who want to know what the government is
saying on these issues.
The Speaker: With all respect to the point the member is
making on a point of privilege, I have a little difficulty with
agreeing, at least in this respect, that it would be a point of
privilege. However, might I suggest to the hon. member that if
he could draft a note to the Board of Internal Economy perhaps
they could get an answer back to the hon. member. If at that
point that is not acceptable, then we might pursue this not as a
point of privilege but perhaps as a point of order.
I wonder if the hon. member might consider doing this in the
interest of getting an answer as quickly as we can for him in this
particular dilemma.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, allow me just one minute to respond
to your comment and conclude my remarks.
When I requested the attention of the Board of Internal
Economy on the printing of the firearms legislation itself, that
process served as a delay. I ended up not being able to respond to
my constituents who had an interest for more than two weeks
because of the process of the Board of Internal Economy.
(1510)
Although I will pursue the matter of a letter to the board,
because I think the printing branch is not interpreting the
board's decision correctly, more importantly, I do think that my
privileges have been breached here, because I am not able to do
my job if I cannot communicate the work of this Chamber to the
people I represent. That is a breach of my privileges, and I want
that considered, despite what the Board of Internal Economy
does.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I just want to very briefly submit that not being
able to get an unlimited amount of copies of anything does not
constitute a point of privilege.
Second, I understand that the request in question was for 150
copies of a particular document produced by a committee. Even
in the days when those were produced by the House itself, those
were not quantities usually available to members of Parliament.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that your suggestion that this matter be
brought before the board as a request from the hon. member is a
good one, notwithstanding the fact that the quantities sought, if
they were given to all members, would in fact negate any saving
we have been trying to attempt to achieve with the board over
the last number of months through our deliberations.
The Speaker: If we would agree, I think we will proceed in
this fashion.
We have the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy
saying that this will be taken up at the earliest possible time. We
have the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake
saying that he will indeed draft a proposal or a letter questioning
12074
the process and asking for clarification. At this point, I wonder
if the hon. members would hold this in abeyance.
I am well aware of what the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake said with regard to his privileges.
Of course I will take that all into consideration. If I feel it is
necessary, I will get back to the House with a decision at that
time.
Is this on the same point?
Mr. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I gave the hon. member a minute and he was to
conclude. I would hope that in a few seconds he would be able to
wrap this up.
Mr. Taylor: Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker.
I must comment on two points the hon. whip made with regard
to what has happened in the past. He talked about requests for
unlimited copies. I think the House is aware there are limitations
on printing, that we all know those limitations and we all live
within those limitations. That is not a problem. We are not
asking for unlimited access to printing.
Second, the member said this has not occurred in the past. I
have constituents who have received printed copies of
committee minutes from me for the past six years. This has not
been a problem in the past for me.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member and I will close the
debate at this point.
_____________________________________________
12074
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): According to my notes,
the hon. member for Algoma has five minutes remaining. The
hon. member for Algoma.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Madam Speaker, just
before we broke off for question period I briefly made the point
that even though Canadians in vast numbers approved of the
recent federal budget, we have in the media almost every day
attempts by the NDP government in Ontario to use the budget as
some kind of a lightning rod in a desperate hope to win the
Ontario election. We also see the Bloc Quebecois attempt to use
the budget to further their own ill-founded cause. In spite of
Canadian support we see these attempts.
(1515)
The Ontario NDP failed to recognize that a recent poll
indicated that some 72 per cent of Ontario voters supported the
federal budget. It is putting out its own numbers which are a
twisting of the facts. The Ontario NDP claims that the federal
budget, including the Canadian health and social transfer
initiative, represents a cut of something like 54 per cent to
Ontario even though Ontario has 38 per cent of the population.
This is simply not the case. Even though Ontario has 38 per
cent of the population, the actual budget impact on Ontario is
something like 35 per cent. The Ontario NDP has attempted to
include the equalization payments.
Certainly the NDP in Ontario would not be against the better
off provinces helping those provinces which are less well off. In
fact, the transfers to Ontario under the Canada health and social
transfer represent only 2 per cent of the provincial revenues
forecast for the year 1996-97. The treasurer for Ontario has
admitted that.
Recently the NDP has put out numerous documents in an
attempt to use the federal budget to further its election cause in
Ontario but this strategy will fail. The number of phone calls I
received after the budget against that budget were very few in
number, barely a handful. Most people I talk to are very
supportive of the budget.
The central theme of the Bloc's motion suggests that the
federal government intends to impose new national standards on
the provinces. In fact the federal government is providing an
opportunity while at the same time it is taking modest measures
to rein in federal expenditures.
The case of Ontario again is typical for the provinces. The cut
that the federal government is making to its own programs is
greater than the cut in transfers to provinces.
The Bloc motion suggests that the federal government is
going to impose new standards on the provinces. Canadians
want standards. They have already accepted and want to keep
the standards that have been established for many years in the
health care area. I repeatedly hear from my constituents that
they would like national standards in post-secondary education.
These will not be imposed on the provinces.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human
Resources Development have stated that any new standards will
be created in consultation with the provinces. Recent polls have
indicated that Canadians want to see a strong set of national
standards in all areas of health, social services and
post-secondary education. I support that but this will not be
imposed on the provinces by the federal government.
What we see is an attempt by the NDP in Ontario and the Bloc
Quebecois, in the absence of their own constructive agenda, to
attempt to use the federal budget as a means to further their own
cause. I suggest that this is doomed to fail.
12075
I had briefly mentioned before question period that the
Canadian Federation of Students had made a presentation to the
finance committee this morning. One of the recommendations
of the federation is that Bill C-76 be amended to compel the
Minister of Human Resources Development to invite all
stakeholders affected by the Canadian health and social transfer
to participate in developing a set of shared principles and
objectives for it. This is the kind of positive thinking and
leadership hoped for from all quarters. I commend the Canadian
Federation of Students for that.
(1520)
In conclusion, the agenda of the Bloc is obvious. In Ontario,
the agenda of the NDP is obvious. We look forward to the demise
of those agendas in the months ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, my
colleague says that the government does not intend to create new
national standards, whereas Bill C-76 refers to new national
standards that will be implemented only ``where appropriate''.
Does it mean that a consensus from the provinces will be needed
to implement these new standards?
I find it a little strange that we are talking about new national
standards when negotiations with the different provinces have
not even taken place. It seems to me that, when we want to
establish new standards, we first reach a consensus with the
provinces and then implement them. We are currently doing the
opposite. We are putting the cart before the horse.
So, I would simply ask him this question: What does he think
about Bill C-76, which does not provide for a consensus with the
provinces before implementing the new act? We should
negotiate first.
[English]
Mr. St. Denis: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the
question.
The member is attempting to suggest that the federal
government is putting the cart before the horse. What we see in
this motion is an attempt to detach the cart from the horse.
If the hon. member would re-read the budget reference to
national standards it is quite clear that there is no attempt or plan
to impose standards. Those standards which exist now in the
area of health care are fixed. There is no negotiation and no
debate of those standards.
However, when the suggestion is made in the budget
documents that the provinces, through the Canada health and
social transfer, will have more flexibility, how can that be
interpreted in any way except that there will be more flexibility,
in concert with the provinces' national standards in the area of
social transfer and possibly in post-secondary education. That
will be looked at in co-operation with the provinces. There is no
hint whatsoever of the imposition of standards.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
when the government dumps some responsibilities on to the
provinces without also sending them the money to face these
responsibilities, there is a huge problem. We know that there are
800,000 unemployed people and welfare recipients in Quebec.
In fact, there are 800,000 welfare recipients alone. My riding of
Matapédia-Matane alone accounts for almost 40 per cent of
them. That is totally unacceptable. My question is: Unless my
colleague is able to accomplish some great miracle, how can the
government offload some responsibilities while, at the same
time, tightening the belt?
[English]
Mr. St. Denis: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the
question. The fact remains that federal money is being
transferred to Quebec and to all the other provinces and
territories.
The federal government, by and large, has no regime of
standards with its transfers with the exception of health care, but
it is transferring vast sums of money. To me it is not
unreasonable to negotiate with the provinces standards in areas
other than health care. I believe that goes with the responsibility
of transferring funds to the provinces.
(1525)
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am confused. I am confused
by the motion because it talks about national standards as being
things which are not desirable to Her Majesty's opposition. Yet
last Thursday, on opposition day, the health critic for the
opposition party, Mr. Daviault said:
[Translation]
``In Quebec we have no trouble with the five criteria. As far as
we are concerned, they represent a minimum consensus''.
[English]
The other health critic, Mrs. Picard, said: ``We believe in the
Canada Health Act principles''. Philippe Paré in the debate said:
``I think there is not one Canadian or Quebecer who questions
the importance-
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: I think, Madam Speaker, that members
cannot be referred to by name in the House, and I would urge my
hon. colleague to remember this.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We do not use the names
of members of Parliament in debate.
Ms. Fry: Madam Speaker, I apologise.
12076
Another member of the opposition party said: ``I think that
there is not one Canadian or Quebecer who questions the
importance and value of the five principles set out in the Canada
Health Act''.
The hon. critic again said that the federal government should
uphold the five principles. Maybe I am not confused, maybe
members of the opposition are confused.
The five principles of the Canada Health Act embody the
whole concept of what is most important to Canadians. What
Canadians constantly use to define themselves as a people is
Canadian medicare. It is an example of how federal principles
can act in partnership with provincial governments, which
administer the program, to make things better. The Canada
Health Act enhances medicare. It continues to tell us who we are
as Canadians. It binds us together in terms of our values, in
terms of equity, in terms of fairness and in terms of compassion.
In 1984 when the Canada Health Act was introduced it was
unanimously agreed on by all parties in the House.
It makes sense. The Canada Health Act binds the country
together while at the same time it gives the regions the freedom
to be able to administer and decide with flexibility what it is
they require in their region. I would like to use the Canada
Health Act as a very good example of how we can have national
standards, enshrine them in legislation and yet give freedom to
the provinces to administer that act. It has worked extremely
well.
National principles tell us that we have an objective which we
are all working toward. At the same time we allow the provinces
to decide how they will meet those objectives, based on things
such as their economy, the needs of their people, geographic and
demographic differences. It gives the provinces freedom but at
the same time it holds the country together.
We should look again at what the Canada Health Act has given
to us. We are one of the few countries in the world that enjoys a
high standard of living, the best quality of life. The GATT, when
it looked at the measurement of outcome, which is infant
mortality, we rank second or third in the world in terms of those
measures and those outcomes. Obviously national standards
legislated with provincial jurisdiction to administer has worked.
Canadian medicare is an example of how well it works and how
well it can give us flexibility at a time when global
competitiveness is what we are talking about, when Canada
needs to be competitive with the rest of the world.
(1530 )
It makes sense to me that the federal government would
transfer money to the provinces to administer other aspects of
social programs, post-secondary education and social
assistance, in the same way, looking toward a national objective
that could be competitiveness.
The human resource will be the resource of the 21st century.
Canada's medicare has enhanced our human resource potential.
It has given us a competitive edge in terms of the fact that
healthy people work. The less sick days, the less time off work,
which makes any business profitable and give us an economic
and competitive edge.
If we negotiated with the provinces for a set of national
standards for post-secondary education and training, we would
enhance the ability of the country to be competitive and to have
trained people able to compete with the rest of the world.
This makes sense to me. I started off by saying that I was
confused. I end by saying that this is not the real question. It is a
political and hidden agenda by a group that does not really want
to do anything but destroy the country and fragment what it has
meant.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I was very happy to hear the comments
made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, except for her
conclusion that the denunciation by the official opposition of the
federal government's interference in areas of provincial
jurisdiction is politically motivated and does not meet any of the
population's concerns. Her speech also suggests that the Bloc
Quebecois should willingly agree to let the federal government
interfere, as I said earlier, in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
I will give her an example and I would like her to give me her
opinion on this. In Quebec, there is a consensus among all the
stakeholders, that is, the political parties, the unions and the
employers-where sovereignists are few and far between-with
regard to manpower training, which is in fact an extension of the
educational jurisdiction. There is a general consensus to call for
the recognition of Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction in this area.
The federal government, your government, continues to reject
this demand, which, I repeat, has nothing to do with the
constitutional options of political parties but which represents a
consensus. This is an outright rejection by the federal
government. The same goes for all other areas of jurisdiction.
That is why we oppose federal government interference. Again,
we are saying that the federal government should withdraw,
transfer to the provinces the tax points corresponding to these
expenditures and let them administer these programs in the best
interest of their people. I would like to hear what my colleague
has to say about this.
[English]
Ms. Fry: Madam Speaker, the hon. member suggested that he
does not understand why I would say this is a political agenda. It
flies in the face of common sense. That is why I say there must
be another agenda.
12077
Surely we are talking about creating a set of principles. As I
said earlier, principles give us a national objective. We are
talking about making Canada a competitive country. Nowhere
else do I see the ability to pull together as a country, to cross
interprovincial barriers. Then we could have a common
principle of training and an agenda saying what we aspire to as a
country. At the same time we could give more autonomy to the
provinces so they could develop appropriate programs and
appropriate ways of dealing with their provincial and regional
needs.
(1535)
I do not understand what the hon. member has a problem with
unless, as I said before, the problem is purely a political one;
unless, as I also said before, we want to balkanize the country
into 10 little provinces, 10 little mini-countries and 2 little
mini-places in the north that we can call whatever we choose to
call them.
Is that what the hon. member aspires to? What he is saying
does not make sense to me.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, this
motion tabled this morning by the Leader of the Official
Opposition is the kind of motion which would bother the people
across the way, as it makes a major amendment to the budget
which, as it stands, literally spells disaster for Quebec.
The measures contained in the budget, especially for the next
three years, does neither Canadians nor Quebecers any good.
This budget is nothing but smoke and mirrors, the effects of
which we will see, of course, in two or three years. The Minister
of Finance claims this is how Canadian federalism can be
renewed. I think that he is going about it the wrong way. One
thing is sure in all this: Quebec must get out of this system on the
double. This government does not have the courage to announce
before the referendum the specific measures hiding behind this
budget. It takes advantage of the situation and better enjoy it
while it can because I suggest this is the last year that a
government which does nothing good for Quebec will debate to
help itself to $29 billion of Quebec taxpayers hard-earned
money year after year after year.
Once again, the official opposition is offering the Liberal
government an opportunity to correct this unacceptable
situation, a situation caused by one of their own, namely the
Minister of Finance, who should really be called minister of
family trusts or minister of large corporations.
The Minister of Finance expects this whole budget charade to
climax after the referendum. Unfortunately for him, there will
be no time for his scenario to come to a conclusion because,
after the referendum, Quebec will be a sovereign state.
Between 1977 and 1994, Quebec has seen its federal transfer
payments for health, education and welfare drop from 47 per
cent to 37 per cent, as Liberal and Conservative governments
succeeded one another in this place, passing the puck back and
forth but essentially pursuing the same policies. This year again,
the Liberal government is continuing the work of the
Conservatives by reducing social transfers by up to 28 per cent.
This translate into a shortfall of nearly $2 billion for the
Government of Quebec. That is unacceptable and wrong.
In 1983-84, federal transfers accounted for 29 per cent of
Quebec's budget revenues. In 1997-98, they will account for a
meagre 12 per cent.
(1540)
Although several initiatives included in the budget provide
for a withdrawal of federal financial support, the federal
government will interfere even more in the areas of health,
post-secondary education and social assistance which, as you
know, Madam Speaker, come under exclusive provincial
jurisdiction. This is a shame.
Once again, the cuts announced in the recent budget will
directly hit the poor. As is customary for the Liberals, the budget
measures will not affect the well-to-do, because this would
harm the Liberals' good financial relations. However, these
measures will affect those who barely have enough to survive,
and I mean survive, not live.
Quebec's finance minister, Jean Campeau, estimates that the
cuts in transfers to the provinces will result in the federal
contribution to social programs going down from 37.8 per cent
to 28.5 per cent, over a two year period, that is in 1997 and 1998.
The federal government just keeps offloading on to the
provinces.
Last week, it was also revealed by the Canadian Council on
Social Development that 17.6 per cent of Quebec families live
below the poverty line. That rate is the highest in the country.
This is a concrete result of a sick federalism which simply does
not want to evolve. Also last week, we learned that 800,000
Quebecers have to rely on social assistance. Again, this is a
consequence of federalism.
Premier Parizeau himself referred to that all time record as a
national catastrophe. Why is that? It is because this government
did not fulfil its red book commitment to create jobs. During the
Liberal convention held last weekend, the Prime Minister even
had the nerve to say that unemployment should be everyone's
priority. However, with the red book, with so many promises,
including some by the Minister of Finance, absolutely nothing is
being done. No concrete measure was announced in the budget
to put Canadians back to work.
Even the labour minister does all sorts of things, except find
stable and lasting ways to allow Canadians to work without
losing their dignity in the process. In fact, the minister's first
action here was to pounce on workers. If the government wants,
once and for all, to tackle the issues of duplication and
unemployment, it should immediately withdraw from all areas
12078
which come under provincial jurisdiction and give to the
provinces the federal taxes representing the equivalent amounts.
This is a simple, easy and efficient way of doing it.
Madam Speaker, since my time is up, I will conclude by
saying that the electoral platform of this government included a
commitment to put Canadians back to work. After 18 months in
office, it is now obvious that the government is unable to fulfil
that promise. Consequently, it should leave that responsibility
to governments which are competent, which are close to the
public and which can take action. I am referring of course to the
provincial governments, including the Quebec government.
(1545)
I ask all the members of this House to denounce the will of the
federal government to restrict the provinces to the role of mere
advisers by imposing on them new national standards for social
programs.
Our constituents sent us here to protect their interests. Let us
not disappoint them. Let us act, in all conscience, to ensure their
well-being. Let us say no to this offloading of $7 billion on to
the provinces.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the official opposition motion before us, with all
respect, distorts the intent of the federal government's position
as it relates to the Canada health and social transfer program.
It has been known from the beginning from the proclamations
of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Human
Resources Development that this new program, the details of
which will be negotiated with the provinces, is aimed at giving
provinces more flexibility to deliver on areas of exclusive
jurisdiction, in the areas of health, post-secondary education
and social assistance.
The government has said it does not mean a free for all. What
the Bloc fails to recognize is that three out of every four
Canadians, according to a poll last year, said they like national
social programs.
When we speak of national social programs they have to be
national in scope. If they are national in scope, it follows the
national government has to have a say.
The new program is also aimed at ensuring all provincial
governments acknowledge and affirm the importance of treating
all Canadians equitably, of ensuring citizens from coast to coast
have equal opportunity of access to the same standard of living,
to the same opportunities in education for youth, to the same
levels of support for the poor, to the same quality of care in
health for the sick.
The new federal transfer program clearly recognizes the
exclusive jurisdiction of provinces. What the Bloc has failed to
recognize and refuses altogether to acknowledge is the unity and
equality of all Canada's citizens.
The new program is not about imposing new standards and is
not an arbitrary one. It is about affirming our national
commitment to the five principles of medicare to which all
Canadians subscribe. We know that. It is about reaffirming our
national commitment to give our youth the best type of
education and training. It is about reaffirming our national
commitment to assisting the poor who have become under
privileged beyond their control wherever they come from.
Do the member and his party want one class of poor in one
province and another class of poor in other provinces? Do the
member and his party want one class of education for the rich
and one for the poor? Do the member and his party want
medicare to be destroyed? Perhaps the ultimate question is do
the member and his party not want one Canada for all?
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to remind
members of the official opposition that the period provided for
questions or comments is five minutes.
I recognize the hon. member for Chicoutimi, if he wants to
respond. He still has two minutes left.
Mr. Fillion: Madam Speaker, of course the official
opposition does not need the advice of anybody in this House. In
his comment, the member said that he did not want to create
categories of people who are more educated or less educated
than others. Only the provinces can give these kinds of
assurances to their people and guarantee them that there will not
be different categories within the system. Everybody should
clean up their own backyard.
(1550)
The Quebec Liberal Party wants a decentralized federalism, it
wants the federal government to give the provinces, particularly
Quebec, all the tools they need to govern themselves, whereas,
in this House, members of the Liberal government are trying to
stop progress in its tracks. I wonder who in this House wants to
create different categories. The answer is simple: it is the
members opposite with a federalism that they are not even
willing to renew.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
rise in this House to strongly support the motion put forward by
the leader of the official opposition, on behalf of my
constituents and all those who will be affected by this bill,
because these
12079
are the people who will fall victim to the questionable schemes
of the current government.
In his motion, our leader denounces the will of the federal
government to restrict the provinces to the role of mere
consultants by imposing on them new national standards for all
social programs. He also denounces the interference of the
federal government in the health, post-secondary education and
social assistance areas.
Federal interference in these areas is not just another
Constitutional issue, because it will have very real
consequences on the daily lives of our constituents. Let us
examine how this will come about.
Bill C-76 is the statutory instrument the government intends
to use to implement its budget. So, it is a very important piece of
legislation even though it looks daunting at first glance. When
you analyze it, you realize that it can have a tremendous impact
on programs. This year, however, the government had quite a
surprise in store for us. It slipped into Bill C-76 some words
which will have significant consequences on Quebec and on the
rest of the provinces.
For example, the part concerning the Canada health and social
transfer deals not only with health and social assistance, but also
with health, post-secondary education, social assistance and
social services. This is important. The federal government is
interfering in areas which, as you all know, come mostly under
provincial jurisdiction, as defined in the Constitution Act, 1867.
The federal government must have a reason to act this way.
When you read the other provisions found in this bill, you
realize that this type of interference is pernicious. It allows the
current government to control provincial activities and
programs. If a province implements a policy or a program the
federal government does not agree with, parts, or all, of its
subsidies will be cut. This is a disgrace, because, as I said
before, all the areas affected by this bill come under provincial
and not federal jurisdiction.
Under this bill, the government will also have the right to
determine what represents a good program. That is right, to
make things a little worse, the federal government will be able to
decide, all by itself, what is a good program that deserves to be
financially supported and what is a bad program that deserves to
be condemned.
I remind the House that we are talking about a whole set of
programs-education, social assistance, social services and
health-which directly concern the public. We might as well
abolish provincial governments and let the federal run
everything.
Let me remind the House and my constituents that the
subsidies about to be cut come from tax revenues and that these
revenues come from the taxpayers who live in the provinces.
(1555)
Let us look at the strong possibility that the federal
government will not like the programs that the Quebec
government puts in place. In the current scenario, the outcome is
very simple. The federal government will inform Quebec, and if
the province does not get in line, deciding, on the contrary, to
keep its programs, Ottawa will cut its funding. This money will
have come from the pockets of Quebecers, but would be used to
fund other provinces' programs because the patriarchal federal
government will have decided to punish the prodigal son,
Quebec.
Quebecers want nothing to do with a wholesale delegation of
powers to Ottawa. At the very least, the federal government
should respect the distinct character of the Quebecois people.
On this issue, 50,000 witnesses who appeared before the
commissions on the future of Quebec requested more autonomy
for Quebec. In concrete terms, this federal invasion is already
damaging for Quebecers; if Bill C-76 is passed, the situation
will be even worse.
In my riding, 25 per cent of all families are headed by single
parents. And 79 per cent of the population in my riding lives in
rental housing, and three quarters of these rental units were built
before 1960. Of these households, 38 per cent sink over 30 per
cent of their income into housing costs. In my riding, 29 per cent
of the families are considered to have low incomes. In the
downtown core, one person in three lives below the poverty line.
The life expectancy of people living at the foot of the Côte
d'Abraham is 10 years shorter.
That is reality according to taxpayers, some taxpayers in my
riding. These people need assistance programs: employment,
housing and daycare assistance, income supplements. The
taxpayers in my riding will be taken hostage, despite
themselves, by a government which has set its sights on job
training and employment assistance programs which only
confuse and discourage the unemployed and cost taxpayers a
fortune.
Just think of all of the educational programs which interfere
with the ministère de l'éducation's mandate. They are legion
and, above all, cost the taxpayers of Quebec a lot of money.
Where did this obsession with controlling everything come
from? Does Ottawa believe that Quebec is unable to take care of
its own affairs and its population? If so, it should be said loud
and clear: it will get a response from the population.
In closing, I would like to say to the members of this
government: ``Hands off, you ultra-centralists. Let the
provincial governments, which know their populations and their
needs better than you, handle their own affairs. Until the whole
issue is settled once and for all, you had better listen to
Quebec''.
12080
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member's speech.
While I do not question the sincerity with which she spoke, I do
question her understanding of some of the essential elements
associated with block transfers to the provinces.
I am quite surprised she would be against this measure taken
by the government because it essentially addresses some of the
concerns she cited in her speech.
I will be extremely specific on this issue because sometimes
facts, figures and proper statistics are missing in debates in the
House of Commons, particularly when they originate from the
opposition.
As a result of the new transfer we are able to support programs
like APPORT. Because of the restrictive nature of the Canada
assistance plan, prior to this transfer we were not able to do that.
SUPRET, a work income supplement that preceded APPORT,
was rejected under CAP. Now because of the new arrangement
with the provinces that could be supported. The Quebec sales tax
refund and various social services provided in schools were
submitted for CAP cost sharing during the 1970s. These were
rejected because they did not meet the CAP definition of welfare
services. These are just some of the examples.
(1600)
The hon. member must understand that by having the Canada
social and health transfer we are responding to the call by
provincial governments to build in the type of flexibility that
speaks to co-operative federalism, something the hon. member
should reflect on.
Has the hon. member taken the time to clearly look at all the
issues, at all the programs rejected prior to the establishment of
the Canada social and health transfer? Will she reconsider her
position and applaud the government for this excellent
initiative?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Madam Speaker, I see the hon.
member did not quite understand what I meant. If I
misunderstood, then everyone in this House misunderstood.
When I look at the provisions in this bill, they propose a
certain amount of flexibility but then go on to say that the
federal government may do such and such for the purposes of
``maintaining national standards, where appropriate-''. What
happens if the programs proposed by the Government of Quebec
do not suit you? The bill goes on to say: ``-maintaining
national standards, where appropriate, in the operation of social
programs''. This means that if these programs do not suit the
present government, it will create a national standard.
What will happen to the Canada social transfer for education,
if we consider that Quebec accounts for 25 per cent when
deciding whether it is appropriate or not and the remaining 75
per cent will be able to vote on national standards? What will
happen in the education sector, when we realize that this area
comes under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and
we have a francophone majority in Quebec, while you constitute
an anglophone majority in Canada? National standards might
not be appropriate to the education system in Quebec.
I realize that the parliamentary secretary is exercising his own
judgment in this debate, but I do not think he has the requisite
sensitivity to decide which programs could be implemented in
Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a specific question on health.
Before we had national medicare there were not the five
principles for it. Now we have them following the
federal-provincial negotiations of the past.
Does the member agree with the preservation of universality,
accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public
non-profit administration of our health care system, and the
absence of user fees and extra billing?
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member but his time has expired. The hon. member for
Québec, very briefly.
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Madam Speaker, we are really at
cross purposes, because the other side seems to confer an
entirely different meaning on certain words. When you say:
``We want to be flexible'', well, flexibility means transferring
the money and telling the provincial governments: ``Do with
your programs as you see fit''.
You do not talk about national standards when you want the
provinces to be autonomous in certain areas.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Resuming debate. The
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. If I understood correctly,
you intend to share your speaking time with the hon. member for
Outremont.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, with the tabling of their motion today, the
separatists continue their propaganda campaign.
12081
(1605)
The Bloc Quebecois is simply repeating a position that is
contrary to fact, contrary to the budget and contrary to reality.
Accordingly the government will vote against the Bloc's
motion. The budget underscored our desire to give Canadians
good government in Ottawa. The budget marked the start of a
new era and of a new way of managing the federation that is
simpler, more efficient and more mindful of the provincial
governments' jurisdiction.
The budget gives the provincial governments all the
manoeuvring room they require to meet the needs of their
people. We took steps to reform the provincial transfers, and our
action plan will lead to a system that operates better and is
financially sustainable. We maintained our commitment to
equalization payments-one of the pillars of Canadian
federalism.
However, in 1996-97, the other major programs-the
established program financing for health and post-secondary
education and the Canada assistance plan-will be consolidated
into a single block transfer: the Canada health and social
transfer. It is the block transfer long sought by the provinces,
which will enable them to be innovative to suit their priorities.
We instituted this block transfer long demanded by the
provinces and the members of the Bloc. Why do they oppose it
now?
The new Canada social transfer combines three separate
transfers into a single transfer, thus reducing administrative
problems for the provinces. It ensures maximum flexibility in
the design of provincial programs that suit their needs. At the
same time, we increased system flexibility by reducing the
conditions governing these programs to a minimum. As the
Minister of Finance indicated in his speech this morning, he will
be proposing amendments to Bill C-76 to the parliamentary
committee.
Accordingly, clause 13(1)(b) will read as follows: ``(b) In
order to apply the conditions and criteria provided in the Canada
Health Act with respect to public administration,
comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility
and the provisions on extra billing and user charges''.
In matters of health, it is very clear that the principles of the
Canada Health Act valued by Canadians from coast to coast will
have to be honoured. We often refer to these five principles, but
what exactly are we talking about? Public administration means
that the program must be not-for-profit and managed by a
public authority; comprehensiveness means that the program
must cover all essential health care services provided by
hospitals and physicians; universality means that services must
be available to the whole population; portability means that the
program must cover all health care services provided to
residents temporarily outside of the province, territory or
country; accessibility means that services must be offered on an
equal basis to all residents, under the same conditions, without
a fee or any other constraint that might unduly limit access.
[English]
Within these principles provinces have the flexibility to tailor
services to their population, allowing innovations such as
community health centres, les CLSC, in Quebec. With
flexibility, innovation and commitment costs can be kept at
reasonable levels while ensuring our health care system
continues to provide the level of care of which we can be proud.
[Translation]
The bill will be further amended to read as follows under
section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d):
``(c) To enforce the national standard outlined in section 19
providing that no minimum residency requirements can be
demanded or allowed with regards to social assistance; and
``(d) To promote common principles and objectives
developed in accordance with subsection 3, concerning social
programs other than the program mentioned in paragraph (b)''.
(1610)
In the area of social assistance, the only thing the federal
government demands of the provinces has to do with residency.
For example, a Quebecer cannot be refused social assistance in
Ontario, or in any other province, because he does not meet the
minimum residency requirement. Certain opposition members
may be dreaming of depriving Quebecers of this freedom of
movement.
The new Canada health and social transfer gives the provinces
more freedom to pursue innovation and improve social
programs so that they better meet the needs of their people.
Because of cost-sharing and its restrictive requirements, the
present Canada assistance plan prevented such innovation.
The Quebec government is a leader in the area of innovative
social programs such as APPORT-Parental Wage Assistance.
However, APPORT and many other innovative programs could
not be funded under CAP because of the cost-sharing conditions
it sets.
For example, APPORT was deemed ineligible for CAP
funding because it was not means tested. Many other Quebec
programs, which were not eligible to cost-sharing under CAP,
could now be funded by the Canada transfer.
Let us mention, for example, the work income supplement,
the Quebec sales tax rebate and the social services provided in
schools, including probation services for young offenders. The
Canada social transfer will now allow the provinces to test
innovative ways to provide social services and assistance.
Post-secondary education, which the opposition talked about,
is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. You may,
however, be surprised to learn that the federal government
contributes 50 per cent of funding for this sector so that
Canadians across the country can receive a good education.
There are essentially
12082
no conditions attached to post-secondary education, especially
in Quebec, which in the past 30 years has been free to do what it
wants in this sector with the money from the Canadian
government.
All these proposals are aimed at enhancing our social
programs. They will be discussed with the provinces and must
be approved by mutual agreement before being implemented.
The Minister of Finance will therefore amend clause 13(3) to
read as follows: ``The Minister of Human Resources
Development calls on all provincial officials to consult with one
another and work together to come up with a set of common
principles and objectives regarding the other social programs
referred to in paragraph (1)(d), which could apply to the
transfer''.
We hope that the provinces and the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will recognize and share the Liberals' concerns with
regard to leadership and compassion and their desire to increase
equity and efficiency. This new, more flexible formula allows
for much more efficient provision of services to Canadians,
without compromising quality.
That is why the introduction of this transfer in 1996-97 will
be accompanied by a $2.5 billion cut in the total amount. This
represents a reduction of only 1.5 per cent in Quebec's budget.
In comparison, federal spending will be cut by 7.3 per cent in
other sectors and 18.9 per cent in the sectors included in the
program review.
(1615)
So it is obvious that we treat social transfers to the provinces
more favourably than our own expenditures.
In closing, allow me to state that the budget clearly points to a
reduction in the conditions attached to social programs. If
principles are established, it will be by mutual agreement. I
deeply regret the fact that the opposition is giving people in
Quebec such misleading information on important issues.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Madam Speaker, for
the past 18 months, the federal government has been trying to
explain to the House what a flexible federal government is. It
has also been trying to explain what the status quo is. I think that
status quo means continuing with the same thing. Also, in trying
to explain what a flexible government or what the status quo is,
the federal government is doing exactly what it preaches in the
cuts.
During the sessions of the regional commissions, federal and
provincial Liberal members did not even have the courage to
come to Quebec to explain what the status quo and a flexible
government were. Had they done so, they would have told us
that they were getting ready to make cuts in health, education
and professional training programs.
Instead of making cuts in each province, the federal
government decided to become a centralizing government and
to cut provincial transfers. Because of these transfer cuts, the
provinces are obliged to cut and transfer some responsibilities to
municipal governments and also to bear the brunt of these cuts.
I would like to remind the minister who just spoke that the
Quebec government pays $28 billion in taxes to Ottawa and
sends $2 billion in GST, for a total of $30 billion. Including cuts,
privatizations and closures, can the minister tell us how much
money Quebec receives on the $30 billion that it sends to the
federal government?
Mr. Massé: Madam Speaker, first I would like to make a few
comments about the regional commissions. They have now
finished their work and what they have done clearly proves that
we had good reason to refuse to take part in those commissions.
They were, as we say in Quebec, packed with people who had
already made up their mind about sovereignty and unfortunately
those commissions only reflected a foregone conclusion. They
were absolutely not representative of public opinion in the
province and, as all the polls showed, they reached conclusions
that were contradicted by the opinion of a majority of the
population.
Therefore, regional commissions have clearly been a waste of
money for Quebecers and that 100 per cent of Quebecers,
including yours truly, have paid for commissions which
reflected only forty per cent of the public opinion. This is a
waste of money and the wrong way to use provincial taxpayers'
money. While poverty continues to increase in Quebec, the Parti
Quebecois government, supported by its brother the Bloc
Quebecois, continues to waste taxpayers' money.
With regard to the second issue, transfers to provinces, I think
it was clearly demonstrated in the last budget that total federal
expenses will be reduced from $120 billion in 1994-95 to $114
billion in 1995-96 and $107 billion in 1996-97. The federal
government is reducing its spending twice as much as it is
reducing transfers to provinces.
(1620)
The government obviously had to be downsized and the same
thing should happen in Quebec. We have faced up to our
responsibilities and 69 per cent of the population approved our
budget. I would also like the government of Quebec to face up to
its responsibilities and start answering the real needs of
Quebecers.
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
first of all, I want to thank the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs for sharing his time with me.
Today, I realize something that, in fact, I had already realized
a long time ago, that there is a policy guideline to be followed.
At the beginning of this Parliament, I thought that perhaps the
12083
official opposition would be constructive in its attitude.
Unfortunately, as many other speakers said before, members of
the official opposition are unable to go beyond pure political
partisanship. The motion tabled today by the Leader of the
Opposition is an obvious and eloquent demonstration of this
fact.
Today, they are trying to speak against the Canada social
transfer. I must say I am astounded. I am certainly not the least
of Quebec nationalists. I worked tirelessly for decentralization,
for more flexibility in the management of programs by
provinces. I am proud to state in this House that the Canada
social transfer is a remarkable example of decentralization.
This social transfer, basically grouping together the Canada
assistance plan, post-secondary education and health, is very
easy to manage. It eliminates a lot of jointly managed areas. It is
a fiscally responsible system and also a system allowing
provinces to gain more independence in the administration and
management of their own social programs, since it gives them
the means to meet the needs of their citizens.
Members speak of national standards, claiming that any
national standard would penalize a province, whether it is
Quebec, Ontario or any other.
I represented the Minister of Human Resources Development
when we dealt with the reform. I want to tell the House that, of
all those who spoke to me, no one was against the idea of a
national standard. The reason is simple-people want national
standards if they are established in a concerted way, in
co-operation. That is what the Canada social transfer is letting
us do. We establish standards together, as a team. When one
believes in Canada and in a place for Quebec inside this
federation, it is possible to reach a consensus as to guidelines
uniting the provinces from coast to coast.
They are trying to have people believe that a national standard
is a terrible monster that would be in everybody's way. In other
countries and other regions, people are speaking of
globalization, union, unification, whereas here we would like to
confine ourselves to a certain area and to refrain from adopting
standards that would allow for some liberalization, some
interprovincial exchanges. We did so in matters of trade, last
year.
(1625)
That is what we are doing at the social level. We are just being
open-minded, we are just showing some form of
progressiveness, showing that we believe deeply in Canada and
Quebec.
You know, this debate is about the Canada social transfer but
we could also talk at length about the human resources
investment fund created by the same budget. This fund, which
meets the expectations of the provinces in every respect, will
ensure that the management of training programs is
decentralized to the local community level and that
community-based organizations are empowered to administer
training funds according to the needs of the community or the
locality.
That is what federalism means to our government. That is the
way of the future in terms of federalism. That is progressive
federalism. Still, to achieve this form of federalism, you have to
be a good player and want to be on the team.
I could go on about what our government has done to improve
and decentralize the federal system. The problem is that, talk as
we may about a federal system that works, we come up against a
government in Quebec and, in this place, an official opposition
which do not want to listen. They do not want to listen because
they know that our government is a very open one. They know
that, if they participate in our renewal process through
administrative agreements, program changes, approaches like
rethinking the role of the state, it is going to work and, if it
works, ultimately, this will mean the end of their old dream of
separation.
For my part, I will tell them this: Rise above strictly partisan
interests and strive to look after the interests of Quebec and fight
for the people of Quebec. Strive to renew the Canadian federal
process. This is what we are doing.
Earlier, my colleague referred to the national commissions. It
is pretty easy to figure out what Quebecers want. They want us
to look after their interests by restructuring the economy, by
creating jobs and, particularly, by putting an end to these
constitutional debates. They want to see the economy improve
and they want us to move forward.
It is shocking to see that the report tabled, which cost millions
of dollars to produce, does not insist on what people said. On the
contrary, it concentrates on the ultimate objective, which is
Quebec's separation.
In conclusion, what we want is to go on. We want to help
workers, not only in Quebec, but all across Canada. We want to
continue to improve the economy. We are getting there: last
year, we created 433,000 new jobs. We want to ensure
tomorrow's prosperity by providing our workers with tools.
The human resources investment fund is one measure which
will ensure that our workers have the necessary tools, that they
get adequate training and that they are able to face tomorrow's
challenges, including foreign competition on international
markets. Proud Quebecers and proud Canadians think big, and
this is why we made that commitment.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Madam
Speaker, since my hon. colleague is talking about workers, on
behalf of 250 women of my riding, I will read a few sentences
for his information: ``We live in a rural area where the situation
keeps getting worse, especially for the last year and a half. Our
villages are having problems: young people leaving, a deficient
and deficit ridden economic structure, a saturated job market,
12084
high unemployment, reduced public services and an aging
population''. Forty-one per cent of the families in the area are
poor or very poor, whereas the poverty rate is 28 per cent for
Quebec as a whole.
(1630)
What this government lacks is a vision for society. There is
absolutely nothing. There was the infrastructure program to
create jobs, but we do not hear about it any more. It is coming to
an end. This morning, a deputy minister came to present a
forestry plan: budget cuts of 57 per cent over a three period for
the Canadian Forestry Service; downsizing of 410 positions, one
third of the workforce; closure of 11 regional offices. And then
they pass on the bill: because there is no work, they cut
unemployment benefits and the provinces are left to do the dirty
work.
Those women and those men are deeply disappointed. They
are disgusted. At this point, they say that we lie tothem. We are
told: ``You sovereignists are blocking things''. Quite the
contrary, we are part of the federation. Here is my question: Is
there any way in this country to create jobs instead of forcing
people onto social welfare, onto unemployment insurance,
especially in rural areas where things are surely more difficult?
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question. First of all, he
mentioned in his question that this government does not have
any social vision. I will not tell you that the current government
has a clear policy and an objective that we set and maintain,
contrary to the official opposition, but I attended the official
opposition's convention. One had to witness what happened in
their workshop on separation to realize to what extent members
of the official opposition are still looking, after 25 years, for
some kind of social vision. Therefore we have no lesson to take
from the official opposition in this matter, quite the opposite.
As to the regions, we take to heart the regional problem in
Quebec and Canada. That is why our efforts have been focused
on economic and job creation policies. The Minister of Industry
and Trade presented a strategic plan to ease the conversion of
our economy. Let us make no mistake about it. Canada's
economy is restructuring just like that of the rest of the world.
Tomorrow's markets will be quite different, and the emphasis
will be on technology. This restructuring of the economy is now
under way, and we sincerely hope it will be in the best interests
of all Canadians, including Canadians who live in the outlying
regions.
At the same time, the Minister of Human Resources
Development is busy planning programs to help workers prepare
for the challenge of high technology. We are designing programs
that will be tailored to the needs of outlying regions, because
Canadians have asked us to do so.
I would add, in conclusion, that we will also review the
unemployment insurance program in order to meet the dire
needs of Canadian workers. But there is a problem: I would ask
the official opposition to move ahead, to stop talking of things
that citizens are not interested in and start working with us to
help and better serve the population.
(1635)
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would be
delighted to respond to the invitation extended by the hon.
member for Outremont, but I prefer to keep my comments
relevant to this debate, because today we are discussing a
motion tabled by the official opposition. I think it would be very
useful to recall what the motion says.
That this House denounce the will of the federal government to restrict the
provinces to the role of mere consultant by imposing on them new national
standards for all social programs through the introduction of the Canada
Social Transfer, which will enable the federal government to interfere even
more in such areas as health, post-secondary education and social assistance,
all of which come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
We are talking about national standards in areas under
provincial jurisdiction. The Minister of Finance keeps repeating
that he wants this program to be more flexible, to provide
greater flexibility than before, but the fact remains that the same
national standards prevail.
To illustrate my point, I will quote from Bill C-76 which
implements certain provisions in the budget. In section 13, Part
V, we read the following:
-a Canada Health and Social Transfer may be provided to a province for a
fiscal year for the purposes of- (b) maintaining the national criteria and
conditions in the Canada Health Act, including those respecting public
administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, accessibility,
extra-billing and user charges; and (c) maintaining national standards, where
appropriate, in the operation of other social programs.
I would also like to recall what was said by the Minister of
Finance in his budget speech, when he explained that by
combining all three programs into a single consolidated block
transfer referred to as the Canada social transfer, beginning in
1996-97, the provinces, and I quote: ``-will now be able to
design more innovative social programs, programs that respond
to the needs of people today rather than to inflexible rules.
However''-and this is particularly important-``flexibility
does not mean a free-for-all. There are national goals and
principles we believe must still apply, and which the vast
majority of Canadian support''.
I was on the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development which travelled across Canada last fall and was
one of the members who visited every province. I listened to the
testimony of all the groups that appeared before the committee,
12085
a total of 1,200. It is not true that everyone across Canada wants
national standards for education and social programs.
In Quebec, there was a general consensus against this
principle. For instance, for the second time this year, I think it
was on February 2, a unanimous resolution was passed by the
National Assembly. Not just the Parti Quebecois but the Liberal
Party as well supported it. The resolution was moved by the
leader of l'Action démocratique, who asked the federal
government to withdraw from manpower training. This has been
said time and time again, and the government is still trying to
give the impression that it intends to be more flexible.
I may recall that Bill C-76 does not contain all the measures
that are to be implemented. Other legislation was passed
previously. Bill C-28, for instance, which was about financial
assistance for students and was passed on June 23, 1994. What
did this bill provide? It was supposed to provide for two things,
basically. First of all, for appointing the appropriate authority
that may designate institutions of learning that may receive
financial assistance from the government. What did it do?
Instead of leaving this authority with the provinces, with the
Lieutenant Governor in Council as before, it decided that the
Minister of Human Resources Development would determine
the appropriate authority. First point.
(1640)
Second point. There were new conditions regarding the right
to withdraw with full financial compensation. In the past it was
automatic. However, the bill which precedes this one, but which
remains in effect with the government's national standard,
provided that Quebec, or any other province wishing to take
advantage of this right to withdraw, had to propose a program
exactly the same as the federal program on all counts, or receive
no funding. Earlier, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
cited a series of cases in which the Canada assistance plan did
not fund programs, among others, the current PWA program in
Quebec.
He listed seven or eight others and talked of the current
situation, saying it would likely change with the amendments
not yet officially tabled and whose legal scope was still
unknown. What we are saying is that the federal government
said very clearly in its budget, and in this bill, as well, that it
wants to pay less and that it wants to transfer part of its deficit to
the provinces, but that it wants to continue to impose conditions.
This is rare. It would be normal to expect that certain conditions
would be dropped. This, however, seems out of the question.
At first glance, when we reduce the expenses in the Canada
social transfer and combine the three programs, if we take things
literally and dropped at least 11 clauses from the bill, which
contains other provisions, national standards, what would this
mean for the reduction provided for in the budget? It means
letting three sectors fight for the same money. This is not really
acceptable. At least set guidelines and let provinces do their own
thing.
Earlier, I felt like putting this to the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, who seemed almost to be talking
about heaven. In talking about the current situation and federal
flexibility, he almost seemed to be talking about heaven.
Everything was fine. What is the real situation, however? For a
year now, no Minister of Education in Quebec or in the other
provinces has wanted to support the federal program of the
Minister of Human Resources Development. No Minister of
Health has participated in the forum on health. No provincial
minister responsible for social assistance has wanted to take
part, because they find the federal program unacceptable.
Is this flexible federalism? Is this the flexible federalism that
is so fine, so positive, that none of the provincial authorities
want to even take part in it? No, this is simply window dressing.
As long as we have these national standards and we do not see
the amendments that the Minister of Finance alluded to this
morning, as long as the federal government does not withdraw
entirely from areas of strictly provincial jurisdiction in health,
education and social assistance and does not give the provinces
the tax points that would allow them to manage their own
programs, we will not be able to talk about flexible federalism.
Having another minute to go, I will talk about another
situation. We talk about flexible federalism, but in actual fact
there were enormous cuts which mean that 5,000 to 6,000
households more per month are currently requesting social
assistance. Why? Because last year, in Quebec, on April 17
precisely, $2.5 billion were cut from unemployment insurance.
The period of entitlement to benefits was reduced and that has
meant 40 per cent more welfare cases in Quebec.
(1645)
Is that going to give Canadians and Quebecers greater
confidence in the flexibility of the federal government? No. I
repeat, what the federal government wants is to pay less and to
require more through its national standards.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, thank
you for allowing me to speak. As the hon. member for Lévis
pointed out earlier, the federal government has cut transfers to
the provinces while claiming this would give the provinces more
flexibility to manage their own affairs.
I myself have never seen a government cut funding to the
provinces while claiming that such a reduction would give them
more flexibility to manage the departments in question. As the
hon. member for Lévis explained, the federal government
gradually increased its interference by setting national
standards, which it has finally realized are excessively costly to
12086
implement. As has been demonstrated, the federal government's
accumulated debt now amounts to $600 billion.
Now that the federal government has realized that the
standards it has put in place in the last 20 years cost too much, it
says it will now transfer responsibility to the provinces by
reducing funding. Let me give you an example. When the
Quebec government decided to establish its own health care
system, the federal government was not very happy about it
given its strong desire to impose national standards. The federal
government tried to use that opportunity to impose national
standards. Quebec and another province were then adamantly
opposed to federal interference in health care. However, the
federal government insisted and the provinces backed down,
provided that it return 50 per cent of health care expenditures.
The federal government is now contributing around 30 per
cent, while the provinces must make up the remaining 70 per
cent. The federal government is still aying that federal standards
must be maintained. This puts the provinces, especially Quebec,
in a tight spot as far as health care spending is concerned. They
cannot manage health care as they see fit, because they must
comply with national standards while the federal government
slashes health care funding in Quebec.
That is all I wanted to tell my fellow citizens in Longueuil and
throughout Quebec. I wanted to inform them that the federal
government is preventing us from managing health care
properly. I ask the hon. member for Lévis whether he agrees
with everything I just said.
Mr. Dubé: Madam Speaker, I think that the last part of his
comment reflects the extensive parliamentary experience of the
hon. member for Longueuil. And I will draw from this
experience to raise the following because, after all, the
numerous attempts of the Conservative government should be
mentioned. The member for Longueuil, now in his third term, is
aware of all the Conservatives' efforts in this respect, including
at the time of the Meech Lake accord. The previous
Conservative government may be criticized for many things, but
certainly not for not having tried to reach an agreement. The
same thing in Charlottetown.
(1650)
Quebecers are aware of the fact that, over the past 30 years,
numerous attempts were made to reform the federal system. It
never worked, to the point that, weary of federal inaction, a
number of members of Parliament-and the hon. member for
Longueuil is one of them-resigned and, with the current Leader
of the Opposition, they formed a new federal party, a party
focusing on the only way to change anything to anything in the
coming months or year: the Quebec referendum.
In this referendum debate, faced with all these failed
attempts, empty promises and window dressing about possible
administrative arrangements that never materialize-or when
they do materialize, it is because the federal government acted
arbitrarily and unilaterally as usual-the people of Quebec will
realize that they have no choice but to vote ``yes'' in the
upcoming referendum on Quebec sovereignty.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, it is important to discuss Bill C-76, because
this legislation is very instructive. Indeed, it will enable those
Quebecers who might still be undecided to understand the
message conveyed by the current federal government.
Several attempts were made to reform federalism. Recently,
some members of the Quebec Liberal Party still entertained such
hopes in a document referring to a quiet adjustment. The
document said that the Canadian federation must be extensively
decentralized, that it must fully respect provincial jurisdiction,
and that federal interference must end, particularly in Quebec.
We now have the federal government's answer to these
Quebec federalists who, in spite of multiple but vain attempts,
may have thought, in good faith, that they could reform the
federal system. The federal government's answer, Bill C-76,
seeks to allow systematic federal interference in many areas
which come under provincial jurisdiction.
We had national standards in the health sector. Now, we will
have similar standards for post-secondary education. Quebecers
fully understand the implications of such a measure. A student
loan and scholarship program was developed over a period of 25
or 30 years in Quebec. Although not perfect, that program
helped several generations of students, while reflecting the
vision of fairness which prevails in Quebec regarding the need
to invest in education.
Meanwhile, the federal government wants to impose national
standards in that sector. Last summer, social program reform
gave us an idea of what this means. It means that provincial
governments will have to quickly adjust to a national program
which will significantly increase the indebtedness of students.
In fact, the only way to avoid that will be to increase the tax
burden of Quebecers if the province refuses to endorse the
federal government's vision.
If I were a young Quebecer today, I would see Bill C-76 as a
clear indication of things to come under the federal system. The
federal government's vision is ``one Canada, one nation'', along
with national standards and ways of doing things which will
standardize the way Quebecers will be treated, students in this
particular case.
Assuming they listened to the Minister of Finance this
morning, when he referred to some vague proposals, how can
Quebecers and Canadians from other provinces believe for one
12087
moment that this reform is being proposed in a spirit of
co-operation with the provinces?
Let me give you concrete examples. I am not going back 10,
15 or 20 years. Take the national forum on health. The federal
government decided, without first ascertaining the provinces'
participation, to adopt a rather disjointed approach regarding
the major issue of medicare. Even this afternoon, the Standing
Committee on Finance heard officials representing the National
Federation of Nurses' Unions, who said that the forum does not
at all meet the needs identified, nor does it solve the problems
related to Canada's health care system.
(1655)
The bottom line is that, if a business in the private sector
managed the health issue, for example, like the federal
government does, it would have gone bankrupt ages ago,
because the government has increasingly been asking the people
out there on the front, those who have to deal with the problems,
workers in the health care sector, nurses, auxiliary workers,
doctors and employees of community service centres to make a
personal effort and to find creative ways to do more with less.
But the federal government did not think it was necessary in this
case to secure the co-operation of the provinces or of the people
who run the daily operations. A business that worked that way in
the private sector would not last a year because that approach is
totally unrealistic and incapable of meeting the needs of the
industry, and it would find itself in the same situation as the
government now finds itself.
How has the federal government managed to keep things
running this way for so many years? It has succeeded because it
has borrowed from future generations. Using slightly artificial
means, it financed a health care system because that was what
the people wanted. But the federal government also taxed, and
Claude Castonguay, who can be called the father of the current
health care system in Quebec, made this point well in an article
for La Presse. He said in that article that the federal government
exerted an irresistible pressure on provincial governments to
commit themselves to the principles of universality and
accessibility, by offering to pay for half of the provinces' costs.
But, now that the system is bankrupt, Ottawa does not propose
the solution put forth by Mr. Castonguay, which is to co-operate
to resolve the problem. Instead, Ottawa decided to retain only its
role as referee, whereby, paradoxically, even though it has
significantly reduced funding, it will still be able to impose
national standards.
It will be able to treat people like the owner of an apartment
building who has had a good relationship with a tenant for
several years and has offered that tenant certain services, for
free, which he or she could not afford, mostly because the owner
had extra money sitting around. Suddenly, the owner, this
endless source of funds, says: For next year, effective tomorrow
morning, I am reducing my heating subsidy by 15 per cent. I am
certain that you, as tenants, will all be able to find a way to
continue to live comfortably under these conditions and that we
will continue to get along just fine.
Faced with such a situation, the tenants, or the provinces, may
well try for several years to make the necessary adjustments.
But, in the mid term, it is inevitable that the federal
government's choice will lead to a balkanization of our social
programs. It will have exactly the opposite effect. That is
because the federal government is no longer capable of
providing the financial support for which it took responsibility,
in an artificial manner, in the past. Today, it has offloaded the
bill for its social programs, without handing over the
responsibility for those programs as well. That is quite an
achievement. It has decided that the provinces can make up their
own minds how they want to finance these programs but at the
same time, they will have to meet certain requirements that do
not necessarily reflect their needs.
Briefly, Bill C-76 has killed any hope for renewed federalism.
The federal government is stretched to the limit. It tried to
finance these programs by borrowing money which, in turn,
added to our cumulative debt, but today, it is no longer in
control. It is at the mercy of international lenders, and we now
find it is unable to provide adequate services. How did we get
into this mess?
(1700)
How come our system no longer makes sense? The trouble is
that unlike many other countries, we did not have a chance to
adjust our constitutional responsibilities to the market situation
and to what is going on in the real world. This has led to the
absurd situation we have today, where the federal government
tables a bill that drastically changes the rules of the game
without making the constitutional changes that should
accompany this kind of decision.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Before proceeding to
questions and comments, pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my
duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Kamloops-health; the hon. member for Fraser Valley
West-infrastructure; the hon. member for
Mercier-unemployment insurance; the hon. member for
Mackenzie-transport.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Thank you for recognizing me, Madam Speaker. I
appreciate this opportunity to comment on the remarks made by
my colleague, who quite aptly demonstrated that the federal
government's action in areas of provincial jurisdiction is
inappropriate. Earlier, the hon. member for Outremont rose in
this House, offended at the thought that Bloc members could
question his nationalistic sentiment. From his place, he stated
loudly that he was not the least nationalistic of Liberal
members, thereby suggesting that he was certainly the most
nationalistic one of them.
12088
If that is so, if the hon. member for Outremont is the most
nationalistic of Liberal members, I understand why the people
of Quebec voted for the Bloc Quebecois. If, by any chance, we
did not attain sovereignty in Quebec, I am convinced that we
would keep being reelected over and over forever, with our
members whose nationalistic sentiments are as strong as his.
I would like to come back on one aspect of the speeches we
have heard, which my colleague has raised. All day long, Liberal
members have been telling us that the national standards that
their government is about to impose on us with its Canada social
transfer would deal with principles. ``We will give the provinces
every latitude'', they said. ``They will be free to do administer as
they please programs which fall under their jurisdiction
anyway''.
If that is the case, I would like to know why we can read the
following-and there was no mention of this in the discussion
on principles today-at clause 37 of Bill C-76:
In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution-
This must be the money.
-referred to in section 5, the government of the province-
Among other conditions, the one listed in (
b) reads:
shall give recognition to the Canada Health and Social Transfer in any public
documents, or in any advertising or promotional material, relating to insured
health services and extended health care services in the province.
To conclude, because I want to give my colleague the time to
comment, what does this mean? Does it mean that the federal
government-as I said this morning, this is the ``flag on the
hood'' syndrome-absolutely wants every document and every
thing distributed to taxpayers by the provinces to bear the
Canadian flag? Does it mean that every hospital bedpan will
have to be marked to show federal contribution? Is this the kind
of publicity they seek?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I will recognize very
briefly the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
Mr. Crête: Madam Speaker, I am fairly happy with the
example raised, because, in the end, history is being rewritten.
For a number of years there was a placard war between the
federal and the provincial governments. This is one of the main
causes of the current deficit.
To continue with the placard example, let us look at day care.
In Quebec, we developed a model for day care services. With
national standards, Canada-wide standards, the efficiency of the
Quebec system will continually be blocked. And you want
justification.
(1705)
I think Quebecers are fed up. They want full control over their
future. This is what is going to happen, and this is how Bill C-76
is so rewarding for all Quebecers.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond to the motion
before us which accuses the government of using the proposed
Canada health and social transfer to damage the interests and
autonomy of the provinces.
This motion and the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition
in support of it are completely unfounded. Moreover, it is a
gross misrepresentation of what we in the government have said
and intend to do.
Had the Leader of the Opposition taken the time to read the
budget, he could have easily ascertained our true intent by
reading the budget plan released in February in which the
Minister of Finance announced the new transfer program which
the hon. member finds so troubling. In that document the
Minister of Finance states that transfers to the provinces under
health, CAP and PSE will be structured differently to create a
system that is both fiscally sustainable, more flexible and better
suited to the needs of Canadians.
This will be achieved by consolidating the three transfers into
a single new block transfer called the Canada health and social
transfer. Rather than using it to intrude into areas of provincial
responsibility or to reduce the role of the provinces to that of
mere consultants as the opposition alleges in its motion, the
budget declares the exact opposite.
The budget states: ``The new transfer will end the
intrusiveness of cost sharing under CAP and will reduce the
federal-provincial entanglement that has been a source of
irritation with current cost shared transfer arrangements''.
This is because federal expenditures would no longer be
driven by provincial decisions as to how and to whom social
assistance and social services will be provided. Provinces will
no longer be subject to rules stipulating that certain
expenditures are eligible for cost sharing while others are not.
As a result, the provinces will be free to pursue innovative
approaches to social security reform without having to worry
about whether such approaches meet requirements for cost
sharing. The expense to both federal and provincial
governments of administering cost sharing will be eliminated.
Thus, it is clear the Canada health and social transfer will not
damage the role of provinces as the hon. Leader of the
Opposition suggests in his motion. There will be national
standards for
12089
the new Canada health and social transfer and the February
budget sets them out quite clearly.
No change will be made to the Canada Health Act. Its
principles will continue to be enforced by withholding funds if
necessary. In addition, provinces will be required, as they are
under the rules of the Canada assistance plan, to provide social
assistance without any minimum residency requirement.
The Minister of Human Resources Development will invite
all provincial governments to work together on developing
through mutual consent a set of shared principles and objectives
that could underline the new transfer. In this way all
governments could reaffirm their commitment to the well-being
of Canadians. The Minister of Health will continue to work with
provincial and territorial health ministers to renew Canada's
health system.
The Canada health and social transfer represents an important
step forward for the provinces since it will give them the
flexibility they need to develop innovative social programs that
can better address the needs of their citizens. After all, it must be
admitted that the current Canada assistance plan with its
restrictive cost sharing requirements too often inhibited such
innovation. Nowhere have the negative impacts of this
legislative straitjacket been more obvious than in the hon.
member's own province.
It is a sad fact that many exciting and innovative programs in
Quebec have been denied funding because of the restrictive
requirements contained in the rules governing the current
transfer programs. For instance, APPORT is an income
supplement program for low income families with children
which seeks to help such parents make the transition from social
assistance to the workforce. Since 1988 this program has been
ineligible for cost sharing because its assessment of need does
not conform to that of the transfer program.
(1710)
Then again, many programs in the 1970s aimed at
disadvantaged children in Quebec were ruled ineligible because
they did not correspond to the definition of welfare services
contained within the act which excludes services related to
education. Similarly, probation services for young offenders are
ineligible since the same definition of welfare services also
excludes correctional services. The list goes on and on.
However, I should add that these problems are not restricted
to Quebec. Virtually every province has at one time or other seen
worthwhile projects turned down. These have included
programs in such diverse areas as self-managed care,
community based services, nutrition programs for children and
adaptive transportation services for the disabled.
The introduction of the Canada health and social transfer will
make it possible for provinces to proceed with these kinds of
programs which have been excluded in the past.
As well, let me state categorically that the government has not
and will not use transfer programs as a way to interfere in areas
of provincial responsibility as this motion suggests. Rather the
federal government seeks to involve the provinces as full
partners in the very important work of developing a set of shared
principles and objectives which might underlie this new transfer
system.
This is why the Minister of Human Resources Development
will be inviting his provincial colleagues to sit down with him to
discuss ways in which we can work together in partnership to
develop a common framework of objectives and approaches for
the Canada health and social transfer.
Canadians of all regions are very proud of our system of social
programs and they are right to be. These programs flow from the
shared values of all Canadians and are the result of decades of
hard work, sacrifice and dedication. This investment of time,
effort and commitment has resulted in a quality of life which is
regarded with envy and admiration by the rest of the world.
Let me ask this very fundamental question of those who
intend to support the motion. Would this country have been
better off if the federal government had not been active in
transferring funds to the provinces? Think of the achievements
that these transfers have helped provinces to build in the past 30
years. Look at the issue of medicare, the envy of the world;
post-secondary education and colleges, one of the highest
enrolment rates; the safety net, protection for the most
vulnerable. These are proud records of achievement.
While funding arrangements have served Canadians well in
the past, federalism is changing. Therefore our transfer
programs must also change to remain relevant. There is a need
for a greater flexibility in the way we provide funds to the
provinces. In hindsight it is clear that some features of our
current system reflect a paternalistic and prescriptive approach
which is out of place in the 1990s.
Too often restrictions contained within the current system
have stifled innovation by the provinces and derailed
worthwhile projects before they even got started.
The new Canada health and social transfer will actually result
in less intrusion by the federal government in the affairs of the
provinces and not more, as the hon. member suggests. It will
also result in greater flexibility.
We are taking the proper step toward building co-operative
federalism. It speaks to the type of positive direction in which
the government is taking the country.
12090
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 81(16), it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose
of the business of supply.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed to the
amendment will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 202)
YEAS
Members
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-41
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
12091
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-192
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Hubbard
Laurin
Lefebvre
MacAulay
Marleau
Ménard
Robillard
Rock
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(1745)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the
amendment lost.
Mr. Volpe: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Despite
my Herculean effort I was unable to be here on time. Had I been
here I would have added my voice to the government side.
Mr. Rideout: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had
the same problem. I will not repeat what was just said, but had I
been here I would have voted with my party.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The next question is on
the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you will find
unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote we have just
taken on the amendment to the motion now before the House,
that is to say Liberal members will vote nay, including the hon.
member for Eglinton-Lawrence and the hon. member for
Moncton, who missed the first vote.
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, Bloc members will vote in
favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members vote nay
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, as whip of the NDP caucus I
rise to say that New Democratic Party members present in the
House today vote nay.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, as a member of the PC party
and the whip or whatever I will be voting nay.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 203)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-47
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
12092
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Young
Zed-188
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Hubbard
Laurin
Lefebvre
MacAulay
Marleau
Ménard
Robillard
Rock
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(1750)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
negatived.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion
and the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the amendment of Mr. Bélisle.
[Translation]
The question is on the amendment.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
unanimous consent for the members who voted on the previous
motion to be recorded as having voted on the amendment now
before the House, with Liberal MPs voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, Bloc members support this
motion.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, Reform members will vote yea
except for those who wish to vote otherwise.
[English]
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, all members of the New
Democratic Party in the House of Commons vote nay on the
amendment.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I think I am the deputy leader.
I do not know what I am, but I vote nay.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 204)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
12093
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-87
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-148
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Hubbard
Laurin
Lefebvre
MacAulay
Marleau
Ménard
Robillard
Rock
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the
amendment negatived.
It being 5.55 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
12093
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-291, an act respecting a national year of the grandparent, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, the next hour is an opportunity for
the House to set aside partisan differences, to show our
appreciation and to demonstrate the value of grandparents in the
family unit.
12094
Most of us have had the honour of knowing one living
grandparent at one time or another. Most of us who have a family
will have had the pleasure and the reassurance of having
grandparents for our children.
As a very young boy and until I became an adult I had a
grandfather who was a pillar of my existence. My own children
had the privilege of having three living grandparents and one
great-grandfather. The value they brought to our family was the
same value brought to all families by grandparents.
By virtue of their more senior years, grandparents have many
abilities that young parents do not have and contribute many
things to the strength of the family. They show the way to young
children more by example than by the things they say. They have
an accumulated wisdom they pass on, which young parents do
not have. Whether we call it osmosis or however it is passed on
to younger people, it is done by example.
Grandparents have experience. Young people can ask them
questions and they give answers based on experience, very often
based on more experience than that of their parents. Naturally
grandparents bring love into the family, the great common
denominator that binds us together.
Grandparents express by example tolerance and teach us
tolerance as children. That is particularly fitting at a time in
history when the family unit seems to be virtually under attack
from every corner. When grandparents are not available to
provide strength and to provide enrichment, we know the
results.
The grandparents of my children were of tremendous help to
my wife and I as young parents with a young family. Perhaps we
utilized their services more than we should have from time to
time. However, I do believe that they accepted the challenges of
looking after our family with grace and dignity when we needed
them. It was always a pleasure and an adventure for our children
to spend time with their grandparents. They helped a great deal
to enrich our family and they contributed a great deal to family
strength.
(1800)
I know there is a cliché that has been in vogue for a few years,
which is the phrase family values. Often family values and what
they really mean get hackneyed very badly. But if ever there was
an expression of family values and what that means, and
certainly what that means to me, it is expressed very much
through grandparents and what they mean to the family. They
enrich our lives in so many ways, and we pay them honour here
today.
I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to the person who
prompted me to bring this bill before the House. Her name is
Bubbie Schwarz. Bubbie, as you might know, Madam Speaker,
is the Jewish term of endearment for grandmother. Bubbie
Schwarz is a television personality in the Toronto area who has a
program for senior citizens. It was at her urging that this bill be
brought before the House to declare 1995 as the year of the
grandparent.
My grandparents are gone now. My grandfather passed away
in 1963. But the influence he had on my life was as strong as the
influence of my own father and mother. As I spent time with
him, in the summers particularly, when school was out, and
lived with him I was exposed to his code of conduct, his code of
performance, the way he lived his life. A great deal of it rubbed
off on me-at least the good parts of it did, I hope; the negative
parts I created myself.
Our children had the benefit of a great-grandfather who
actually lived with us for a number of years before at the age of
96 he decided he would go to western Canada and spend the rest
of his years with his son. Our daughter grew up on his knee for
the first eight years of her life.
We look back on our grandparents and on my children's
grandparents with great fondness, with great respect, and a
straight sense of the value they brought to our family. I feel
badly for people who did not have that experience. Many people
did not have a living grandparent in their lives and have had to
be without that special kind of support they provide.
It is also fair to put on the record today the fact that because of
the splitting of families and because of the divorce rate and so
on, many grandparents are finding it increasingly difficult to
access their own grandchildren. This is a serious mistake,
because it denies the grandchildren that opportunity to receive
the strength by the example they set.
(1805 )
I hope that by debating this today, as the issue of grandparents
and access to their grandchildren becomes more of an issue,
which it is at the present time, we will remember what our
grandparents meant to us, what they mean to us, and what they
should mean to their grandchildren, especially those who are
involved in the break-up of a marriage where custody is given to
one parent. In Canada there is no joint custody capability, and
sometimes rancour, division, and bitterness cloud the break-up.
Grandparents can really make a difference and add strength.
I ask the House to consider that. I realize that to speak on a
subject like this probably arouses emotions in all of us, which
we are not used to experiencing in a place like this. But they are
important emotions. It is very important to get the message
across that we support the completeness of the family and the
bringing together of all the generations and making sure that
they are all together. With the stresses we have on family life
today, I can think of very few more important things to do in
strengthening the family than to make sure that grandparents
and great-grandparents and maybe some of the extended family,
like great-uncles and aunts, are very much revered, honoured,
and accepted as a part of the family unit. We must be aware that
12095
when we make laws in this House those laws must reflect that
respect and desire to keep the family strong and together.
It is a great honour for me to say these few words today on
behalf of grandparents. I thank the House for arranging the time
for this debate. It is not the most usual issue to be raised in this
place, but I do consider it very important. I hope this will
underline our view of the family and our view of the senior
people in the family, who have done so much and continue to do
so much for all of us.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I rise in this House to address Bill C-291, which seeks
to declare, throughout Canada, 1995 as the Year of the
Grandparent.
As the official opposition critic on issues concerning seniors,
I am very interested in this bill which would grant grandparents
the status which they deserve. Grandparents develop a special
bond with their grandchildren, for whom they may represent
stability in a sometime fragile environment.
Many modern families are the result of break-ups. The
blended family is made up of members who do not all have the
same biological links between them. There is no model for this
new family; every member must adjust, so as to ensure his or her
integration in the new family unit.
Grandparents play a major role during the early years, as well
as during the teenage years of their grandchildren.
(1810)
They can provide emotional security and stability to their
grandchildren, particularly when the parents divorce or
separate. Grandparents can identify problems, but they must not
take part in the debate, since such an intrusion can sometimes
exacerbate the situation.
Bill C-291 finally gives recognition to older people, who are
often perceived as a burden in our communities. This, in turn,
often leads to social isolation, feelings of uselessness, isolation,
loneliness, as well as low self-esteem.
Older people play a vital role in their grandchildren's lives. To
that end, grandparents need minimum economic well-being.
Financial security is essential for the elderly to maintain their
independence.
Seniors represent an increasingly larger part of the overall
population. It is estimated that, over the next 15 years, the
number of elderly will increase by 40 per cent. The government
must respect our seniors and recognize their contribution. Bill
C-291 seeks to recognize that contribution. It is important that
grandparents have the necessary tools to provide them with a
quality of life, so that they can adequately assume their role.
Let me give you a brief outlook on how Canadian seniors use
their spare time. According to a document published in 1993 by
the National Advisory Council of Aging, seniors participate in
the following activities. In 1986, 66 per cent of seniors between
the ages of 65 and 74 went to a theatre or a restaurant once a
month, while this figure was 50 per cent in the case of seniors
who were 75 and over. From 40 per cent to 66 per cent of seniors
purchased sports equipment and related services-for playing
golf, skiing, camping, home exercising-and equipment for
leisure activities, including computers, compared with 83 per
cent of other Canadians.
Seniors would prefer to spend money on spectator activities
like the movies, concerts and sport events, as opposed to
recreational equipment for the home. However, seniors spend
less than all other groups on recreational activities.
Statistics also showed that 12 per cent of seniors spent money
on organized holidays, while 11 per cent of younger Canadians
spent money in this way. Furthermore, 58 per cent of seniors
travelled outside their community in a given month. Men 60 and
over watched an average 33 hours of television per week, while
women in the same age group watched an average of 36 hours.
These statistics prove that seniors are not passive and can
share different types of recreation with their grandchildren.
However, the Bloc Quebecois has always made it clear that the
federal government is trying to reduce the deficit at the expense
of the most vulnerable in our society.
According to a report by the National Advisory Council on
Aging, the disposable income of seniors is broken down as
follows. In 1989, the average income of single persons aged 65
or over was $16,316, while the average income of single persons
under the age of 65 was $23,080. A single person is someone
who lives alone or in a household where he or she is not related
to the other members of that household.
In 1992, the average income of single seniors was $18,434,
while that of other single persons was $25,039. Nearly 21 per
cent of all seniors, in other words, 625,000, live on what are
considered to be low incomes. The percentage of seniors living
on low incomes is always higher than in the general population.
(1815)
On March 9, 1994, I addressed the following question in this
House to the Minister of Human Resources Development and
Minster of Western Economic Diversification, and I quote: ``By
making alarming statements on the old age security system, is
the minister preparing to hit seniors with a considerable cut in
their old age security pensions?''
12096
The Minister of Human Resources Development responded
simply that he wanted to provide a stable, effective, fair and
honest system for seniors, one that Canada could afford.
Bill C-291 should be seen as recognizing the role of seniors.
However, I would like to point out that I find the choice of year,
that is 1995, unfortunate, since the United Nations has declared
1995 a year of tolerance. Accordingly, the Bloc Quebecois
obviously supports the bill, but feels that 1996 would be a more
appropriate year. Furthermore, a number of months have
elapsed, significantly reducing the impact of Bill C-291.
I would also like to mention that grandparents are not all
seniors. Statistics also show an upswing in the birth rate among
adolescents, resulting in younger and younger grandparents. In
closing, I would congratulate my colleague for Halton-Peel on
Bill C-291, because it recognizes the importance of
grandparents throughout Canada and pays tribute to them.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today
to speak on Bill C-291, introduced by the hon. member for
Halton-Peel.
During this past year I have spoken with many Canadian
grandparents, as over a year ago now, March 25, 1994, I
presented for first reading in the House my Bill C-232 relating
to amending the Divorce Act to provide grandparents an
automatic right to standing in the court so they could speak on
behalf of their grandchildren and thereby protect the right of
access of the child to his or her family.
As my bill is votable, we had many grandparents sitting in the
gallery for each of the first two hours of debate to see how their
members of Parliament dealt with this very serious issue. I
expect that during the last hour of debate scheduled for this
Thursday, May 4 we will once again see many of our seniors in
the gallery.
Are grandparents still an important section of our society? Do
Canadians recognize grandparents as a valuable resource, one
which we as legislators should encourage and work with,
respecting their years of training, skill, knowledge, experience,
patience, love, understanding and their willingness to serve,
help, teach and spend time with our many young Canadians,
many of these children who just need someone to listen to them
and care about them?
Most of us realize in our present society we have many
grandparents already raising their grandchildren, not because
after raising their own family they are anxious to raise another
generation. Usually it is simply because they are needed and
their help is asked for.
Joan Brooks, a grandmother from Toronto and a member of a
grandparents' group, said: ``Let the parents parent; we do not
want to do their job''. It is much easier for grandparents to enjoy
being grandparents, visiting their families, sharing stories,
guidance and love with their grandchildren.
However, life is not perfect and due to the rising divorce rate,
split families, substance abuse and financial difficulties, more
and more of our young children need an extra someone in their
lives. It is only natural that wherever possible that person or
persons should be grandparents.
In the United States there are over three million grandparents
raising their grandchildren. We know this because the
Americans already have protected national legislation to secure
a child's right to his or her family. Consequently we were able to
see some real statistics of the true state of society's needs.
Some of our Canadian citizens place a very high value on a
grandparent's role in the family. One grandparent, Abnash Gill
of Coquitlam, writes:
If the tree does not have solid roots it will not provide us with healthy fruit.
It does not matter how much you spray the top part, if the roots are weak they
will catch disease.
Our roots are grandparents. That is where we begin. It is important for
children to have grandparents. It is important for parents to get along with
both sides of the family.
Grandparents will tell stories of their lives to their grandchildren. Children
will learn much from their grandparents' life stories. There is no school
teacher who could teach children that.
The history strengthens the children's roots. They keep these sweet
memories with them. They will remember them, and they will use them in
their lives. That will be their history.
(1820)
Ray Ali, marriage and family therapist from Winnipeg, states:
I was having coffee with a colleague of mine and in the course of our
conversation we began talking about grandparents. As he talked about his
loving relationship with them, I envied him that he had grandparents who
loved him. It was the same type of envy that I experienced as a child when my
friends would tell me about visiting their grandparents during the weekend.
Remember the Dick and Jane books when they visited their grandparents at
the farm? Oh, how I envied them.
Perhaps growing up without grandparents made me realize, even at a very
early age, that they play an important role in our lives. I did not have anyone
telling me stories about my parents nor stories about how life used to be. So I
live my life secretly, envying people like my friend. He had something very
special- something I never had.
Fortunately the situation is different for my children because they have a
special relationship with their grandparents. My children are lucky because
they have both sets of grandparents. If this isn't enough they've adopted
another elderly couple who are also given the special title of grandparents.
My children are fortunate but they are far from being unique.
12097
According to recent statistics 90 per cent of all children have at least one living
grandparent. If this fact is reliable then it is indeed unfortunate that many children
in this 90 per cent are refused access to see their grandparents, often by the custodial
parent.
Statistics Canada recently published some poignant statistics on
grandparenting. They report that even though the frequencies of visits
decrease as children grow older, 40 per cent of adolescents over 15 see their
grandparents at least once a month.
Secondly, the image that grandparents are old, fragile and a huge financial
burden to society is clearly flawed. A significant number of grandparents are
still working and/or volunteering their time. Approximately 40 per cent of
seniors provide unpaid help to their families in the form of child care,
transportation and financial support. When called upon they are often there to
help. Clearly we often overlook the contributions that seniors themselves
make to others.
Without question, grandparenting is as important now as in any other time
period. Maybe even more so. Unlike 50 years ago, today's grandparent-
grandchildren relationships often last more than 20 years. It is quite
conceivable that we will spend more time in our lives being grandparents than
parents thus contrary to common perceptions, grandparents can have
potentially greater influence on our children than they did in years past.
Grandparents want to feel useful but we as a society have done a very poor
job of tapping into this tremendous natural resource.
A recent letter writing competition in Winnipeg, `My
Grandparents are Special', gave me cause to select two letters
written by two grade six students.
Rebecca Spuszak writes:
My grandparents are special because they have been married for over 50
years and showed me that love is one of the most important things we have in
life. My grandparents are always there for me, willing to listen and to give me
the most welcomed hug. My grandpa loves to tell his jokes over and over but
they always have that loving touch. My grandma has a beautiful smile each
and every day. Their home always makes me feel so warm and cosy inside. If I
had just one wish it would be that everyone could have special grandparents
like me. So when they need help I hope they know I'm there for them just like
they are for me. I really feel blessed.
Kera Johnson writes:
My grandma is special because she understands. She helps me and so much
more. My grandma loves me, she gives me love even when I shouldn't get it.
She is helpful, she is understanding and most of all she is loving. Every day
my grandmother spends at least seven hours of her day helping physically and
mentally challenged children. That's how special my grandma is. I think that
my grandma is as good as a person can get.
I would like to share part of a poem with the House today
written by Chief Dan George. It gives words of advice and
counsel to his grandchild. This is from a special course I used to
teach on native studies.
Perhaps there will be a day
You will want to sit by my side asking for counsel
I hope I will be there
But you see, I am growing old.
There is no promise that life
Will live up to our hopes
Especially to the hopes of the aged.
So I will write of what I know
And some day our hearts will meet in these words.
If you let it happen.
You come from a shy race
Ours are the silent ways
We have always done all things
In a gentle manner
So much as the brook that avoids the solid rock
In its search for the sea and meets the deer in passing
You too must follow the path of your own race
It is steady and deep, reliable and lasting
It is you.
If you let it happen.
(1825 )
Today I have spoken on the wonder of grandparents and their
positive influence and their needed assistance in Canada's
future.
Bill C-291 tries to recognize grandparents. In a grandparents
year we could have the ceremonies and activities to recognize
them. That would be good. We should definitely also have a
grandparents day so we could recognize them every year. They
are the unsung heroes of Canada's society. They give everything
and ask for very little in return.
Perhaps Margaret Mead said it best: ``In the presence of
grandparents and grandchildren the past and the future merge in
the present''.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak today to
Bill C-291, an act respecting a national year of the grandparent.
I take the opportunity to speak on behalf of the government's
commitment to Canada's grandparents.
I have not yet had the fortune of becoming a grandparent. I
guess my sons have control over that and so I may never become
a grandparent. I have grandparents. All of us have grandparents.
My grandmother was my mentor, a woman who was a feminist
long before the word feminist was popular. She was strong,
feisty and she told me that if I did not like how things were I
should go in there and change them and not complain. She lived
that. She was always fighting for causes. Like a battleship at full
steam, she was always there making things happen, changing
things. She always had courage. She was an outspoken and
strong woman.
My grandmother set for me an example that I have followed.
If she were alive today I think she would be very pleased and
proud that I am standing here talking about her role in my life
and about grandparents as a whole.
Grandparents play a vital role in the lives of families and in
the lives of all Canadians. Whether you have grandchildren or
not, you can be a grandparent. In British Columbia there the
Volunteer Grandparents Association. It meets and looks after
children. As we all know, in society today families can live so
far away from each other and many families do not have an
extended family or a grandparent close by. These grandparents
whose children are not around become grandparents to children
whose grandparents are not around and they bridge the gap.
12098
It is interesting to see them at baseball games, to be there at
ballet recitals and to watch these adoptive grandparents
enjoying all the things their adoptive grandchildren do.
I have to tell members about filling the lives of children.
Whether you are a young child, an older child or an adult,
grandparents fill your life. My children's grandparents are very
far away and they have benefited from volunteer grandparents. I
think they always needed to know there was somewhere a safe
haven they could go to when their parents did not understand; to
go to somebody who had the wisdom and could remind them
their parents were children once.
I remember my children telling me I sometimes forgot I was
once a child. Grandparents are always there to remind us, to
assure us our parents were not as perfect as they pretended to be.
They bring that sense of vulnerability and fallibility into
parenting, which is good. It gives children something to believe
in and something to feel strong about.
The important role grandparents play in the life of a family
should never be underestimated. Today where families are
fragmented grandparents often take up the life of the family and
carry it by themselves; sometimes only temporarily when there
is a family crisis or illness and sometimes even permanently
because of a divorce.
That is why we clearly need to support grandparents today.
We must ensure they remain a stable factor in the lives of their
grandchildren, regardless of where the parents are. The reason
they do is that grandparents have a sense of continuity. They
bridge the past and the present. They bring yesterday into today.
Grandparents make us feel as if we have always been here as a
people. That continuity is very important to us. Especially when
our lives are fragmented and unstable they bring that sense of
permanence, that sense of tradition, that sense of stability and
reality which is needed in today's world. It is a sense of
timelessness, if I may use that word.
(1830)
Grandparents are very important because they are
traditionally wise. They are always wise. Grandparents are a
source of advice. They are a good source of advice because they
have stepped aside from being subjective and can offer the
objective wisdom parents are unable to offer because they are
too closely linked to their children.
Three out of every four Canadians over 65 are grandparents.
What is interesting is that you do not have to be over 65 to be a
grandparent. The image of a grandparent as being someone kind
with twinkling eyes behind glasses and an ample bosom and a
warm laugh may not necessarily be what grandparents are.
Grandparents are also now in their forties and fifties. They bring
a sense of vitality to the family that was not there before when
grandparents were only supposed to be one age.
Grandparents bring a sense of trust as well. They help us to
feel safe because no matter what happens, they are always there.
They seem to have a sense of immovability and a sense of
complete and total stability. They are an anchor for most of us.
In many cultures grandparents are historians. Many cultures
do not have a written history where we can go back and read it,
especially in our aboriginal cultures for example. In those many
other cultures where there is no written history grandparents
bring the stories with them that tell us where we came from and
talk about our traditions.
In many aboriginal societies the elders and grandparents are
bringing aboriginal people back home, especially today's
aboriginal people who have been removed forcibly from their
homes at one point in time, have been severed from their past.
Today's grandparents are healing in native cultures. They bring
the old ways back, the sense of spirituality, the sense of
permanence, the sense of bonding.
Health Canada has recognized this and has given grants
through the new horizons program to assist grandparents in
aboriginal cultures to bring their young people home. They help
not just anecdotally but in a real way with issues such as suicide,
substance abuse and alcoholism. They have been making a real
difference by bringing back the cultures and helping the
children. In fact Health Canada's grants send children to camps
where grandparents tell stories, teach the native language, teach
them basic survival skills, how to sew, and counsel them on
issues that are bothering today's young aboriginal people.
It is sad to note that despite their important role in society
some derogatory myths exist about grandparents. Those myths
continue to be perpetuated.
One myth depicts older grandparents as frail and dependent.
Like their young counterparts actually, the majority of older
grandparents live active, healthy and productive lives. A 1990
study showed that one out of every two seniors over 65 provided
assistance to people outside of their household, such as unpaid
transportation or financial support.
Still another myth suggests that families sometimes neglect
and even abandon grandparents and many older family
members. That is not actually true. Studies have found that
seniors obtain 80 per cent of the help they need from their
families and that 92 per cent of seniors and grandparents say that
they feel emotionally close to their families.
Half of Canada's senior grandparents live within 10
kilometres of at least one child. I did not know that fact until I
looked it up recently. They visit regularly, they telephone daily
12099
and they offer very clear and strong emotional support to their
families.
I reiterate the fact that the grandparent through all of these
ways, regardless of what culture, does play a very clear and
strong role. Grandparents are ageless and timeless; they have
always been here. They defy socioeconomic barriers. All of us
have grandparents. Whether we are rich, middle class or poor,
no matter whether we live in a developed world or in a
developing world, no matter whether we speak English or any
other language, we all have grandparents. They are a common
universal treasure.
(1835)
Because of their timelessness, because of their universality,
because of their holding the family together, grandparents offer
a sense of stability and a sense of permanence that bridge the
past and the future.
I support the bill because grandparents make us immortal.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak to Bill C-291,
presented by the hon. member for Halton-Peel, an act
respecting the national year of the grandparent which calls upon
Parliament to designate 1995 the year of the grandparent.
I say this not only because I am a grandparent to my grandson,
Spencer Drew, the most handsome, intelligent, talented and
clever boy in the whole wide world who will celebrate his first
birthday next Sunday, but because I believe that anything which
strengthens the family unit will help to better our society.
Through all generations and cultures grandparents have
generally played a caring, supportive and nurturing role in the
lives of their families and extended families. The time has come
for Canada to formally reaffirm the invaluable contribution
grandparents have made and will continue to make to society.
Last year the United States Congress adopted House
resolution 355 and Senate resolution 198 proclaiming 1995 as
the year of the grandparent, encouraging citizens to observe the
year with programs, ceremonies and activities.
Having already reached the month of May, it would seem that
we in Canada have been slow off the mark to honour the family
and grandparents.
Quebec's civil code has enshrined the role of grandparents in
article 611 which states:
In no case may the father or mother, without a grave reason, interfere with
personal relations between the child and his grandparents.
The intent of Bill C-291 truly goes beyond partisan politics in
giving grandparents recognition for their important
fundamental contribution to family and society, love given
freely with no strings attached. Bill C-291 should receive
unanimous consent in the House.
Grandparents bring a tremendous amount of affection, energy
and other beneficial things into the lives of children. One thing
unchanged through all time is that children still require a loving
and secure environment. Most grandparents are ready, willing
and able to provide love in abundant quantities and children are
quick to realize that when in grandma's or grandpa's care they
are safe, secure and adored. They have a home away from home,
often with fewer or more lenient rules to follow.
Grandparents provide a link to our past, to our roots and to our
heritage. During every day conversation they share the trials and
joys experienced during their lives. They pass on knowledge of
the ways, whys and wherefores of previous generations and give
meaning to the changes that have evolved over time.
Grandparents care deeply for the happiness and well-being of
these innocent, young, impressionable lives and do everything
within their power to pave the way for a better and more caring
tomorrow.
Parents can usually depend on grandparents to care for their
grandchildren whenever help is needed. They are there when
difficult situations such as illness or problems within the family
relationship present themselves. Grandparents are there to
provide stability and continuity for their grandchildren.
It is only natural that grandparents should be nurturing and
caring. After all, they were parents at one time and are now the
beneficiaries of the experience they gained while raising their
families.
A strong family structure is the best means by which to
nurture children and society as a whole and grandparents are an
integral part of the structure. Thus, it is most fitting that 1995 be
officially proclaimed the year of the grandparent. As 1994 was
declared the international year of the family, it seems to
logically follow that 1995 should be chosen to give special
recognition to grandparents.
(1840 )
Not too long ago, the nuclear family, including grandparents,
aunts, uncles and cousins formed a cohesive, interdependent
unit which helped to provide the basic necessities of life. Small
communities were self-sustaining and so were families.
Today, the economy and times have changed. People have
moved away from the hometown and have found employment in
places often far removed from the traditional nuclear family.
Our society is fast paced, often demanding that people not only
change jobs, but pick up roots and change careers several times
over their working years.
There is increasing displacement and stress on the family in
today's environment, with the result that in many cases, the
reassuring support traditionally given by the family unit is not
12100
readily accessible nor available to provide immediate support
when it is needed.
More and more homes see both parents working. This
evolution has impacted on the role of the grandparents by
restricting their access to their grandchildren. Often it is not
easy for them to maintain close contact with their grandchildren
but despite these obstacles, families do remain united, tied by
their common roots. Grandparents have and always will be an
integral part of the family because love transcends all obstacles
and survives the onslaught of modern society.
Families are the anchors of a caring society. It is vital to do
everything possible to preserve the nuclear family unit.
Governments should recognize that the family is best
equipped to provide and inculcate those things which make a
society strong and caring. Interference or attempts to replace
positive family influence with questionable or intrusive
government programs simply erode the strength the family can
provide to society.
Often, grandparents step in to accept the role of primary
caregiver. In cases of family breakdown, they are usually
willing to do what comes naturally by simply being available to
be part of the solution, an option lawyers and courts often fail to
consider.
To have access and be able to provide a continuing, dignified,
stable, supportive presence in the lives of children caught in the
middle of an emotional and bitter family dispute is a service
grandparents are often well suited to assume. Present laws do
not foster this option.
In a time when government is looking for ways to restructure
social and welfare programs, it should recognize that millions of
dollars could be saved and a better solution arrived at by
including grandparents in custody and access hearings. This is
not only in the best interests of the grandparents but also in the
best interests of children often caught in the crossfire.
The courts should recognize there are other options at least in
the interim, a neutral third party willing to accept the role of
caregiver. Most grandparents, if able, are willing to take on this
responsibility and be part of the solution in what is often a
highly emotional, indeed devastating time for all parties
involved. Again, they are needed but often not considered as an
option or part of the solution.
With 1995 designated as the year of the grandparent, it would
be logical for government to take the steps necessary to amend
current legislation to allow grandparents to be grandparents by
providing the care, love and support they are so willing to give.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There being no further
members rising for debate and the motion not being designated
as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the Order Paper, pursuant to Standing Order
96(1).
Is there unanimous consent to proceed with the adjournment
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
12100
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, to add
my comments to the previous speaker's on setting aside 1995 as
the year of the grandparent, it is a first class idea. I would have
liked to have seen that followed through.
However, my few moments are to talk about a question I
raised on April 5 regarding the funding of health care. It is fair to
say that one of the major factors that distinguishes Canada from
the United States is our support of medicare. It is an identifying
feature of being a Canadian and sets us apart from the United
States.
(1845 )
We see now the possibility of the health care system and
medicare system being seriously eroded as a result of the last
budget, but also the two budgets leading up to it. An integral part
of medicare is the universality provision. Whether one is a baker
or a banker one ought to have the same access to health care
wherever one happens to live in Canada.
We have held up with pride the universality of medicare as
something that distinguishes us from our neighbours to the
south. I do not have to remind anyone of the serious differences
in the two systems. In Canada we spend a little less than 10 per
cent of GDP on health care. In United States, its citizens spend a
little less than 14 per cent of their GDP on health care. While
their health care system costs much more, the wealthiest of
Americans are well served by the system.
The average income earner in the United States who has to pay
somewhere between $5,000 and $7,000 a year for coverage that
is actually less than that in Canada is adequately covered.
Somewhere between 30 and 40 million Americans have little or
no health coverage.
As a distinguishing factor, what I was pointing out in my
question was in recognition of that old adage that ``he who pays
the piper calls the tune''. When one sees the tremendous
reductions in funding for social programs including health care
it becomes quite alarming.
12101
While there is no direct effect on this year's funding for health
care, the province of British Columbia alone in its cash
entitlement under the Canada social transfer will be $371
million less in 1996-97 and $684 million less in 1997-98 than it
would have been provided under EPF and CAP funding. These
amounts are in addition to the $180 million negative impact of
1994 federal budget on transfers. The net effect of this is that in
1997-98 the entitlement for British Columbia will be $801
million less than the province received in 1994-95.
In summary, because of these massive reductions in transfer
funding for health care, we have the likelihood of the health care
system evolving into a patchwork across the country. We will
have 12 different health care systems. No doubt some of the
provinces will be able to withstand the offloading more than
others.
The premier of the province of Alberta has indicated an
interest in extra billing and privatizing a whole number of
services based on the American model. It is certainly a direction
that Canadians will not want to take.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the gist of the hon. member's
question is concerned about the issue of universality which
actually has nothing to do with cost.
Universality means that we are all eligible for health care
services regardless of what is our status in terms of
employability or whether we have chronic illness, chronic
diseases or not. Accessibility is the one that talks about ability to
pay.
I understand the hon. member's question which is how can we
continue to support the kind of medicare system that we know,
based on the five principles of health care, if we do not put
enough money into it.
As he so wisely pointed out, the United States spends 14 per
cent of its gross national product on health care. Canada spends
about 10 per cent and Japan spends about 6 per cent. Japan has
the highest outcomes in health care in the world today. Canada
ranks third. The United States ranks somewhere between Cuba
and Czechoslovakia.
If we talk about money spent on medical services being the
only determinant of outcome of health care, we are barking up
the wrong tree. Money does not equate to outcomes and good
health status. Many other things drive health status, such as
poverty, environmental issues and many other issues with which
we have to concern ourselves.
We are committed to health care. Studies have shown,
especially the recent one from the University of Ottawa, that we
can have an affordable, much more efficient health care system
with better outcomes if we make some very real changes. We
should look at such changes as moving from acute care to
community care, looking at care closer to home; looking at
providing core services for continuing care for seniors, looking
at prevention and health promotion. Many of these things will
give us better outcomes. This study has shown that we can save
$7 billion a year on health care payments as a federal
government and still come up with very good results.
(1850)
We are talking about a time for looking at how we renew our
system and how we make our system more effective and more
efficient. We now know of so many ways to manage our system.
That is what we are talking about in the renewal of health care.
Those are the changes we want to see.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, what I have to say today reflects upon the inadequate
responses I have been getting as far as the Wentworth bypass in
Nova Scotia goes and the money that was transferred by the
minister of public works to his home riding.
I have asked this question four times in the House now. I am
still not satisfied that the minister is going to be held
accountable for this. I want to outline for those folks who are
interested in this particularly serious problem just exactly what
went on.
In 1992-93 there was a program called SHIP, the strategic
highways improvement program in Nova Scotia. This joint
program was to upgrade the 100 series highways, the
Trans-Canada network highways. Under this agreement the
federal and provincial governments shared in the improvement
program.
What happened on May 11, 1994, according to the Nova
Scotia auditor general's report, $26 million of these funds were
diverted from highway 104 to a tourist highway, the
Fleur-de-Lis trail, which is not a 100 series highway in the
minister's very own riding in Cape Breton.
It happens that the minister and MLA Richie Mann, who I
believe was Nova Scotia's minister of highways at the time and
may still be, were both involved in this discussion. I have given
quotes in the House which substantiate that instance where they
were involved. They decided to take $26 million out of this
project and put it toward the Fleur-de-Lis trail.
The difficulty many people in the Wentworth, valley area and
indeed throughout Nova Scotia have is that it is considered one
of the most dangerous highways in the country. As a person who
lives in British Columbia, I can tell you there are a lot of
dangerous highways in this country particularly in the
mountains. However, this is considered one of the most
dangerous highways in the country. There have been 40 deaths
in the last number of years which I spoke about in this House.
They diverted the money from this federal-provincial project
to a road which is basically a tourist area in the minister's riding.
What does that say about the process? I guess it is up to the
minister to be held accountable for what he did, but what it says
12102
to most folks in the Wentworth Valley and the people who have
to travel through this area is that you care a lot less about the
lives of the people who travel this highway than about the money
in your own riding.
There is going to be a toll on that highway which is likely to be
$7 to $10. It will take an hour to drive through that area. What
have the people ended up with in this whole exercise? It turns
out that the minister of public works, not the minister of
highways who has been answering my questions, made a deal
with a provincial minister who also benefited from it to transfer
money. Now the people in Wentworth valley are going to pay the
price for it through tolls.
It is inappropriate. I will quote a Liberal member opposite:
``This is about principles. It is about money that was
misappropriated. If an agreement like this can be broken then I
could go in to lobby for something ridiculous somewhere else. It
is a matter of trust in cost sharing. Someone has to be held
accountable''. I ask: Why is the minister of public works not
being held accountable?
(1855 )
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Transport
has stated repeatedly and clearly, although maybe not for some,
highways are a provincial responsibility. However, the federal
government has a longstanding practice of entering into cost
sharing agreements to provide some level of service.
Multi-year programs are often developed with a tentative list
of projects referenced in the initial agreement. There are myriad
reasons why the project lists attached to various highway
agreements change over the life of the agreement.
We cannot forecast what may happen as individual projects
mature. There may be delays due to design problems,
completing the environmental assessment, changes in
provincial priorities or cost changes. Virtually all highway
agreements administered by the federal government change
during the course of a year.
The project list attached to the Nova Scotia agreement was
developed in early 1993 as part of an initiative to provide a
stimulus to spur economic growth and job creation.
It is worth noting that several provinces are either
investigating the option or have implemented public-private
partnerships as a means of advancing projects comparable to the
highway 104 project.
To answer the question of the member with respect to tolls,
the reality is that the province of Nova Scotia requested a change
to reallocate some, not all, of the funds to include an allocation
for the Fleur-de-lis Trail.
There are actually two Nova Scotia highway programs.
Between them approximately $215 million is allocated to route
104, not an insignificant amount. Route 104 has received a
tremendous contribution.
Two minutes does not allow me time to rebut every aspect of
the allegations made by the member opposite. It is important to
use the time to set forth the basic facts so that the lack of
substance to the allegations can be seen for what it is: mere
opportunism.
To be perfectly clear, there are always discussions with the
provinces on transportation issues and project substitutions do
occur. The member must understand that the provinces spend
the money and decide on the priority of projects.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, we
can see that a large number of Quebecers going on welfare every
month, generally 40 per cent of the 5,000 individuals or so who
join the ranks of welfare recipients, are young people. These
numbers have increased since last summer. Why is that?
Since the government passed Bill C-17, to restrict access to
unemployment insurance by increasing the qualifying period
and reducing benefits as well as the numbers of weeks, people
are suffering from this decision and many end up on welfare. I
have asked the Minister of Human Resources Development
repeatedly if he realized that his cuts to UI had particularly dire
consequences for young people who then have to rely on social
assistance.
The minister indicated that he wanted to move away from the
passive assistance provided through unemployment insurance
and toward active assistance. But one should not prevent the
other. Nothing prevents us from helping young people who do
not have sufficient training or helping them find a job, but when
no jobs can be found for those who are already trained-many
university graduates came to see me at my constituency
office-why refuse them access to unemployment insurance?
Why make their first few contacts with the job market more
difficult because jobs are too short, because employment is
temporary instead of being stable? Why force young people onto
welfare?
We believe that the government should amend this clause of
Bill C-17. It makes no sense, because the first contacts that
young people have with the work force teaches them that they do
not belong in it. How are the amounts accumulating in the
unemployment insurance fund being used? In the last budget, an
accounting trick allowed the government to use these funds to
reduce the deficit. To a great extent, it is young people and
women are the ones paying for this deficit reduction move.
12103
This is not acceptable in a society like ours, and it is above all
not acceptable for Quebec, where young people are considered
the engine, the vital element, because, among other things, they
will have families and will make it possible for the people of
Quebec, which is an endangered species in North America,
counting for barely more than 2 per cent of the population, to
survive.
And now young people are swelling the welfare ranks because
we have stripped them of even the glimmer of a hope of ever
finding a job.
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we would agree with the
hon. member that the situation of young people in Canada is an
issue that concerns us all. However, we believe it is incorrect to
assume that most people who leave UI will go on welfare.
Employment gains in 1994 reduced new UI claims by some 10
per cent from 1993 and helped over 200,000 more people get off
UI without exhausting their benefits. Data for March shows that
the unemployment rate for Canadian workers 15 to 24 years of
age has decreased by 2.4 per cent since the government came
into power. While that is still not an acceptable figure, we intend
to continue to work on the situation.
We are committed to stimulating the creation of employment
opportunities for youth and taking concrete action. Summer
employment programs have been redesigned to reinforce
programs that provide the best results in job creation. The
student summer job action program, a package of six job
creation elements that will target the needs of post-secondary
and senior high school students, will result in the creation of
44,500 summer jobs. The continuation of the youth internship
program funding has been increased to $118 million from the
1994 funding of $25 million. We intend to continue Youth
Service Canada, with an expected 17,500 participants over three
years. The funding has increased to $28 million from $25
million. In addition, we are creating new funding of $15 million
for Youth Service Canada. Overall, funds for youth programs
and services for 1995-96 have increased by $43 million.
In Quebec, HRD is opening six Canada Employment Centres
for students on Montreal Island. Approximately 50 students will
be working in six Canada Employment Centres and
approximately 7,000 jobs will be posted.
Jobs are what Canadian youth needs and jobs are what this
government is creating for them.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.04 p.m.)