CONTENTS
Friday, December 1, 1995
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 120; Nays, 27. 17075
Bill C-110. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 17076
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 17080
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 17080
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 17081
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 17083
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 17083
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 17084
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 17086
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 17086
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 17088
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 17088
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 17090
Bill C-111. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 17091
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17091
Bill C-112. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted. 17091
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17091
Bill C-113. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 17091
(Motion agreed to.) 17091
Bill C-110. Consideration resumed of motion 17093
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 17095
Division on motion deferred 17101
Bill C-241. Motion for second reading 17101
17075
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, December 1, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments,
not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the
second reading stage of the bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the
time provided for government business on the allotted day of the second reading
consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be
interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question
necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put
forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
[
English]
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 387)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Clancy
Cohen
Cowling
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Skoke
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young-120
17076
NAYS
Members
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bergeron
Caron
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Gilmour
Godin
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Laurin
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Paré
Ramsay
Ringma
Speaker-27
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bouchard
Brien
Brushett
Campbell
Canuel
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dubé
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Hickey
Iftody
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacAulay
Marchand
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Nunez
Ouellet
Parrish
Peters
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
St. Denis
Terrana
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Venne
Walker
Wayne
Zed
(1045)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
The House resumed from November 30 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional
amendments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
country is what citizens make it. Therefore we can take collective
pride that Canada has been deemed by the United Nations as the
number one country in the world in which to live.
Today we are challenged once more to reaffirm our faith in our
country. We are asked to reaffirm our trust in each other. We are
called to creative leadership. Either we are for Canada or we are
not.
It is with great pride that I rise today during this historic debate
to offer my full support of the unity package unveiled by the
government and now before the House.
A key component of this package is Bill C-110, an act respecting
constitutional amendments. The bill commits the Government of
Canada to obtain the approval of all four regions of the country,
namely, the western region comprising Manitoba, Saskatchewan,
Alberta and British Columbia, the Atlantic region comprising Nova
Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island,
and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec as two separate regions.
Ottawa commits itself, before constitutional amendments can be
proposed to Parliament, to first obtain the consent of at least six
provinces, namely, Quebec, Ontario and two provinces from the
Atlantic region representing more than 50 per cent of the region's
population and two provinces from the western region representing
more than 50 per cent of the west's population.
When Bill C-110 becomes law, the federal government could not
proceed to table a constitutional amendment if any one of the four
regions refused to give its consent, even if seven provinces
representing 50 per cent of Canada's population pass resolutions in
favour of such a constitutional amendment.
Although the present bill does not amend the Canadian
Constitution which stipulates four legal amending processes as
provided for in sections 38 to 44 of part V, it is as an act of the
federal Parliament binding on current and succeeding
governments.
The western region makes up nearly 30 per cent of Canada's
population, larger than Quebec's and smaller than Ontario's.
Taking into account the population of each of the four western
provinces, the bill affects the western region in this fashion: first,
Alberta would require either British Columbia or a combination of
Saskatchewan and Manitoba to exercise the veto; second, Manito-
17077
ba and Saskatchewan would require British Columbia or each other
and Alberta to exercise the veto; third, British Columbia would
require only one other western province to exercise its right to say
no.
The regional veto envisioned in this bill gives greater strength to
each of the western provinces than can be obtained under the
existing amending formula.
It is a significant step forward. It illustrates the flexibility of
federalism to which the government is committed. It is this sort of
political creativity and ingenuity that should summon in us a sense
of pride in our Canadian citizenship, which should be a forum for
transcending differences and considering the common good of all.
Most Canadians became citizens by birth. For me, becoming
Canadian was a conscious choice, a choice informed by a strong
commitment to the values, goals and vision Canada has for herself
in the world community.
In January 1968 I braved my first Canadian winter in Winnipeg
as a new immigrant. Coming from the tropical climes of the
Philippines, the country of my birth, the cold winds and bitter frost
of the North American prairie seemed particularly harsh. But the
chill of the winter was quickly offset by the warmth of the welcome
I received from the people of Manitoba. Winnipeg was my
Canadian city of entry, a friendly place where I felt at home
instantly. But Canada is the country I adopted.
(1050)
My four sons were born on Canadian soil. Many of my dreams
for my family and my career have been realized in Canada. My
future goals, if they are achieved, will be achieved in this country.
This is a country which accommodates the dreams of individuals
from all cultures, from all walks of life. This is a country that
promotes and supports a fully integrated citizenship which takes
these differences into account.
My constituency of Winnipeg North is a microcosm of Canada.
People of aboriginal ancestry and people of Ukrainian, Jewish,
Polish, Indian, Portuguese and Filipino origins, along with
anglophone and francophones and many others, have made
Winnipeg North their home. They are proud of their heritage and
they are proud of their Canadian citizenship. These define our
shared identity.
Beyond our shared identity, beyond our diversity there is a
stronger force that socially binds us. It is a set of shared political
values. Canadians share a belief in equality and fairness. They
believe in consultation and dialogue. They share in the importance
of accommodation and tolerance. They share compassion,
generosity and an attachment to the natural environment. Together
they support diversity. As a people we share a commitment to
freedom, peace and non-violent change.
Canadians from coast to coast to coast told us four years ago that
we share these seven values. It is certainly true that we in different
regions, provinces, cities, communities and households may feel
like a minority with different priorities and goals. Sometimes those
differences can make us feel alienated from the majority.
I know that feeling. As a Filipino Canadian, I know that being a
member of a visible minority makes me sometimes feel like an
outsider. Occasionally I feel a sense of aloneness. But those feeling
pass whenever one stops to consider the policies which inform the
real discourse of this country.
Nearly a quarter of a century ago in this House, then Prime
Minister Trudeau introduced a ground breaking policy which
formalized the very values of which I spoke earlier. One of the
chief aims of that policy was to enhance every Canadian's sense of
belonging, in the process fostering the ties that bind us all together.
The policy has showcased, in a very real sense, the creativity, the
ingenuity of the Canadian people. It sent a clear message to me as a
Canadian of Filipino origin that I was as welcome in Canada as
anyone else. It confirmed my initial impressions of Canada formed
that first winter a few years earlier. It made me understand that,
yes, I am different from some, but I am equal to all.
The bill before us today is the fulfilment of a promise, part of the
promise that includes recognizing Quebec as a distinct society
within Canada. We all know and have known since Confederation
that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada, a distinctiveness
defined by her unique culture, French speaking majority and civil
law tradition.
As I mentioned before, differences can lead one to a sense of
alienation. With this motion introduced by the Prime Minister,
Canadians are sending the clear message to Quebecers that we not
only respect the differences in their traditions, history, language
and culture, we celebrate and value them. They make Canada
whole.
We are reawakened to the spirit of partnership and collaboration
which brought us together more than a century and a quarter ago.
We want Quebecers to know that by working together, we can
develop a national vision to confront with resolute confidence the
challenges of today and tomorrow just as we triumphed when we
faced the challenges of the past.
Our historical achievements in building this nation rightly give
us a sense of national pride.
(1055 )
Our shared identity, our shared values, our collective sense of
pride in the midst of our deep diversity, are the tools that shall
preserve Canada as a nation, that shall propel us to prosperity.
These are the tools that will translate our hope into reality.
17078
The challenge before us today is whether we have the will to
accommodate, the will to make sacrifices for our common national
good, the goodwill to see us build on the partnership of the past
128 years. We cannot allow history to judge us harshly. We cannot
allow the moment for national unity to pass. I therefore ask all
colleagues to shed political partisanship for Canadian partnership.
Long live Canada. Vive le Canada.
The Speaker: I wonder if rather than begin a speech, then break
it up in the middle-
[Translation]
-we might perhaps proceed directly to members' statements. I
think that is what we shall do.
_____________________________________________
17078
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
number one cause of death in men aged 19 to 44 in the major
metropolitan areas of Canada is AIDS.
Today is World AIDS Day. The World Health Organization's
theme this year is shared rights and responsibilities. This theme
highlights the need for equality and solidarity in global responses
to AIDS. Its message is clear. Everyone has the right to
information, preventive skills and tools, to avoid infection.
Everyone has the right to access to appropriate care free from the
burden of discrimination.
The World Health Organization message balances these rights
with the responsibility of the individual to protect self and others
from infection, the responsibilities of families and communities to
educate the public about HIV prevention and to care for those
infected with AIDS.
Themes are usually rhetoric unless followed by action. Let us in
the House commit ourselves to actively ensure those rights and
responsibilities become reality. AIDS creates too much tragic
waste of human life and potential to do otherwise.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of Indian Affairs was
unable to reply to questions concerning certain highly paternalistic
and disdainful comments about aboriginal people made by his
ADM. His reason: the memorandum in question was not addressed
to the minister himself. What a lame excuse.
The contents of this memo were released by the Globe and Mail.
In addition to expressing doubts about the professionalism of the
reporters on this respected daily newspaper, and to describing his
ADM's comments as ``pretty silly'', the minister has insulted the
intelligence of the members of this House and of his constituents
by refusing to answer questions on his departmental policy for
ridiculous reasons.
It does not matter to whom the memo was addressed; he was at
the very least clearly remiss in his duties.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, violent home invasions
are becoming a serious problem in Canada. The Liberals say that
they want a safer society, but by protecting criminals from decent
citizens they make life more dangerous for us all.
The Prime Minister has on various occasions stated that it is
somehow un-Canadian to possess firearms for home protection.
That is easy to say when one is protected by armed guards.
However a few weeks ago when the system broke down, the Prime
Minister discovered that even the mighty are vulnerable.
I have this vision of the Prime Minister shivering in his
nightshirt, clutching his soapstone carving. I wonder if as the long
minutes dragged by he would not have felt more comfortable if he
had been holding a .38.
The rest of us do not even have sleeping policeman around-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Denis.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw attention on this first day of December to World
AIDS Day. This day brings to mind the significant numbers of
individuals affected by this disease, one for which to this day there
is still no cure. In North America it is a dramatic fact that AIDS is
the top ranking cause of death for people between the ages of 25
and 44.
(1100)
[English]
Health Canada reports that last year alone almost 3,000
Canadians were reported as having contracted the AIDS virus. That
is about eight Canadians per day. It is indeed a shocking amount,
but what is more shocking is that we are not doing enough to find a
cure.
The federal government must strengthen its national AIDS
strategy and do more to help researchers across the country who are
working to develop an AIDS vaccine, researchers like Dr. Christos
17079
Tsoukas of the Montreal General Hospital whose research is
seriously jeopardized by this lack of funding.
We owe it to Canadians, especially to the young people of the
country.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, as well as in
many other areas of the country, constituents depend on tourism.
The weather this week has reminded us that tourism is not just a
summer business but a year round business.
Tourism is a very important industry in the country. It
contributes about $26 billion to our gross domestic product. It is
estimated that every new $1 million of tourism expenditure results
in 39 person years of employment. In my riding almost one of
every two jobs is dependent on this industry.
When it snows, and has it ever snowed, the small businessmen
and women in my riding look forward to a good winter season. We
have some of the best trail systems in Canada. We attract those who
cross-country ski, snowshoe or snowmobile.
If November's record snowfall is any indication, it will be a
great season for all winter activities. I invite all Canadians to share
in the experience of the great Canadian winter in my riding and
across the country.
* * *
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Wednesday the people of Ontario finally learned that Mike Harris
and his Conservative government do not know the meaning of the
words common sense.
Ontarians will now have to wait longer for hospital services, if
they can find an open hospital; pay up to 22 per cent more for a
university education; and learn to live with fewer locally provided
services.
The Waterloo region, which takes in my riding of Cambridge,
will be faced with $9 million in hospital cuts. Those cuts will mean
a reduction and possible elimination of services from three
hospitals in the area.
The area will also see a cut of approximately $10 million to
schools. Libraries in Cambridge will lose $120,000 and transit
fares will go up.
While all Ontarians want to get their fiscal house in order, why is
it that the sick, the elderly and children trying to get an education
will be most hurt by the cuts? The premier's friends who have been
promised a 30 per cent tax break will not.
While it is nice to see that the premier-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, last week I met with farm leaders in Atlantic Canada
and attended the annual meeting of the National Farmers Union in
Charlottetown.
The following resolution was carried by the NFU membership:
Whereas we supposedly live in a democratic country, and whereas much money is
spent on getting MLAs and MPs elected to represent the people, therefore be it
resolved that the NFU pressure all provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of
Canada to allow elected officials to fairly represent the people who elected them by
permitting free votes without fear of reprisal.
The hon. member for Malpeque seems to have forgotten what he
did prior to being elected to the House. Let me think. Could it be
the president of the National Farmers Union?
It appears as though there has been a change of mind for the hon.
member for Malpeque since arriving in Ottawa. Instead of
representing the wishes of his constituents, the member has
decided to become a traditional politician, toe the Liberal Party line
and become part of the Prime Minister's ``Yes, whatever you say''
club.
Now is the time for the hon. member for Malpeque and his
seatmates to return to reality and recommit themselves to
representing their constituents.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is World
AIDS Day. Sadly thousands of Canadians are all too personally
familiar with the tragedy of AIDS and HIV.
The human cost of AIDS is immeasurable. Each day our
communities lose valuable and talented members to this disease.
Right now AIDS is one of the primary causes of premature death of
Canadian men. We must devote greater resources to its control and
elimination.
AIDS has preyed particularly severely on Canada's artistic
community and this impoverishes every Canadian. Museums,
galleries and art shops across the country will be closed today in
commemoration of a day without art to honour artists lost to AIDS.
[Translation]
Recently, there have been breakthroughs in the fight against this
terrible disease, but we now have a responsibility to guarantee
stable and adequate funding for research, and to assist individuals
and their families.
17080
(1105 )
[English]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Monday hundreds of people gathered at the
funeral of John Angus Rankin to say goodbye to this beloved parish
priest and fiddler.
Born in Inverness, Reverend Rankin was ordained to the
priesthood in 1946. In 1959 he became pastor of Saint Mary of the
Angels Parish in Glendale and Holy Trinity Mission in Waycobah,
where he stayed until his retirement in 1994.
During these years Reverend Rankin sparked a renaissance in
Cape Breton fiddling and helped revive the Gaelic language. He
combined an ear for fiddling with a genuine love for people, in
particular the Micmac community of Cape Breton among whom he
finally chose to lay at rest.
Reverend Rankin will be sorely missed by all, but his cultural
and musical legacy will continue to live on long into the future.
* * *
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a monument
erected this remembrance week in Chatham's Legion Memorial
Gardens is a constant reminder of how lucky we are to be
Canadians.
More than 500 veterans and Kent's Dutch community paid
tribute to the Canadian soldiers who fought and died to liberate
Holland 50 years ago.
We can never take our freedom for granted. It is important that
future generations realize how fortunate we are in Canada. Our
soldiers gave their lives, the supreme sacrifice, so each of us could
speak and live freely.
Thanks to the efforts of the Dutch in my riding who raised
$12,000 to build the memorial, we have a permanent reminder of
our soldiers' struggles. They did not die for a region or a province;
they fought for Canada.
The Dutch community wanted me to point out that they are not
hyphenated or distinct Canadians but Canadians only, true and
proud. I salute their efforts at remembrance.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, once again
the federal government is the last to catch the winds of change.
Canadians from coast to coast are calling for the government to
deal with the issues that are truly important. At the top of the list in
every region of the country are balanced budgets and tax relief.
The provincial governments are answering the call. Nine have
balanced their budgets or plan to do so. A number have developed
debt repayment schedules just as Canadian families would pay off a
mortgage. By doing so these governments are also putting
themselves in a position to offer tax relief in the near future.
The message is clear. Canadians are now holding their elected
officials to higher fiscal standards than ever before and the litmus
test they are applying is a balanced budget plan. It is telling that
there are only two governments in all Canada which fail this test:
the separatist government in Quebec and the Liberal government in
Ottawa.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
is World AIDS Day. As part of the national strategy, the national
health research and development program budgets some $5.5
million to researchers working outside Health Canada. The
Medical Research Council contributes another $2 million to this
research.
Normally these programs issue calls for research applications
twice each year. Because the federal government is not prepared to
commit to funding AIDS research beyond March 1998, the two
programs have decided to stop accepting applications. As a result,
long term research will suffer and some of the best and brightest
researchers may leave the field.
If the Minister of Health and the government are prepared to
accept responsibility, it is essential that the Minister of Health and
the Liberal government put their money where their mouth is. It
takes money to do research. I call on the government to
immediately introduce a funding base beyond 1998.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
government's performance on job creation is deplorable. This
morning, Statistics Canada announced that 44,000 jobs were lost in
17081
November. Employment has remained practically at a standstill in
Canada for the past twelve months. Although jobs are the main
focus of the government's program, it has failed utterly to do
anything about the labour market situation.
Since the Liberals came to power, the unemployed have been
asked to make big sacrifices. The government said that its objective
was to put people back to work. There again, it has failed. The
Minister of Human Resources Development will table his second
set of unemployment insurance reforms today. Like last time, he
will say they are intended to give Canadians the dignity of work.
However, the figures are there to tell us that the job done on
unemployment insurance will not create jobs. The minister is not
giving Canadians the dignity of work. He is taking it away from the
unemployed.
* * *
(1110)
[English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today, December 1, is the eighth annual World AIDS
Day.
Since the global epidemic of this dreadful disease was first
documented and up to the end of 1994, an estimated 19.5 million
men, women and children have contacted HIV. The World Health
Organization estimates that the total number could more than
double by the year 2000.
AIDS is the most deadly scourge ever faced by humankind.
Those who suffer with the ravages of this disease, their families
and friends, indeed all of us can count ourselves among the victims
of AIDS.
I urge all Canadians to continue to support the battle against this
devastating illness. The efforts of every one of us are needed if we
are ever to celebrate the last World AIDS Day, the day when we can
finally claim victory over this deadly killer.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I state in the strongest possible terms my objection to the
fact that some 484 acres of pristine crown lands on the Royal Roads
property in my riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca are on the table
for future development.
The Department of National Defence has already paid the city of
Colwood $198,000 for a buy-in for 6,000 residential equivalency
units of trunk sewer capacity with an application for a further 2,000
units. Plans for the development of the lands and the property are
already under way by the Treasury Board.
Given this fact we deserve to know what are the plans for Royal
Roads, who has been consulted and what is the time frame for this
development.
Since April 1994 I have continued to advocate a plan put forth by
the Royal Roads committee that I started which would see the
development of only 60 acres of the land with the rest held forever,
in perpetuity. Rest assured I will fight tooth and nail alongside my
constituents to ensure that these beautiful lands are not bulldozed
and concretized in the name of development.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today is World AIDS Day, and I would like to make
parliamentarians, Quebecers and Canadians more aware of the
importance of this day.
No one should and no one can afford to remain indifferent to the
seriousness of this disease and the physical and psychological
suffering it causes.
Unknown until the end of the seventies, the AIDS virus has, in
many western and developing countries, become public health
problem number one. In 1993 the World Health Organization
estimated that more than 14 million people throughout the world
were or had been infected by HIV, and 7,000 people have died of
AIDS in Canada.
It is still very important to educate the public about the risk of
HIV infection. This terrible disease continues to strike down
individuals of all ages, irrespective of gender or sexual orientation.
We must not give up in despair. We must persevere in our search
for ways to wipe out this disease, because this is the only message
of hope-
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a
member of Parliament one of my greatest frustrations are banks
and their limited interest in assisting small business.
My riding of Huron-Bruce thrives on the success of small and
medium size businesses. Many Canadians are seizing the
entrepreneurial spirit, some because it is their lifelong desire and
others because they are unable to find employment. These people
have skills, intelligence, energy and are willing to take risks to
become financially independent.
Small businesses need to be given an opportunity. Canadian
banks are making it difficult for entrepreneurs to realize their
dreams. If entrepreneurs could afford to launch a new business or
17082
if every mature business could afford to employ one more person,
Canada's unemployment rate would decline drastically.
The government has taken the initiative to help small businesses
with measures such as Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small
Business Loans Act.
I encourage all bankers to help remedy our unemployment
problems by taking an invested interest in our financial future and
by ensuring that new and existing entrepreneurs are given a fair and
equal chance to prove that they can contribute to the economy of
the country.
_____________________________________________
17082
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1115)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. A memo from Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian
Affairs, Jack Stagg, recommends that Ottawa offer financial
compensation to native peoples for supporting the federal system
in the referendum and subsidies to try to silence the First Nations'
constitutional claims while the so-called Quebec initiatives are
announced.
When questioned yesterday, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development avoided the issue by saying that he had not
read the memo, although the national media were talking about it.
How does the minister explain that, yesterday, not only did he
not know what his own assistant deputy minister was doing, but he
was unaware of what everyone else was fully aware of from
reading the paper, namely the content of Mr. Stagg's memo.
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I explained yesterday, I have
3,000 civil servants in my department alone. A lot of them do a lot
of writing. I did not ask for that note, I did not want that note, and I
do not agree with that note.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I imagine
the minister must have watched TV yesterday like everyone else; it
was on all the networks.
Given the memo's unacceptable recommendations and its lack of
respect for the First Nations, will the minister tell us clearly
whether he and his government will dissociate themselves from the
content of the memo by his assistant deputy minister? Let him say
so clearly.
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just did.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
understood the minister to say earlier that he was dissociating
himself, and now he is saying it again. If this is true, since the
memo was not well received by the various native groups and since
the Department of Indian Affairs is supposed to protect the rights
of these people, would the minister tell us if he plans to discipline
his associate deputy minister for his fine memo?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the First Nation vote in Quebec
does not have to be bought. They are standing up for Canada. When
the Crees vote 96.3 per cent no against the separatists and the Inuit
vote 95 per cent no against the separatists and the Montagnais vote
99 per cent no against the separatists, that should send a clearer
message to the separatists than to the Liberal government.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is highly unlikely that the minister would brag about
accepting referendums restricted to the Crees and Montagnais, an
essentially ethnic referendum in which the other people living on
these lands were not allowed to vote. That is a very interesting
statement coming from this minister.
He was not asked whether or not referendums were held in
Quebec. Rather, he was asked specifically whether he dissociates
himself from his assistant deputy minister's memo. We are not
talking about just anybody, about one of 3,000 public servants, but
about the assistant deputy minister. Is the minister going to
summon his ADM and take appropriate action? That is the
question. We are not asking the minister for his life story. He
should be responsible and answer the question.
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will associate myself with any
civil servant in any department of this government who wants to
help the aboriginal people of Quebec.
While I am on my feet, talking about association, there is a
person called Pierre Blais who is a member of the separatist
government in Quebec. He calls the aboriginal people of Quebec
gypsies and nomads.
We are talking about disassociation. When the new leader of
Quebec takes over as premier, and maybe when some of the A team
go and leave the B team here, will the A team disassociate itself
from comments like that?
17083
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we disavowed such comments as soon as they were
uttered. I do not know any Pierre Blais, but I do know that this
minister is skirting the issue. Perhaps he needs videotapes to
understand the reality, just as the defence minister understands
only when he can see the evidence on videotape.
(1120)
I ask him again the same question. His assistant deputy minister
made unacceptable comments, mostly about native people. Will he
punish his assistant deputy minister or does he only have a problem
with the fact that there was a leak? Is this his sense of
responsibility, that a leak is serious? What he said shows his
inability to take action. If this minister is incapable of taking action
against an assistant deputy minister who made such comments
about Quebec and its native people, he should not be a government
minister.
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will correct that. Pierre Blais
is a former minister of justice.
We are talking about disassociation. I will be clear. Any
provincial or federal civil servant or any provincial or federal
cabinet minister who wants to do the just and honourable thing with
aboriginal people will be followed and admired by me.
While we are on the subject of disassociation, what is this party
going to do about a former leader who talks about ``ethics''? What
is this party going to do about a former deputy premier who goes
into a hotel and says the same thing? What is this party going to do
about racism in Quebec vis-a-vis the ethnic community? It is
important to me because I come from ethnic stock, from the
Italians and the Irish. If I am offended, I wonder how the aboriginal
people feel, who have to face fivefold what we had to face in this
country. What is the member going to do about that?
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after a year
and a half of delays, flying trial balloons, and countless rewrites,
the Minister of Human Resources Development is finally bringing
down his watered down UI reform proposals. He has even
promised job opportunities and more jobs. Unfortunately while he
has been playing politics a very alarming circumstance has
occurred. Statistics Canada reports that last month the number of
working Canadians fell by 44,000. That is five months of job
growth down the drain. I wonder what is happening here.
My question to the minister is as follows. What if anything are
the minister's UI proposals doing to stimulate job growth in the
private sector?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is abundantly clear to those individuals who have been active
participants in the debate about restructuring Canada's social
security system that the Unemployment Insurance Act as it is today
does not reflect the reality of the workplace. It is for this reason that
the government embarked on a very ambitious project to
modernize Canada's social security system with three major
objectives.
The first objective is to help Canadians find and keep jobs by
providing them with not only income support but also a set of tools
that will allow them to get back to work quickly. The second
objective is to provide protection for the most vulnerable in our
society. I know how the Reform Party feels about that. The third
objective is to develop a system that is sustainable.
The announcement the minister of human resources will make
today will be something Canadians have been waiting for and it
will address those three objectives.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, those
objectives are certainly noble, but the fact of the matter is that job
growth has not occurred. When we saw the minister preparing his
proposal, in the last few days he has been making political
manipulation and changes instead of looking at sound policy.
If the minister is really serious about creating jobs and
improving job opportunities in the country, why did he not slash the
payroll taxes by more than the token five cents that was announced
informally yesterday? My question is clear. The Minister of
Finance has said in the House more than once that payroll taxes kill
jobs. If that is true, why did the Minister of Human Resources
Development not announce a slash greater than five cents?
(1125 )
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is becoming abundantly clear that the Reform Party simply does
not understand even the measures that were taken in the past budget
by the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance has already reduced payroll taxes.
Measures that will be announced later on by the minister will speak
to the issue of job creation, which is an important and fundamental
pillar of the jobs and growth agenda. Not only has this government
created over 500,000 jobs, but we are modernizing the delivery
services. We are engaging the private sector, working together in
partnership with the government through things like national
17084
sectoral councils and youth internship programs, which have
created over 30,000 jobs for young people.
We are modernizing the system and we are creating the climate
that will speak to the issue of job creation.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development has promised that through the
UI proposals there will be job opportunity and job growth. But if
you really look at it, what is the record that is before us?
First of all, there is really nothing in there that is going to break
the cycle of dependency. There is going to be nothing there for
those 44,000 Canadians who just lost their jobs. There is going to
be nothing there for the young people who are looking for jobs at
the present time. There is a lot of politics, but not good, substantial
policy.
My question to the hon. parliamentary secretary is as follows.
After a year and a half of dithering and political manoeuvring here
and top down tinkering and made in Ottawa solutions, what is the
government really going to do through this policy to reduce the
number of unemployed in this country?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should be asking what the government has
already done to create jobs in Canada. We have done a great deal. I
have outlined a number of measures we have taken already.
I find it extremely surprising that a member of the Reform Party,
the same party that does not support the summer job action plan of
this government, which has created over 44,500 jobs, would get up
and claim to be the defender of young people in this country.
It is abundantly clear to the people of Canada that the Reform
members of the opposition have abdicated their responsibilities to
give young people a chance.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. In his memo, Indian Affairs
assistant deputy minister Jack Stagg suggested that federal
subsidies be granted to aboriginal people, first, as compensation for
supporting the no side in the referendum and, second, as a way to
silence native constitutional demands while the federal government
is making pseudo-offers to Quebec.
In light of his ADM's memo, will the minister confirm that he
did not commit and does not intend to commit any federal funds to
cover the costs incurred by the Crees and the Inuit to hold their own
referenda in October?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I can guarantee is that in
Quebec there will be a clear understanding that there is an 1898
line, that the northern two-thirds of Quebec was transferred to
Quebec without the knowledge and consent of the aboriginal
people.
What I will guarantee is that the people of Quebec and Canada
will understand that there is a royal commission report. There is an
opinion from Daniel Turp, which has been hidden by the Bloc, that
states that the rights of the aboriginal people in Quebec are
sovereign, that they are more important than even the rights of
Europeans who came after they did. That is a fact that the
separatists know and are hiding. They put a muzzle on their legal
scholar who advised them of this.
What I will guarantee is that the voice of our Minister of Foreign
Affairs will be heard in Quebec, as will the voices of the thousands
of Canadians who came forward and said to Matthew Coon-Come
and Zebedee Nungak and the Mohawk leaders: ``We understand
finally what you are saying and we are with you''.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): In that case, Mr. Speaker,
will the minister give us formal assurances that, contrary to what
his ADM suggested, his government did not and will not try to buy
the First Nations' silence on their constitutional demands while
Ottawa is making its so-called offers to Quebec?
(1130)
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the silence or the voice of the
aboriginal people is not for sale. Matthew Coon-Come said during
the referendum: ``We are not Canada's Crees; we are not Quebec's
Crees. We are Crees and we are not cattle to be moved around
indiscriminately by ideological separatists at will''.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
federal-provincial financial agreements for the administration of
justice expired over two and a half years ago. The Liberal justice
minister has failed to renegotiate these agreements within that
period.
I ask the justice minister: What is the status of these agreements?
Are they in place and if not, why are they not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would be
good enough to tell me to which agreements he is referring. Is he
referred to the firearms agreements? Is he referring to the cost
17085
sharing agreements for young offenders or legal aid? If the hon.
member would be more specific in his question, I have information
I would be happy to share with him.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last week we
asked the justice minister the same question. Of course the solicitor
general responded by saying he would get back to us. He has not
got back to us with the information. At that time we were quite
specific on what we were referring to.
I will ask the justice minister about the alternative measures
program. The program as defined under Bills C-37 and C-41 will
place a tremendous financial challenge on the provinces which are
tasked with the administration of the program. What financial
agreements if any has the justice minister devised in co-operation
with the provinces, or is he just going to ignore the cost of this
legislation to the provinces and force this legislation on them
together with the financial requirement?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important that the hon.
member refer specifically to the agreements he is asking about.
There are many agreements between the federal government and
the provinces by which we share the cost in the administration of
justice.
The hon. member has now referred to one such program. I am
proud to say that today happens to be the day when the provisions
of Bill C-37 are proclaimed in force and come into effect across the
country. The provisions make extremely important improvements
to strengthen the Young Offenders Act, particularly in relation to
violence.
As the solicitor general said in the House last week in response
to the last question put by the hon. member on this subject, we are
assembling detailed information for the member which we will
give him in the coming days when it is ready. Many of the
agreements which expired some 18 months or two years ago have
since been renewed retroactively to the date of the expiry of the last
set of agreements.
As always, we are continuing our efforts with the provinces to
work toward a justice system that is properly financed, that works
in co-ordination at the various levels of government and that serves
the people of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
The Kahnawake band council has passed a resolution to expel
Peter Jacobs, a resident of the reserve, simply because he is not of
Indian blood, discriminating against him on essentially ethnic
grounds. Mr. Jacobs was adopted when he was three weeks old and
has been living on the reserve for 40 years.
Does the minister support the decision made by the Kahnawake
band council to expel Mr. Jacobs for ethnic reasons?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the same elitist strategy I
heard during the referendum. This is back to blood quantum and
the old Quebec. This is it again.
Let me talk about my experience in Kahnawake when I went
there with Serge Ménard, David Cliche and the solicitor general.
We could have walked in there in peace to sign a policing
agreement but because there was so much animosity built up
between the separatists and people at Kahnawake, the aerials were
ripped off our cars. They jumped in our cars and tried to choke us.
This tells me that the federal Liberals understand the aspirations of
the Mohawk and are able to deal with them and that the path of
elitism the separatists are going on will bring this country to
destruction. These are the types of questions that are the strategies
and policies of the separatist party.
(1135)
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has fiduciary obligations toward aboriginal people; he
grants major subsidies to the various band councils. Therefore, he
is duty-bound to take his responsibilities instead of throwing this
kind of red herring at us.
Does the minister support the Kahnawake band council's
decision and does he intend to take action to prevent Mr. Jacobs'
expulsion, yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now that I understand more
about the Mohawks, I think this type of question is a shame. They
are Quebecers who are part of the city of Montreal. Once again the
separatist party wants to get on blood purity which is where we are
heading with this type of question-
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Yes or no?
Mr. Irwin: Yes or no.
I would suggest that if the Reform wants to go in there-I mean
the Bloc, I mix them up these days; it was a Freudian slip-it
should go in and talk to them and not do as the Bloc critic has done
which is to surreptitiously go from door to door in the Mohawk
17086
community asking: ``Are you happy? Do you have any guns?'' He
got kidnapped by the Mohawks until they found out who he was
and then let him go.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-37 which amended the Young Offenders Act did
not go far enough. Canadians said it and Reform said it, but the
justice minister went ahead with it anyway. Bill C-37 just received
royal assent and the committee is already off on another mission to
uncover the inadequacies of his improved act.
For years Canadians have been telling governments what is
wrong with the YOA but governments will not listen. The minister
did not listen to witnesses appearing before the committee last
time. What assurance can he give them that he will listen this time?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member demonstrates on
this issue as on so many others his preference for volume over
analysis and his preference for rhetoric over reality.
Bill C-37 is an effective and insightful advance for the youth
justice system in this country. It helps us to deal far more
appropriately with violence among young people especially in the
16 and 17-year old age group.
At the time we introduced Bill C-37 we said that it was only a
beginning and that more was required. We asked the justice
committee, on which the member's colleagues sit along with
members of our party, to undertake across Canada a comprehensive
full analysis of the youth justice system to see how else it could be
improved. That is the work in which the committee is engaged. It is
important work and will result in recommendations to which we
will pay attention.
If the hon. member thinks there is some better way to go about it,
I would like to hear from him.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the reason I might resort to volume from time to time is in
the hope the message might get through to the minister.
The Minister of Justice has sent the justice committee packing.
The committee is to cross the country seeking the opinions of
Canadians on his new and improved Young Offenders Act. Will the
justice minister commit today to the members of the standing
committee, to all members of this House and more important, to all
Canadians, that he will listen and pay attention to the
recommendations of the committee, or will this be just another
colossal waste of taxpayers' time and money?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also demonstrates
that he is unable to accept yes for an answer.
Had he spoken with members of his own party who were at the
committee hearing when I addressed them two weeks ago, he
would know that I told the committee that this is an open minded,
no holds barred, top to bottom review of the youth justice system.
I have asked the committee members to speak to police officers,
to parents, to school principals and to young people themselves. I
have asked them to speak to the provinces to determine their
experience with the Young Offenders Act and its administration
and to return with recommendations for further change. That is the
way the process works. That is the functioning of democracy. I urge
the hon. member to take a responsible part in it.
* * *
(1140)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Today is World
AIDS Day. The epidemic, far from being under control, has
reached unexpected proportions. From 1982 to 1995, 15,000 cases
of AIDS were reported in Canada. Over the next five years, another
15,000 cases will be identified. In the meantime, the minister does
nothing but make empty speeches and is incapable of pledging to
maintain the national AIDS strategy.
Given the terrible ravages of that disease, how can the minister
justify that she is contemplating saving $40.7 million per year, at
the expense of people living with AIDS, by giving up the national
AIDS strategy? Such a decision would be shameful.
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member very well knows the answer to his question which
is that HIV/AIDS and the battle against it remains a priority for this
government.
Phase two of the strategy is scheduled to end in 1998. In the two
years we have been here we have made dramatic cuts in every other
program, but that is one program which has not been touched. We
continue to spend $40.7 million a year on this strategy. That being
said, we will continue to think of this as a priority, but we must
reorganize the financing.
At this time we are working out the ways by which we can
continue financing this very worthwhile initiative. We have at least
until the next budget to announce exactly how we will reallocate
funds to continue to support these very worthwhile programs.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that, in spite of the growing epidemic, the
minister has not even managed to spend all the moneys allocated
to her for the fight against AIDS. I ask her to rise in this House and
17087
to promise on her honour to extend the strategy and to spend the
funds allocated. This would be the best way for her to show
solidarity with the victims, and I hope she will make that
commitment.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
every dollar is spent very carefully. As you know, the mere fact that
we have a dollar in our pocket does not mean that we should waste
it. This is why the government invests in good programs.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the hon. member will be pleased
to hear that at least half a million dollars will be allocated to
programs in Quebec, including one in his riding. The hon. member
should be thankful, instead of attacking us.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Industry.
Recently, Quebec's environment minister wrote to the federal
Minister of the Environment suggesting amendments be made to
the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to improve environmental
protection. Can the minister tell me whether any action has been
taken to prevent the dumping of contaminated buildings and
worksites on local governments?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday I was very pleased to table a bill containing many
amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, including ones
that deal particularly with the issue the hon. member has
mentioned.
This is the first time that the bankruptcy act has had provisions
that have been intended to enable trustees in bankruptcy to take
possession of assets that pose environmental risks.
We have given claims which stem from environmental damage
priority over those of other creditors, both secured and unsecured,
so that dealing with contaminated properties and properties that are
adjacent to the property where the damage occurred and linked to
the activity that caused the environmental damage will be able to
be used as a priority claim in order to effect the clean-up. This will
not only relieve some of the responsibility from local governments,
but it will also ensure that trustees are willing to move in and take
on some of these very difficult files.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the Minister of Justice said that the primary objective of
his department was for a fair and responsive system of justice.
(1145 )
It is over a year and a half since I asked the minister to review the
Patrick Kelly case. Over two years ago the key witness in the case
admitted she lied during the trial. This witness's false testimony
put Mr. Kelly, a former RCMP officer, behind bars.
We could very well have put an innocent man in prison for the
past 14 years. Now this witness, presently in the U.S., refuses to
testify further.
What is the minister's department doing to ensure the interviews
with this witness are completed in order that a section 690 review
in the Kelly case can proceed?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member
for his question, for his continuing interest in this case which I
know is genuine, and for his interest in the administration of
justice.
Throughout the past months I have been advised by independent
counsel that I retained to help me with the assessment of this case.
That independent counsel working with lawyers for the applicant,
Mr. Kelly, and the witness have participated in interviews. There
have been three attendances for that purpose.
I believe the work with that witness has now been virtually
completed. I am awaiting a final report and recommendations from
the independent counsel. I am keenly aware that time has past since
the application has been brought, but I will publish with the
eventual disposition of the case a chronology of the developments
so that the member and everybody else can see for themselves how
this case has been dealt with. I will of course take responsibility for
that.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the minister's response.
The minister promised in response to my earlier questions in the
House to release relevant files to Clayton Ruby, Mr. Kelly's lawyer.
However, the justice minister has been stalling for two years and
refuses to provide the files required for Mr. Kelly's defence.
There is little reason not to release the files as the information
being withheld from Mr. Kelly's lawyer was collected at public
expense by a public agency for use in a public prosecution.
The minister has stated that he wants a fair and responsive
system of justice. Will the minister stop stalling and release the
files to Mr. Kelly's lawyer?
17088
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the release of those files has given
rise to an issue with respect to the terms on which the release
should take place. The files are not the property of the Department
of Justice. They belong to the metropolitan Toronto police. They
were made available to us on certain conditions.
The justice department has said in effect to Mr. Kelly's counsel:
``We will allow you access to what we've been given but on certain
conditions''. Mr. Kelly's counsel has not found those conditions
acceptable. He has taken another position. Quite properly he is
acting for his client diligently. We are discussing the terms under
which we will release the documents.
Our purpose is not to stall. Our purpose is to ensure that if and
when we do release documents, we do it showing proper respect to
their origin and to our obligations as custodian to the people who
generated them. I am certain we will be able to work out terms
acceptable to all parties and make them available soon.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. The Food and
Drug Administration has authorized the marketing of a drug, 3TC,
in the U.S. before Canada has authorized it, although they both
received applications at the same time and although the drug was
discovered in Quebec, at Laval. Worse still, in both the U.S. and
Canada, examination of the drug submission was fast tracked.
How can the minister explain that fast tracking of drugs moves
faster in the United States than in Canada, and that the Canadian
fast track looks more like a secondary road than a super highway?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
can tell you we are hoping for a decision on this in the near future.
There is one thing that ought to be pointed out, which is that the
Government of Canada ought to be receiving praise, along with
Health Canada, for providing substantial funding to help in the
development of this product.
(1150)
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the member speaks of hoping for a decision and I must
point out to her that what she is hoping for, we are hoping for even
more, but it is our impression that our hopes are often in vain.
Is the minister aware that the administrative slowness of her
department has resulted in a mere 2,500 patients being able to
benefit from this drug, whereas if 3TC obtained commercial
authorization from Health Canada all of the people living with
AIDS, four times that figure, could have access to it?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
shall repeat what I said. The scientists of Health Canada are doing
their job, and they will be giving us a decision shortly. I believe,
however, that the hon. member may not have her facts exactly
right. The companies applied for drug approval in the U.S. first,
before Canada. The Americans have just now given approval.
Some time is needed for decisions to be reached on protocols that
are not favourable. I believe the hon. member will not be
disappointed. Health Canada is doing its job, and doing it well.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food is developing the reputation of being able to give nice,
long, flowery speeches but not being able to make up his mind and
he cannot meet his deadlines. Let us see if he can break this habit of
indecision.
The minister's senior executive officer group, which is also
called the May 16th group, has put forward a proposal to sell
13,000 hopper cars dedicated to the hauling of prairie grain by the
railroads for $100 million.
Has the minister made up his mind? If he has it will be earth
shattering. Has he made up his mind to accept the offer or reject it?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties in
responding to questions from the Reform Party is that its members
consistently get their facts wrong. Once again the hon. gentleman
has done exactly that.
He refers to a group within the grains industry called the May
16th group. He also refers to an advisory group of grains industry
executives called the SEO group. The hon. gentleman should know
those are two quite separate things. They are not one and the same.
The SEO group has come forward with certain recommendations
about grain car ownership and grain car allocation procedures.
Those recommendations have been presented for consideration to
the May 16th group, as well as to some western Canadian farm
organizations.
Those farm organizations are still in the process of considering
the set of recommendations from the SEO group. Until I have the
considered opinion of the farm organizations it would be highly
inappropriate to make a final decision before getting their advice.
The hon. gentleman talks about grassroots political consultation
and discussion. He suggests that we should get advice from farm
organizations, but in his question he suggests that we make a
17089
decision today which pre-empts the opportunity to get that advice
through consultation, and that we will not do.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we just saw an excellent example of the flowery
speech and no decision whatsoever.
The minister is waffling. He is sending strange signals to the
industry. He is not listening to those who have been putting input
into the whole process. Maybe we can give him the benefit of the
doubt. Maybe he is trying to get a better deal for farmers.
Is he proposing that if the railroads buy the cars, worth over $300
million for the fire sale price of $100 million, that the railroads will
then agree not to increase the freight rates by the $1 a time which
they are currently proposing? Is that what he is working for? Why
is he delaying?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman fails to
appreciate is that the set of recommendations put forward by the
group of senior executive officers in the grains industry is a
package proposal which involves a number of recommendations
that move in a variety of different directions.
He has spoken, for example, about the recommendation relating
to the possible sale of hopper cars. What he has not referred to is
the fact that another recommendation from that very same group of
senior executive officers proposes that there ought to be some kind
of maximum ceiling with respect to freight rates extending over a
period of 10 years.
It is significant that the Reform Party has consistently opposed
that kind of protection for farmers.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
the Environment.
(1155 )
The UN weather agency reported this week that the hole in the
earth's ozone shield covers an area twice the size of Europe. The
hole grew again this year at the highest rate ever, threatening the
globe with increased exposure to deadly ultraviolet radiation.
What is the Canadian government doing to prevent the deadly
environmental catastrophe of ozone depletion?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of the Environment will be attending the
seventh meeting of the Montreal protocol which starts on Monday
in Vienna.
She will be reinforcing Canada's commitment to an accelerated
ozone layer program which has already been endorsed by the
Council of Canadian Ministers of the Environment. This means
working toward zero discharge of ozone depleting substances. It
means phasing out HCFCs by the year 2010. It means continuing to
work with Agriculture and Agri-food Canada on methyl bromide.
Most important, it means a committed research program into
alternatives to ozone depleting substances.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
The first quarterly report on job cuts in the public service
indicates that so far Quebec has received more than 28 per cent of
federal job cuts. This situation discriminates against Quebec,
which before the cuts had only 19.3 per cent of federal public
service jobs.
Considering that Quebec's under-representation within the
federal public service has already caused it to lose more than
22,500 full-time jobs, what justification does the minister have for
letting Quebec absorb more than 28 per cent of the cuts in the
federal public service?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the cuts are proportional right across the country.
The first quarterly report of early departures from the public
service are by and large on a voluntary basis. Some people went out
under the early retirement incentive program. I do not think those
numbers can be taken as any disproportion across the system.
Overall the program is going quite well right across the country.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last October the deputy minister of
immigration signed a memorandum of understanding in Vietnam
which allowed for the return of criminal refugees and immigrants
from that country.
However, this week when the Vancouver Sun requested a copy of
that memorandum of understanding, the department refused to give
it to them because it could potentially damage bilateral relations.
Will the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration assure the
House that the agreement will be made public forthwith and
explain to us what is in the memorandum of understanding which if
it is made public might damage bilateral relationships?
17090
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the intent of the government
is to seek as many removal agreements as possible so that
individuals who are to be deported can be facilitated without any
problems.
Through some diligent work, we have been able to obtain such
agreements with Jamaica and Vietnam, among others. We were the
first country to return individuals to Laos.
We have often heard from members of the third party about the
whole question of trying to get these removal agreements and that
we would never be able to obtain them. Now that we have them,
they ask if they can see them.
In respect to the agreement we signed with Vietnam, it was at
Vietnam's request that the agreement be kept confidential. The
government and the department have no difficulty if the
Vietnamese government agrees to make it public. We have no
concerns whatsoever. It is at Vietnam's request and we have
respected the confidentiality.
However, the question at the heart of this is the importance of
removing individuals who should not be here in the first place. That
is being done.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Today on World AIDS Day, she will know that there has been
great concern about the prospects for long term research into the
area of HIV and AIDS.
(1200 )
The funding at this point goes to 1998, but the minister will
know that research has to be done in a longitudinal manner over a
period of time. Would the minister today state specifically what her
plans are to ensure that there is a long term plan and strategy in
place for AIDS research?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the hon. member's question because it is a very serious
matter, which we are working diligently to address.
We hope to have some resolution to that question and ensure
there is ongoing funding within Health Canada for research and
programs having to do with AIDS and HIV. It is something we will
hopefully have resolved within the next few months.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
the Environment.
Next Monday, December 4, Ethyl Corporation in the United
States is going to start shipping MMT to American refiners for use
in gasoline. Having regard for the fact that the environment
department has talked of the absolute necessity of uniform gasoline
standards between Canada and the United States, can the
parliamentary secretary tell us what uniform standards we are
going to follow in Canada? Is it going to be with MMT or without
MMT?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the reason we have proceeded with Bill C-94, which is
presently in third reading in the House and which would ban MMT,
is essentially an environmental reason. MMT impairs catalysts and
sensors in modern automobiles, which are supposed to lead to
cleaner fuel emissions.
We want to ban MMT and follow the lead of many states of the
United States-California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois-that
are using reformulated gasoline without MMT. This is the option
we have chosen, to use cleaner burning fuels, to use reformulated
gasoline. So we are going to be committed to working very hard to
make sure Bill C-94 becomes a reality very soon.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order with regard to the amendments relative to the distinct
society motion. I am not pressing you for a timetable, but I was
wondering if you could indicate to us whether you have a time line
as to when you will be advising the House with regard to your
ruling.
The Speaker: I have instructed the clerk of the House and our
researchers to go over it. I wanted to take my time on this, as I
believe it is going to be reintroduced next week. You will have my
decision before we take up the debates again.
_____________________________________________
17090
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of
Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table in both official
17091
languages copies of the 1993-1994 annual review of the Western
Arctic Inuvialuit Claim Implementation Commission.
* * *
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 eight petitions.
* * *
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of
Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table in both official
languages copies of the 1994-1995 annual report of the Nunavut
Implementation Commission. Also under the provisions of
Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table in both official
languages copies of the comprehensive report of the Nunavut
Implementation Commission, ``Footprints in New Snow''.
* * *
(1205)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 106th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the
membership of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this
report later this day.
* * *
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-111, an
act respecting employment insurance in Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-112, an
act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-113, an act to amend the Standards
Council of Canada Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the House gives its consent, I move:
That the 106th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
petition is from petitioners who are movers or those who are
involved with that industry.
They want the government to examine very carefully its policy
with regard to household goods removal services. They obviously
want to ensure that there is a good deal for Canadian taxpayers. At
the same time, they want a solution that will not be destabilize their
industry, their involvement, their small businesses.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has
been circulating all across Canada. This petition has been signed by
a number of Canadians from Formosa, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
17092
an honourable profession, which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care
in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill
or the aged.
(1210)
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a second petition I wish to present, which has also been circulating
across Canada. This particular petition has been signed by a
number of Canadians from Sarnia, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House
that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability, and specifically that fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risk associated with alcohol consumption.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, today I am pleased to
present two petitions sponsored by Sun Hope in memory of André
Castet, with over 500 signatures from the residents of British
Columbia, many in my own riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam.
These Canadians express the need for substantial revisions to the
Young Offenders Act and reject the tinkering and posturing of this
government in legislation and its inactivity such as we see in Bill
C-37.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this World
AIDS Day I am honoured to present this petition signed by over
3,200 Canadians from every region of Canada.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to consider a program of
long term stabilized funding of AIDS research proportionate to the
HIV population in Canada. Canada ranks third among G-7
countries in its incidence of HIV but ranks last in AIDS research
funding.
I fully concur with the request of these petitioners.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present the
petitions of 1,000 Winnipegers from my constituency of Winnipeg
North and beyond, who pray that the surety bond be not imposed on
applicants for immigration and as well to have the landing fee
collected at the time of the issuance of the visas of applicants.
They remind members of the House that immigrants do provide
a strength for our economic and social fabric.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to bring forward a petition from a great number of
people in southern Ontario who are opposed to the approval of
synthetic bovine growth hormone, the drug injected into cows to
increase milk production.
They say there have not been sufficient studies to warrant this
process, that there is a great risk to the health of people, not to
mention the damage to the cows themselves. Australia, New
Zealand, and the European Community have refused to approve
BGH.
The petitioners want Parliament to take steps to keep BGH out of
Canada through legislating a moratorium or stoppage of BGH use
and sale until the year 2000 and to examine the outstanding health
and economic questions through an independent and transparent
review.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to present a petition signed by 182 residents of British
Columbia, forwarded to me by Mrs. Margaret Wiens of 100 Mile
House.
These petitioners call upon the government to enact immediate
legislation for freedom of choice in health care; that is, full
integration of alternative practitioners, homoeopathic, herbal,
naturopathic, et cetera, into the Canadian health care system, with
full and equal coverage for visits and necessary remedies.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
>
17093
17093
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1215)
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise today to speak to the House on Bill C-110.
I have heard in recent days the speeches of a number of our
colleagues in the Liberal Party and the other opposition party. I
realized that I should perhaps offer a somewhat broader criticism of
the bill.
Those who spoke from the Bloc Quebecois very successfully
pointed out the extremely limited nature and scope of what is being
called a sort of veto power, which will be loaned to Quebec and
certain regions in Canada, so we can say that the Prime Minister
has begun to fulfil the promise he made to Quebecers in the final
days of the campaign.
I would like to make clear that the issues of the veto, the distinct
society and the transfers of jurisdiction, do not only involve
constitutional change. These issues are at the heart of what we
Quebecers see as Quebec's destiny.
This week a paper reported a survey. Canadians in Quebec and
elsewhere were being asked about their perception of Canada, their
vision of its future. Basically, they were being asked whether, in
their opinion, Canada comprised two groups, was the union of two
equal language groups or was the juxtaposition of 10 provinces
forming a country. The results differ significantly according to
whether they come from Quebec, the west, Ontario or the Atlantic
provinces.
I think this survey takes us to the heart of the debate, which
involves defining Canada What was it in the past? What is it now?
We see that Canadians are not agreed on how they view their
country. We see that 64 per cent of Canadians believe basically that
Canada is the union of 10 provinces. Twenty-four per cent think it
is the union of two equal language groups: anglophones and
francophones.
These figures are surprising. Yet, when we look at the
distribution by region and province, we see that the split is quite
substantial, even dramatic. We see that 70 per cent of Ontarians, 73
per cent of Maritimers, and 76 per cent of the people in the prairies
think that Canada is the union of 10 provinces. In Quebec, however,
42 per cent of the people see Canada as the union of 10 provinces,
37 per cent as the union of two equal linguistic groups, and 15 per
cent as neither.
These figures-42, 37 and 15 per cent-remind me of the results
of some polls conducted during the referendum campaign. Some of
the polls, perhaps those taken at the beginning of the campaign,
showed that 42 per cent of respondents intended to vote no and 37
per cent to vote yes, with 15 or 20 per cent undecided.
As these figures demonstrate, the heart of the problem with
Canada and Quebec is that Canadians and Quebecers do not see
Canada in the same way. That is why we in Quebec talk about a
veto, why we see this reality as important.
(1220)
If we look at the people in the rest of Canada, we realize that they
do not see all this as important. I have not heard people from B.C.,
Ontario or the Atlantic region say that they should have a veto on
constitutional changes in Canada. Only Quebec makes this
demand.
Why is Quebec making this demand? Because Quebec is
basically a people who want to preserve their identity, who want to
continue to be themselves. That is the reason why they want to have
a say in any constitutional change. That is what lies at the heart of
the debate on the right of veto.
It does not matter to us if this will be done this way or that way,
if B.C. will have the same veto power as Ontario, if the Atlantic
provinces will have a say, if Prince Edward Island will make
special demands. To us, veto power is a matter of defending our
distinctive culture, of defending what makes us a people. That is
why, in the 30 years I have been following politics, Quebec has
always had problems with respect to the right of veto. Not because
we want to make trouble for Canada, but because it touches the
very essence of who we are.
As you may recall, in the 1960s, there was the proposed
constitutional amending formula called the Fulton-Favreau
formula; there was the Victoria formula; there were the protests by
certain Quebec movements when the Constitution was patriated.
We were reminded yesterday that Quebec sovereignists voted
against the Meech Lake accord. Just as well, since Meech was
some kind of a reorganization of Canada designed to satisfy the
very minimal demands put forward by the then Premier of Quebec,
and those demands did not reflect in any way what I feel Quebec's
basic needs are.
On the one hand, there were those who had a blueprint for
nationhood and, on the other, there were those with nothing better
to offer at the time than some vague revamping of the Canadian
Constitution. In that context, I think that we sovereignists had a
right-we did not have a choice really-to oppose this
constitutional revamping.
I am puzzled about some of the attacks on us, when I hear people
say about certain Bloc members: ``So and so, who was sitting at the
Quebec National Assembly at the time, voted against the Meech
Lake accord''. It is a good thing they did, because this accord was a
17094
way for the federalists, who do not recognize Quebec as a people,
to revamp the Constitution in the hope that, slowly but surely, we
would all die off and disappear.
That is why, when we Quebecers are offered amending formulas,
our gut reflex is: ``Watch out. Red alert. They are dealing with
fundamental aspects that make us what we are''. We want to remain
what we are and, in the future, to develop our own identity that
makes us a part, as we see it, of the world community.
That is why, whenever the concept of a distinct society, a veto or
administrative transfers are brought up, we consistently oppose
them, because we believe that our future is in building in North
America our own sovereign country, in order to be able to establish
normal state-to-state relations with other peoples: the people of
Canada, the people of the United States and the people of other
sovereign countries of the world. That is the crux of the matter.
I can understand why many of our colleagues, members of both
the government party or the third party, are tired of hearing our
arguments because they take the same view of this issue as the
other Canadians who tell us that Canada is a juxtaposition of ten
provinces.
(1225)
I can understand that they are tired of our arguments, of listening
to us. I hope that, in the years to come, an agreement can be
negotiated on new terms so that, in a spirit of mutual respect, we in
Quebec can remain who we are and English Canada can continue to
develop as it pleases, without either of us interfering with each
other's growth, as the people of Canada and the people of Quebec.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to address Bill C-110, which I will refer to as the veto
act. First, let us ask ourselves this basic question: Who speaks for
whom, in Quebec? Let us look at that question in the context of the
House of Commons.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois keep saying: ``We are the ones
speaking for Quebecers''. I am sorry, but there are also Liberal
members representing Quebec ridings. There are 20 of us here who
speak for Quebec. Furthermore, an independent member, who sits
next to me, as well as a Conservative member, also speak for
Quebec. Therefore, Bloc members are not the only ones
representing Quebec's interests in this House.
Let us not forget that Quebecers voted no in the referendum.
Consequently, it is the Quebec Liberal members of this House, not
the Bloc members, who won the referendum, albeit by a narrow
margin. As member for Brome-Missisquoi, I can certainly speak
on behalf of the majority of Quebecers who voted no.
It is true that those who voted no also expressed a strong desire
for change. Not a desire to separate, but a desire for change. Even a
leader of the yes side, Mr. Dumont, says so in today's issue of La
Presse: ``If Quebecers had said yes, we would be in the process of
implementing the plan that had been drawn up. However, this is not
the case. The no side won by pledging to make changes. Let us see
what they have to offer. This is not my first choice, since I was on
the opposite side during the referendum campaign''.
The Leader of the Action Démocratique does not think that his
party members will reject his position. He adds: ``Our
post-referendum strategy is simple. We must look after our
economy and our public finances. As for Ottawa, it must define the
changes promised during the campaign. We will let them work and,
if they make a proposal, we will look at it''. So, the desire for
change expressed during the referendum campaign is definitely not
a desire to separate.
The changes that people are asking for from their federal elected
representatives are changes that affect them. They are not changes
that would make Ottawa or Quebec bigger, but changes that reflect
people's needs. This is what is important. Those who count are
those who sent us here. We are accountable to them. But what
changes do these people expect from us?
As I see it, there are two types. One year ago, I was campaigning
to represent my party in Brome-Missisquoi. Then the by-election
took place, followed by the referendum. In that one year, I spent
more time campaigning in Quebec than I did in this House.
(1230)
I talked to a lot of people during the past year. What kind of
changes do people want? There are two kinds. First, a change in the
way we do things and second, recognition of our way of life.
First, the way we do things. When you go out and meet people,
they tell you: ``We are fed up with taxes. We are being taxed out of
existence. We are fed up with bureaucracy and red tape. So why not
let Quebec and Ottawa get together and see whether something can
be done about getting rid of all this duplication? Why not give a
little more power to the private citizen?'' People want to be
involved.
As for recognition of our way of life, I think that is what people
want, along with recognition of Quebec's language, culture, legal
traditions and institutions.
A resolution was presented in this House to recognize the people
of Quebec as a distinct society. A bill was introduced more or less
at the same time-the bill we are debating now-that gives veto
powers to Quebec and other regions in Canada. It is not perfect, but
is perfection possible in this world? Is it be better to entrench this
in the Constitution than to have a bill? Yes, it would be better.
17095
Soon, in 1997, there will be a meeting of provincial premiers. Yes,
it is better.
Would it be better to have more rather than fewer regions? I am
not sure. But I do think the government has made a very good start
by putting something on the table quickly after the referendum.
So what do we do now? What do we do? After the veto bill we
are debating now is adopted, we will see if by 1997, we can reach a
consensus within this country, within Canada. We will see whether
we can constitutionalize, perhaps by 1997 or whenever, the concept
of distinct society.
But, as I said earlier, the citizen comes first. We will have to
prepare a package of changes, changes that are crucial and
thorough, and we will have to do it now, but we should keep it
simple: look at duplication, decentralize administrations and
standardize paperwork. I think we should go for solutions that have
a direct impact on the public.
We must also make the citizens of this country proud to be
Canadians. And part of that is teaching Canadian history in our
schools. Part of it is young people knowing the words of our
national anthem. Part of it is flying our flag everywhere. Part of it
is encouraging Quebecers to meet people and travel in other
provinces and vice versa.
The veto powers we are discussing today are like the oil I put in
the hydraulic system of my backhoe so I can raise the shovel.
It is important that all of us in this House, irrespective of our
political affiliations, have only the interests of the citizen at heart.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this speech is not directed at the individuals in the House.
It is directed at the people of Canada. The crisis that we face today
supersedes politics. It supersedes the gamesmanship that we see in
the House. It supersedes what goes on in committee. It is an issue
that affects the very soul of Canada.
(1235 )
Never in the past 50 years has there been such a crisis in our
midst, a crisis that will change the very face of the country that we
know and love. Never have we needed leadership more but never
have we seen such a dearth of leadership. It almost caused our
country to fracture last October 30.
The current proposals in Bill C-110 are ineffective. They are
meant to appease the separatists within this House and they are
meant to appease the separatist leaders in Quebec. The fact of the
matter is that the separatist leadership wants one thing and one
thing alone: a separate, independent Quebec.
Anything the government does is going to be ineffective.
Therefore the proposals the government makes must not be
addressed to the separatist leadership, not to the separatist party,
but to the people of Quebec. That is the intent of what we are trying
to accomplish here. We are trying to keep this country together, not
for politicians, not for political parties, but for the people of
Canada.
The fundamental overriding principle of being Canadian is
equality for everyone. If we do not have equality for all of us then
we have equality for no one. It is something that Canadians have
fought for in two world wars, which the brave men and women in
our armed forces fight for today, peace and equality in far off lands.
To the people of Quebec I say you are afraid of losing your
culture, you are afraid of losing your language. You do not wish to
become like the French culture in the southern United States. But
your culture is important to us, your language is important to us. It
enriches each and every one of us.
In the same vein, our culture, our history and the culture and the
history of the multiple ethnic groups that make up Canada must be
important to you too. We in the Reform Party have proposed that
culture and language be given to the provinces, all of the provinces,
including Quebec. Here you can be the masters of your own
cultural and linguistic destinies.
To the people of Quebec I also say, you are fed up with
unnecessary duplication, you are fed up with unnecessary
interventions by Ottawa. But so is the rest of the country. That is
why in order to reduce waste and save taxpayers' money we have
submitted proposals to decentralize various areas such as natural
resources, manpower training, housing, tourism and such.
The people of Quebec are fed up with the high federal debt, but
so is the rest of Canada. Understand one thing. If Quebecers leave
Canada they must understand very clearly that they will walk away
with their share of the national debt.
To the people of Quebec I say, you are fed up with taxes which
go to Ottawa and are wasted but understand, so is the rest of
Canada. The rest of Canada has the same interests that the vast
majority of the people of Quebec have. It would be a shame to have
the people of Quebec separate from Canada over an eventuality that
will come to pass anyway. In most ways the same desires of the
people of Quebec are shared by people in every province within our
country. I ask them to work with everybody else in order to
accomplish this.
The separatists want to secede to preserve the Quebec culture but
they can only do this by preventing non-francophone people from
coming into Quebec. That is why they want to control immigration.
That is their intent. They want to create a pure laine population.
Fantasy? Hardly. Bloc Quebecois members previous to the refer-
17096
endum said that the only true Quebecer is one that is a member of la
pure laine.
This was confirmed by racist statements made by Mr. Parizeau
and Mr. Landry that blamed them for the failure of Quebec to
succeed in the referendum. They put that responsibility on the
shoulders of hardworking immigrant populations in Quebec.
Accidental? Not at all. Why? Because they want to drive the
immigrant population from Quebec to increase, relatively
speaking, the yes vote for separation.
However, the people of Quebec do not want this. The people of
Quebec are not xenophobes. They are not intolerant. They are not
racist. Their leaders are but they are not. This is something they
need remember. They would be embarrassed to know some of the
things that have been said by some of their leaders.
(1240)
I ask the people of Quebec why investors would want go to
Quebec to start companies and create jobs in a climate of obsolete
economic ideas, an enormously high debt and intolerance?
This brings me to the motivation of the separatist leadership.
They warp history. They lie about economic facts. They muzzle
their own people which prevents them from getting the facts. Why
are they doing this? They are doing it for their own gain and the
gain is power. It is power for the separatist leadership in Quebec
and has nothing to do with benefiting the average citizen in
Quebec.
The pursuit of the separatist leadership in Quebec has very little
to do with the people of Quebec. The leadership knows its actions
and activities are just going to drag down the average citizen in
Quebec. Those who will be hurt the most are those who are the
poorest in that province.
We agree with the people of Quebec in wanting to be the masters
of their own linguistic and cultural destinies for it is their culture
and their language that enriches us all. We are, after all, a part of a
multi-ethnic mélange of different groups. French history is a part of
our history and is a fundamental, important and integral part of
Canada.
Canada needs leadership and it needs it now. It needs leadership
to put this issue of Canadian unity beyond the realm and the arena
of politics. If this issue is left to the politicians it will be lethal for
Canadian unity. All the people of Canada must understand that.
I implore and beseech the people of this country to come
together: francophones, allophones, anglophones, all the ethnic
groups, all the cultures and all the languages, under the umbrella of
understanding and tolerance. It is something that all Canadians are
proud of. From outside Canada it is how we are seen. We are
looked at as being a country that exhibits the best examples of
culture and tolerance.
However, if ever there was a need for us to demonstrate this to its
greatest extent it is now. We must all come together. Anglophones
must travel to Quebec. Quebecers must travel into the rest of
Canada to see the importance of having our cultures united, not
separate.
There is no reason why the people of Quebec cannot have what
they asked for in terms of preserving their culture and language in
North America. The rest of Canada does not want that to be lost, it
wants it to stay. It wants it to stay in the framework of equality,
respect and tolerance for all Canadians.
Quite frankly, the policies that have been put forward in Bill
C-110, rather than bringing people together, are actually divisive.
The people in the rest of Canada see this as a way of making them
second class citizens. I hope the people of Quebec understand this.
They want nothing more than to be equal with Canadians and with
Quebecers. They want nothing more and nothing less.
In closing, our country is the greatest country in the world. It is a
land of tolerance and unity. It is made up of a mélange of different
ethnic groups of which the French Canadian heritage and culture is
one of the most important. I ask the people of Quebec, not the
politicians, to join us in unity to build a stronger, united Canada for
all people.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on
the Prime Minister's unity initiative. In particular, I am going to
address the distinct character of Quebec, the fact that it is different
which is an obvious and inevitable reality. There are four simple
and straightforward truths members of Parliament must keep in
mind during this debate.
(1245)
The first truth is very clear and it must remain at the heart of our
debate: Canada is the best country in the world in which to live.
Today we are discussing our future. We are discussing evolution.
Anyone can discuss whatever they want in this land because we
live in the most free and democratic country in which all of us are
equal citizens with equal rights.
The second truth is that the Prime Minister, the government and
Parliament have a duty to preserve the unity of Canada as a nation
indivisible.
The third truth must be obvious to every member of Parliament.
Canadians have called for change and they have called for change
based upon goodwill, change based upon reaching out, change
based upon open arms, open minds and open hearts. As a member
of Parliament from Montreal, I saw this reality with my own eyes,
particularly during the unity rally in our city.
17097
The fourth truth is that the Prime Minister of Canada keeps his
word. The Prime Minister said he would introduce measures to
declare Quebec a distinct society and to offer a constitutional veto
and Canadians know that they can count on him to do exactly what
he promised to do. He is a man of his word and he has done it.
Now we must move forward to close the gap, to bridge the gulf
that seemingly divides.
This resolution is not about every person or every province or
every political party demanding to get its own way. This legislation
is about Canada and Canadians finding a better way.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Comme en 1982.
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Oh, oh.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Pendant des années.
Mrs. Finestone: This resolution is about Parliament showing
leadership by saying we will take another step in finding
understanding. We will take another step in recognizing the reality
of Canada. We will demonstrate that we are determined to keep
faith-
An. hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Finestone: Listen, do you guys want to have a fight?
We will demonstrate that we are determined to keep faith with
both the heritage and the potential of our wonderful country.
We recognize that Quebec is a province with a legal system that
is not based on common law, but on the civil code. It is the home of
a diverse population of anglophones, allophones, and a majority
who are French speaking Canadians who are also diverse. We will
not just talk about good intentions. We are building trust by acting
on those good intentions. This measure before Parliament is based
on the reality of Canada.
Unfortunately, as all Canadians know, anything proposed by the
Government of Canada will never go far enough to satisfy the Parti
Quebecois or for that matter the Bloc Quebecois. Equally
unfortunate, anything proposed by the Government of Canada will
never go far enough to satisfy the Reform Party. Those people will
never be satisfied.
Thank goodness this debate is not about keeping those people
happy. This debate is about keeping Canada together. This debate is
about satisfying the people inside and outside of Quebec who
understand that the me generation has passed and the we generation
has arrived. It is no longer about cutting the best deal for yourself.
It is about reaching the best solution for the future of our country. It
is about building the new Canada. It is about standing proud and
tall for the maple leaf. Canadians from coast to coast to coast must
rise above their differences and realize that there is so much more
that unites than that which divides us.
[Translation]
We have experienced many problems throughout our history but
have always found a way to resolve them, for we understand that
compassion is far more humane than conflict.
We understand that tolerance is far superior to intransigence. We
understand that allowing our fellow citizens to reach their full
potential does nothing to diminish us. Canadians know that we
cannot build a big country on small minds.
(1250)
[English]
Canadians know that we cannot build a big country on little
minds.
[Translation]
Canadians are not expecting miracles, nor are they looking for
heaven here on earth. But they are entitled to expect that the
Parliament of Canada will do its utmost, will take the right actions,
will adopt the appropriate principles, in order to recognize the
modern reality of Canada and to show its true commitment to
strengthening the ties among the members of Canada's diversified
population.
[English]
I hope that Quebecers and non-Quebecers alike will urge
members of Parliament from all parties to keep the big picture in
mind. I hope they will urge members of Parliament to take
meaningful and realistic steps toward progress.
Canadians are people of moderation and modesty. From time to
time we are also a people of passion. We try always to be people of
principle, of fairness and of optimism. Throughout their history
Canadians have overcome their differences and succeeded beyond
the wildest dreams of the founders of this nation. We did it in the
end after much reflection by appealing to the better side of our
nature as human beings and by acting on the better side of our
nature as citizens.
Recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, providing a new
constitutional veto and bringing government closer to the people
are the vital and important issues. Those are the proposals which
the government is moving to turn into reality. What is at stake is
keeping our word, keeping faith with the dreams of Canadians,
re-energizing our national unity and revitalizing the very best
country in the world.
When political discourse becomes invective, when rhetoric over
reality becomes overheated, it begets intolerance, instability and
fear. When political leaders target identifiable groups-and we
have had more than enough of that-when they blame specific
communities, they are offensive and they fuel exclusion, anger and
resentment. They are a blot on the good name, the goodwill and the
respect we have built for our society both here in Canada and
17098
around the world. When bigots like Pierre Bourgault and his ilk
spew their invective, they show that they have no place in our
caring society.
I know that the vast majority of Quebecers reject those
exclusionary, racist remarks and recognize that we as
Quebecers-and that includes some of you on the other side-are
all welcome, we are all included and we are all equal, with equal
rights, and that our vote will be respected. We too have contributed
beyond measure to the growth, development and well-being of all
Quebecers.
I want this understanding of the fair sharing in Quebec to be
appreciated. I am a Quebecer. I am proud of my difference. I am
not better, I am not worse, I am just different. That is what makes
me distinct and that is what makes all of us distinct in Quebec. The
environment has formed us in many ways.
I call on all Canadians to join with us in recognizing that despite
our diverse geography from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains,
our many cultures and the aboriginal peoples of our two official
languages, we are one country. It is by extending our hands of
welcome to one another, by rejoicing and appreciating our
differences and our diversity that we grow and prosper. It is
through our civility and the unity of all Canadians that we ensure a
bright future for our children, for our community and for our
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to begin my speech-in the hope that the
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who is my
deskmate, will do me the honour of going along with my line of
reasoning-by proposing that we try to imagine what it would be
like if we had André Laurendeau, Lionel Groulx, Hubert Aquin,
Robert Bourassa and Claude Ryan sitting in opposition.
(1255)
I named these people, because each and every one of them, at
some time or other, has been involved in the process of
constitutional review, in different ways of course. I, myself, have
been very interested in the process of constitutional review. It has
enabled me to pursue my studies. The process of constitutional
review arose from the 1960s idea that the Constitution had to be
reviewed.
I would say that, for Quebec, the process of constitutional review
between the 1960s and now has had two main thrusts. The first, I
believe, applies to the entire Quebec family. Both the provincial
Liberals and the slightly more nationalist folks acknowledge that
reviewing sections 91 and 92 on the devolution of power is what
counts in the constitutional review.
This is particularly true, because, as you will remember, in the
early 1960s, with Jean Lesage, there was a movement in English
Canada to patriate the Constitution and give it an amending
formula, because the 33 Fathers of Confederation had not thought
of giving it one. Jean Lesage and Jacques-Yvan Morin, and others
after them, felt sections 91 and 92 had to be reviewed first, before
the question of patriating the Constitution was dealt with. This then
is the first thrust, which remains extremely important today, and,
obviously, we can see we are a long way from it with Bill C-110.
The second and possibly the most important thrust-and that is
why I referred to the man who, in a way, is like the father of the
Bloc Quebecois, namely André Laurendeau, who, you may recall,
was elected to the National Assembly in 1944. André Laurendeau
took up Prime Minister Pearson's challenge-to whom some
people do not hesitate to liken our current Prime Minister-and
quit Le Devoir in the early 1960s to co-chair the
Laurendeau-Dunton commission.
This royal commission is no doubt the true testament to Quebec
nationalism. For the first time in a constitutional document-and I
am referring here to the preliminary report tabled in 1965,
commonly called the white paper-André Laurendeau and his
fellow members of the commission urged English Canada to
recognize the co-existence of two nations in Canada. There is a
sentence in the white paper that is a important as it is short, on
which I wrote my graduate thesis, and I would like to quote it
today. André Laurendeau was truly a visionary when he said: ``Out
of disappointment will come the irreparable''.
Of course, the irreparable is Quebec's sovereignty. Around 1965,
sovereignty was in a latent, embryonic state in Quebec. Now, 30
years later, 30 years after André Laurendeau tabled his white paper,
we are debating a bill introduced by a Liberal government who will
not even recognize Quebec as a nation. That is what is so tragic in
all this. No constitutional talks can take place without first
recognizing that, in this country, we have two nations, which are
equal in fact and in law. We must work to ensure that these two
nations can start talking.
For those who belong the same school of thought as me, the best
way to open a dialogue is, of course, sovereignty or a
sovereignty-partnership formula. Those from another school of
thought, which I respect and who won the October referendum,
think that something can be worked out within the federal system.
There is something that I cannot figure out about federal
strategists. We cannot begrudge the current Minister of Justice. He
is a rather nice man, a distinguished mind, a rising star in the
Liberal camp. We cannot hold a grudge against him for not fully
grasping the finer nuances of the constitutional debate.
How can the Prime Minister, who has been a member of this
House since 1967-long before you, Mr. Speaker, became a
member, if I am not mistaken-who has been a key player and a
key witness in this constitutional review process, think that some
Quebecers will be satisfied with an administrative bill that will not,
17099
of course, be entrenched in the Constitution, and that only offers a
possible right of veto.
(1300)
A veto is, of course, important. We used it when Jean Lesage was
tempted to accept the Fulton-Favreau formula requiring the
unanimous consent of the provinces, and when Robert Bourassa
was also tempted to accept the 1971 Victoria Charter, which is
different from what we have before us today and which is
sometimes compared with what is being offered today. As you may
recall, Victoria would have given back to Quebec all of its powers
over language, as the Pepin-Robarts Commission did a little later.
How can anyone on the side of the government majority think
that any Quebecer-whether on the Daniel Johnson team, on the
Jacques Parizeau team, or with any lobby in Quebec-will say yes
to a proposal like this one?
The government has put itself in a very awkward and
unenlightened position, in my opinion, by forcing the loyal
opposition, one of the best oppositions this government has ever
known, to say no. I know that the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will understand that the minimum
requirements for reviewing the Constitution cannot be any less than
what was proposed in the Meech Lake accord.
As you know, the Meech Lake accord contained five minimum
requirements. Personally, I would never have voted for the Meech
Lake accord, because even though it was a bare minimum, it did
not provide the essential, namely Quebec's recognition as a nation
and, more importantly, it did not provide any additional power to
Quebec, while also being tragically silent on the language issue.
But let us presume that everyone is acting in good faith and is
trying to engage in a dialogue. How can the Prime Minister and his
team possibly think that Bill C-110 is adequate, considering that
the five conditions included in Meech were an absolute minimum?
Meech also sought to ensure that the Supreme Court played a
role in a balanced Canadian federation, and therefore, to restore
that balance, Quebec must be represented by judges who reflect its
civil law tradition.
There was also the idea, which is probably the most important
one for us but is also important for English Canada, that the federal
spending power had to be clearly defined, since a number of
experts agree that there is a direct link between the use of that
spending power by the federal government and the current deficit.
I respectfully submit, out of respect for the past, that if those
whom I named were here now, including Claude Ryan-and I do
not know how he is perceived by this government-none of them,
who all sought to protect Quebec's interests and future, would
agree with Bill C-110. I hope the government reviews its position
and comes up with something more substantial, so as to launch a
true dialogue.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): I am
pleased to speak this afternoon on this three part initiative of the
Prime Minister.
The first is to provide a regional veto to the four regions of the
country, which is of course in addition to the veto the provinces
already have. This initiative will also acknowledge Quebec as a
distinct society and will, of course, be in line with the
government's indication of its intent to step up efforts to reduce
duplication. Today we have seen the Minister of Human Resources
Development take the first step in that direction since the Prime
Minister's announcement.
(1305)
Of course, long before the Prime Minister's announcement, our
government had already begun these initiatives and, since we
became the government, a number of administrative agreements
have been signed with all of the provinces, Quebec included, but of
course there have been very few of those since the separatists came
into power in Quebec.
I would like to start by stating my position for you within this
debate at this time. As a number of hon. members are aware, I am a
Quebecer by birth who represents an Ontario riding. I have served
at the municipal, provincial and federal levels, and have been in
office at one level or another for over 19 years now. I am one of
those who voted for the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown
accord. I will vote for Bill C-110 and the recognition of Quebec as
a distinct society, which is fully justified.
We heard certain separatist members complain that the Meech
Lake accord had not been adopted and denounce the fact. Yet, some
of them-in particular their House leader-had voted against the
Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord. Other
separatists say they have resigned themselves to making do without
it, often forgetting that they had campaigned and voted against the
Charlottetown accord.
In a few days, if I may make a prediction, if these people do not
understand more than they do today, they will vote against Bill
C-110, against distinct society, confirming in so doing they are not
interested in progress and do not want Quebecers to improve their
situation. They want no such thing, they simply want to build up an
empire for themselves and act as emperors, but they will never
succeed in doing so.
Members opposite, the Bloc members and to some extent, I am
sad to say, certain Reform members-I repeat to some extent
17100
because they do all think like this-seem to be wanting to put an
end to our country as we know it.
Why is that? We live in a country that, four years out of five, was
described as the best in the world by the United Nations. Members
opposite are shaking their head, saying it is not enough. I
personally heard the opposition leader saying Canada was a kind of
experiment which had failed from his point of view. According to
whom? While even the United Nations cannot find a better place in
the world, members opposite want us to emulate another country.
Which country will we imitate? Even the UN has not been able to
find it yet. But the members opposite claim that this is all
worthless. They say they have a better solution.
As I said, I live in Ontario, I am a Franco-Ontarian by adoption,
even though I was born in Quebec. I am still a French Canadian. I
must tell you that the way the members opposite refer to the rest of
Canada which they call ``English Canada''-I heard the member
for Maisonneuve use this phrase today in his speech-is a real
insult to my constituents. I have told you repeatedly, this
expression is insulting.
When francophones outside Quebec showed up for a
demonstration they had dubbed ``Poof, the francophones!'',
mimicking the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, it was in part
to denounce the fact that we, the one million francophones, such as
the member for Nickel-Belt, myself and all the others who live
elsewhere in Canada, were called English Canadians.
(1310)
This is the way the members opposite want to portray Canada: an
entirely francophone Quebec and the rest of Canada completely
anglophone. This is the way they look at it and its is wrong.
The member for Argenteuil-Papineau, who is in front of me,
knows full well that when we go to the shopping centre in
Hawkesbury, the people we can hear speaking English probably
come from his riding. In our area, anglophones are by definition
Quebecers from the Harrington and Lost River areas who come to
shop, and francophones are Ontarians.
That is our reality. Does the Bloc tell us about that million of
Quebecers whose first language is not French? Does it tell us about
Franco-Ontarians and francophones outside Quebec? Bloc
members say that we have disappeared. They said: ``Poof, the
francophones outside Quebec!'' No, the Bloc members will not
make us disappear. They will not.
The worst insult I heard in all my career in this House was the
day when the leader of the Bloc Quebecois went to Acadia to tell
Acadians that he would build schools for them when Quebec would
be a different country. What an insult for Acadians who have
survived and grown for 200 years in this country. And how
pretentious of the Leader of the Opposition, who thought he could
go to Acadia to tell Acadians a thing or two. Well, they fixed him.
They told him to go back home. That is what some Acadians said,
rightly so, and the members opposite know it. And
Franco-Ontarians told the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata
and the others: You do not want to have anything to do with us
francophones outside Quebec and your dialogue proves it.
[English]
Why is it that the United States has twice as many people of
francophone origin than Canada and virtually none of them speak it
any more? Why is that?
Could it be that Canada has been a country where the French
language has been able to develop quite well and that the reverse
was true in the United States? Could it be as well that we as
francophones living outside Quebec, and I am one of them, have
been able to have our language develop because there is a critical
mass of francophones in my country known as Quebec? Yes, that is
the reason.
[Translation]
And today, if we were in Louisiana and we were 60 years old and
more, we would be speaking French to each other. If we were in
Louisiana and we were 40 years old, we would say a few words in
French. And if we were 20 years old and someone would talk to us
in French, we would say: ``What?''
That is what happened in Louisiana; the French language
survived for 200 years only to disappear with the television era. But
that did not happen in Canada. I still speak French to my children
and they will speak French to their children. Why? Because we
stayed in a tolerant country, a country where both languages and
both cultures were able to develop and a country-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. It being 1.15 p.m., pursuant to the
order made earlier this day, it is my duty pursuant to our Standing
Orders to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions
necessary to dispose of second reading of the bill now before the
House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
17101
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, a recorded
division stands deferred until Monday, December 4, at the ordinary
hour of daily adjournment.
Shall we call it 1.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.30 p.m. the House will now
proceed to Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order
Paper.
_____________________________________________
17101
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.) moved that Bill C-241, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act (child support payments), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House
today to speak to my private member's Bill C-241, an act to amend
the Income Tax Act so that child support payments are not taxable
as income for the recipient. As well, it includes child support
payments within the meaning of earned income for the purposes of
child support deductions.
It is important to ensure that a tax free child support payment to
the custodial parent is initiated and that a more appropriate and
limited tax credit is equitably distributed to child support payers. I
do not suggest what the specific credit should be. I believe it more
appropriately falls within the purview of the Minister of Finance.
Bill C-241 is an issue which is very important to me and one
with which I have been associated for a number of years. It became
clear to me that the taxation of child support payments was a
significant concern to many people in the riding of Nepean and to
individuals across the country. I continue to receive letters from
many people who are experiencing great difficulty as a result of the
existing tax laws.
On February 23, 1994 my Motion No. 14 was placed on the
Order Paper, deemed votable, debated and adopted on May 30,
1994. The motion at that time read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Income
Tax Act so that child support payments are no longer considered taxable income
for recipients.
However, the government of the day has still not responded to
the motion.
The 1994 budget recognized perceived inequalities in the tax
treatment of child support and committed itself to exploring ways
to improve the system to ensure, first and foremost, that the needs
of children are met. However, as of this date, as I said, the
government has still not moved on it.
The Minister of Justice indicated his intention to address the
issue of child support guidelines and enforcement. I will be looking
forward to hearing from him. Bill C-241 only asks for changes to
the treatment of income tax for child support which falls under the
purview of the Minister of Finance.
The current tax treatment of child support payments makes a
very complicated issue out of one that should be as straightforward
and as simple as possible. It is most important that it is children
who now bear the immediate consequence because the current
system is not providing the effect it was designed to produce. If the
current policy is not changed it is the children who will go on
paying the consequences every day, not just in some cases and not
by accident but deliberately because of our failure to redesign an
outdated tax mechanism.
This is not just a tax issue but one of wider social justice that
affects the well-being of Canada's children and of Canada's future.
The tax treatment of child support payments allows a payer to
deduct the full amount of the payment from his income while the
recipient must include the full amount in hers. The policy has been
criticized as discriminatory to women because it places an unfair
tax burden on the custodial parent, and the custodial parent is
usually the woman and the one who is responsible for the children.
How this situation evolved can be partially explained by
historical changes in the patterns of the lives of men and women in
Canada over the past half century. The current tax treatment of
child support was initiated in the 1940s, probably just after World
War II, and reflects the social realities of that time.
There are historical reasons for the bill. From 1940 to 1992 there
have been significant changes in society and government policy
which lead to the question of whether or not this tax policy also
requires revision.
(1320 )
When the current policy was developed it was designed to
provide relief to the taxpayer burdened with both a post-war
increase in taxes and the obligation of spousal and child support.
The father was typically the sole wage earner and the primary
taxpayer in the separated family. It was logical at that time that tax
relief be targeted to him.
In the current reality both parents are considered individual
within our tax structure today. Even those who do not pay taxes file
their own tax returns to have access to benefits delivered through
the income tax system. Most lone parents also have paid work and
pay taxes on their own earned income whether or not they receive
support.
17102
The labour force participation of all women has been steadily
increasing, including women with children. In 1988, 62.2 per cent
of women with partners and a child under five years of age were
in the labour force and 73 per cent for those with children aged
six to fifteen years. With lower fertility rates and a later age of
first birth, women are spending more time in the paid labour force.
This allows women to establish some earning power before
interruption for child birth and care.
The labour force participation of women who are lone parents is
also increasing. In 1988 the rate was 51 per cent for those with
children under five and 72.3 per cent for those with children six to
fifteen.
While women are increasingly participating in the labour force
they are still concentrated in lower paying and less secure forms of
employment. The wage gap is narrowing extremely slowly. Canada
is not narrowing the gap as quickly as many other industrialized
nations. For example, women's relative wage in Canada in 1990
was 67.6 per cent of men's, compared with Australia at 87.9 per
cent and France at 81.8 per cent.
Due to changing economic conditions most families now require
the labour force participation of women. Even for two-parent
families two incomes are needed to maintain a single household.
Upon divorce family resources are often inadequate to continue to
meet children's needs as two households must be maintained.
Most lone parents continue to be solely or primarily responsible
for the financial needs of children. One of the key reasons for this
phenomenon is the high rate of default on child support awards,
estimated in the province of Ontario to be disgracefully around the
75 per cent level.
There have been numerous policy changes since 1940 which
have had a significant impact on the situation of women, families
with children and lone parent families in particular. In 1970 the
report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women
documented women's economic and social disadvantage in Canada
for the first time. Since 1976 there has been a federal policy
commitment to examine the impact of programs and policies on
women. This was reinforced when the charter of rights and
freedoms came into force.
Better research and data collection as a result of this work
continues to identify and describe the feminization of poverty and
its direct relation to the unpaid work involved in raising children
and other tasks related to human maintenance.
There has been decreasing support for families with children
through the tax transfer system over the past two decades. For
example, the value of deductions and credits for children as a
proportion of income has been steadily reduced. The reduction of
the number of tax brackets to three and other changes to deduction
and credits have all had an impact on families and on the tax
treatment of child support.
Divorce law has evolved from a system based on fault to a
no-fault system. Under the no-fault system there is an increasing
tendency for support orders to focus on the children with the
expectation that women, even those who are not in the labour force,
will become self-supporting in an unreasonably short period of
time.
There is growing political support for the plight of lone parents.
Provincial governments are trying to crack down on non-custodial
parents, usually fathers, who are not making their support
payments to their children. Growing welfare rolls have spurred the
search for alternatives and particularly the need to make fathers
responsible for their children.
The women's movement, in combination with economic and
policy changes, has reinforced women's need for and right to both
paid work and a sharing of family responsibilities. My previous
comments highlighted several significant changes in Canadian
society from the forties to the nineties. Individuals and families are
in very different situations today than in the forties. Given these
changes it is timely to ask whether our tax policy on child support
is still meeting the original goals of providing tax relief to the tax
burdened and encouraging the payment of child support.
My bill is intended to bring the tax treatment of child support
payments into the context of the world we live in today. I am
cognizant of the increasing levels of child poverty. Any and all
changes considered must focus on this fact as the guiding principle.
(1325 )
The general consensus is that the non-custodial parent benefits
from the current tax policy, not the children. Presently the total
child support award rarely specifies the total needs of the child and
the specific amounts needed to compensate for the tax owing on
this amount.
Actual evidence on the current levels of child support
demonstrates that average support payments are low and would rise
considerably with the introduction of guidelines based on actual
expenditures on children. If the support award is not high enough to
meet the children's needs, it cannot compensate for the tax owing.
In practice the tax system further reduces the already inadequate
amount available for the children.
Even if a support award is adequate to meet the children's needs
calculating the gross up, which is the amount set aside for tax
purposes, and deciding how to split any tax saving are
extraordinarily complex.
In the Thibaudeau case the Federal Court of Appeal ruled invalid
under the charter of rights and freedoms the requirement that the
parent who has custody of a child include child support payments
as income. Since the decision did not deal with the deductibility of
child support by the payer, it left in question how the tax will be
17103
paid on income directed to child support. Following the finding of a
Federal Court of Appeal, the attorney general asked that the
Thibaudeau decision be suspended while an expedited appeal was
brought before the Supreme Court of Canada. On May 25, the
supreme court handed down its decision and supported the existing
provisions.
The result of the appeal, the court ruled five to two, was that it is
not unconstitutional to require the custodial parent who receives
child support payments to pay the taxes on that money. However
the question of taxation of child support was not totally resolved by
the supreme court decision.
Madam Justice Beverly McLachlin of the supreme court was one
of the two dissenting judges in that decision. She wrote in her
dissenting opinion:
The impugned taxation scheme imposes a burden on separated or divorced
custodial parents which it does not impose on separated or divorced
non-custodial parents.
The custodial parent must include child support payments from which she
gains no personal benefit. The non-custodial parent may deduct support
payments from his taxable revenue.
The inequality between the custodial and non-custodial spouse is
exacerbated by the fact that the latter enjoys an automatic and absolute right of
deduction of support payments from personal income, while the former's
ability to offset the increase in her taxes by obtaining an adjustment of support is
unpredictable.
Not only must the custodial parent request any adjustment from the court but
it is not always certain that the court will correctly assess the tax impact or will
award a sufficient amount to enable the recipient to discharge her additional
burden.
The logic of a deduction inclusion scheme is further called into question by
the fact that our society strongly encourages women to obtain financial
self-sufficiency and, in pursuit of that essential objective, to increase their
income. The higher the income of the custodial parent, the greater will be her
tax rate and the more she will be penalized by the requirement of including the
amount of child support in computing her own taxable income.
One of the premises on which the logic of the deduction inclusion scheme
rests, that custodial parents are generally subject to a lower tax rate than those
who pay the child support, is less and less in accord with present reality and
undermines the importance our society places on women attaining financial
self-sufficiency.
I might add that if we take families where the husband, the wife
and the children remain as the family unit, when the husband gives
money to the wife to support the children she is not taxed on it. Nor
is he given a deduction. The way it is set up is unfair to the whole
family unit.
Following the Thibaudeau decision the government stated its
intention to announce a comprehensive approach to reforming the
child support system including guidelines to determine the
amounts, the tax treatment of payments and the enforcement of
child support orders.
Let me refer to why the current system is not working.
According to research done by Karen Cooper and Ellen Zweibel on
the current system of deduction inclusion, there is a gap between
tax theory and family experience. The deduction inclusion as
designed is expected to produce an overall tax savings for the
ultimate benefit of the children in divorced and separated families.
Custodial mothers have made it clear the current system
undermines their ability to support their children and increases
their vulnerability to poverty.
Fathers from the highest income group obtain the most tax
savings when paying support to custodial mothers who have not yet
fully entered the job market. Little or no overall tax savings accrue
when separated parents are either both low income earners or are
both moderate income earners. In a minority of cases, the
provisions can even have an opposite effect.
(1330)
SCOPE, which is an Ottawa based support group for custodial
mothers, in its report to the parliamentary task force examining the
current system of taxation of child support payments, described
how the current system is impacting on the lives of custodial
parents. I will quote from the submission:
How they have had to apply for bank loans, borrow money from friends and
family, cash in RRSPs, or have been subject to collection proceedings from
unpaid taxes.
However, if the non-custodial parent doesn't make full child support
payments, the custodial mother must still pay a portion of the partial payment in
income tax-Although she cannot meet all the children's budgeted-for
expenses from the partial support payment, what she does receive shrinks even
further because of the income tax burden. How, after struggling for months and
years to get by without full support payments, when they do manage to collect
the support arrears, the tax owed on those arrears is often greater than they
would have been if the amount had been paid on time.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women in its
submission to the same task force stated:
In summary, the government's main policy justification fails custodial
mothers and their children. Rather than providing greater resources for
children, the current tax policy puts greater pressure on the custodial mother.
First, she must bargain with the non-custodial father and/or his lawyer for an
income tax ``gross-up''. There is no guarantee the income tax ``gross-up'' will
be included: in some cases he does not have enough tax savings to pay a
``gross-up''; in other cases, he may not agree to it or the judge may order a lower
amount.
Whenever the custodial mother is unsuccessful in getting a fully
tax-augmented child support award, she must stretch her already limited budget to
cover the income taxes. When the non-custodial father makes only a partial
payment, the custodial mother is left without enough funds to meet the children's
budgeted needs and yet the already insufficient amount she received is still further
reduced by income taxes. For those important reasons, the Canadian Advisory
17104
Council on the Status of Women strongly recommends repeal of the current
inclusion/deduction provisions.
In summary, the movement to reform the income tax treatment
of child support has been ongoing since the 1970s. It received
significant attention in the 1990s for a number of reasons. The
work of the federal-provincial-territorial family law committee
which over a period of almost four years oversaw original research
on child support in Canada, reviewed the research results and
consulted widely with Canadians representing custodial and
non-custodial parents and with experts in the child support area.
My previous motion that I mentioned earlier in the House of
Commons has essentially raised the visibility of the issue. The
Thibaudeau case has further brought attention to this matter.
The parliamentary task force was headed by the Secretary of
State for the Status of Women who is in the House today. I wish to
comment on the good work that she and two of our colleagues on
the task force did in their travels across the country, holding round
table discussions. The input they received was heart rending,
emotional and traumatic. This has further raised the profile and the
importance of the need for change.
It is my hope that the debate in the House of Commons today
will once again move this issue to the forefront. To quote C. Brock
Chisholm from a speech in Washington, C.D. in 1945:
The most important thing in the world today is the bringing up of children.
Designing fairer, simpler systems of providing tax relief is
essential in order to respond to the needs of children whose parents
live apart. We must remember this as we draft the laws which
impact on our children. Their welfare must determine our
priorities.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
participate in this debate on Bill C-241 on behalf of the official
opposition and I would like to start by congratulating the hon.
member for putting this bill forward for this House to consider. I
might add that it is unfortunate that it cannot be voted on.
Such is the will of the members. Her intentions were
commendable, but at the same time, this goes to show how the
government, by refusing to make this bill a votable item, is really
only paying lip service to the idea behind it. The hon. member
ought to be commended for her good intentions, but this goes to
show at the same time that this government does not care too much
for her initiative.
(1335)
Bill C-241 is, in my opinion, very positive from the point of
view of its title: an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child support
payments).
Interestingly enough, of all the forms of child support, the one
that immediately comes to mind is, of course, alimony. There has
been a debate on this issue, as we know.
In Quebec, I can think of Mrs. Thibaudeau's case. This lady took
her case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to try to make
the point that the parent, generally the mother, who has custody of
the children after a divorce, should not have to declare a portion of
the amount received for child support on his or her income tax
return, because, for the non custodial parent paying support, this
amount is exempt from tax, it is deductible.
The fact of the matter is that there are more women than men in
this situation, since, as we know, 85 per cent of single parents
facing this kind of situation are women.
We must also remember something else. In spite of the debates
in this House on child poverty, as well as the laudable initiatives of
members from all parties to make life more comfortable for
children, one out of every five children in Canada lives in poverty.
This is a serious problem.
The government often boasts about our country being the best in
the world. Yet, one Canadian child in five lives in poverty. As you
know, children are not the only ones living in poverty. If they are
poor, it is because their parents, their mother or their father are
poor. Poor children are not all orphans. Their families are in very
dire straits.
The measure proposed by the hon. member is interesting,
because the person who has custody would not have to declare the
money received for support, thus making it tax exempt. We, the
official opposition, are in favour of that.
However, when we listen and talk to people, and when we have
debates in this House, we realize that we have to be careful. That
initiative must be part of a comprehensive strategy, because, taken
separately, it might incite judges to take into account the fact that
the spouse who pays for support can no longer deduct that amount
for tax purposes, and thus lower the level of that support. We must
ensure that the person receiving support payments is not penalized
by getting considerably less money.
This proposal must be part of a comprehensive policy. We must
avoid any boomerang effect and ensure that we do not end up
penalizing the person in charge of the family. That would defeat the
purpose.
17105
In Canada, we used to have family allowances. Now we have
child tax benefits. I find it deplorable that people who work, unlike
in Quebec, cannot benefit from tax deductions for children.
(1340)
Many parents in Quebec believe that, and rightly so. They want
some incentives to have children. They are looking at the
government for measures to help them take good care of their
families, while we are in a situation, as everyone knows, where the
population is aging, the birth rate is dropping, a larger segment of
the population is becoming more impoverished and the social
inequities are growing because of various economic considerations
which I do not have time to list in the ten minutes I have. Last, we
have very few measures which encourage young Canadians to have
a family.
Also, we are considering this motion the very same day the
Minister of Human Resources Development is introducing changes
to the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to further restrict
eligibility to UI benefits for new claimants or people who have not
been working for a very long time, without taking many measures
to really create jobs. Everywhere we look, there seems to be an
impending threat, not only a perceived threat, but in some areas, a
real one.
In Ontario, the government is thinking of increasing tuition fees
and of decreasing education subsidies. So, we see in the end that
the young people in particular-and I remind the House that I am
the BQ critic for training and youth-feel like they are continually
caught in a stranglehold. Under such circumstances, how can we
blame the young people who choose to wait to have children, since
their economic situation is becoming increasingly difficult?
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Nepean for a very
praiseworthy motion. However, I cannot help but notice that the
government, especially this past week, has been considering
motions, resolutions and even a bill on such issues as the distinct
society, the veto, and so on. I can see that the hon. member opposite
is serious and well-intentioned. But, in reality, I deplore the fact
that this Parliament seems to become more and more a place for
lofty speeches, for rhetoric-and I contribute to that by making one
myself today-a place where the government seems less and less
willing to do anything but look for ways to cut its spending, more
often than not on the back of the disadvantaged. Who are the
disadvantaged? Often they are single parents, women, who
represent a large percentage of the population, as well as children,
since one in five children lives in poverty. I do not see anything in
this motion that will correct this situation. It is a good measure, but
we can see that there is a lack of willingness to do something on the
part of the government.
I hope that the government will soon leave the rhetoric aside and
start looking at positive ways of encouraging young people and
others to start a family. In spite of that, I do not want to be seen as
being too strongly in favour of pro-natalist measures because
women have the right to decide for themselves if they want
children or not and how many. I do not question this fundamental
right, but it is a question we must ask ourselves from a social
viewpoint. We must take the necessary measures and soon.
I am a baby boomer, I am 48 years old, and here is what might
happen to some of us.
(1345)
If there are not enough young people entering the labour force,
paying taxes and contributing to private pension plans, the people
coming after us may not receive a pension. This may even happen
to us, as we see that old age pensions, for those who are now under
65, are among the measures being considered. If we do not have
enough children and if these children do not start life in a secure
environment so that they have an incentive to continue improving
our society, I fear the worst.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-241, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act with respect to child support payments.
I wish to commend the member for Nepean for her persistence
and her efforts in support of this bill we are debating today. The
issue of child support payments and taxation has been festering for
many years without an adequate response from either this
government or its predecessor.
One parent families are a result of a breakdown in marriage in a
family. To put this into perspective, in 1991 300,000 Canadian
parents received child support. The total bill was some $1.65
billion. It involved some 35,000 children in support and custody
cases. Further, statistics indicate that 95 per cent of the custodial
and single parents are mothers.
The Reform Party has recognized the need to fundamentally
address this issue. Our family task force, which I chair, carefully
considered and developed our position on child support payments
and taxation in addition to addressing some other related issues.
Our motivation for developing a position on this issue is the
function of our concern about the family and recognizing the need
for strengthening it for this generation and future generations of
Canadians. We believe the family is the fundamental building
block of our society. The family is the fundamental institution that
transfers and protects our values and culture. The family provides
our society with the necessary stability needed for our prosperity
and measured progress.
17106
Parents and children are the basis for the family. Children can
in no way be considered apart from or distinct from their parents.
Children exist through and thrive on the relationship that exists
between a mother and father. Thus the well-being of a child is
directly related to the continued shared responsibility. I believe
this broader picture of the responsibility of both parents for their
children must be considered if a positive solution is to be found
to child support payments and family relationships are to be
strengthened.
As I mentioned before, the Reform Party has developed a rather
comprehensive position on this issue. We addressed the issue of
taxation, the level of support through guidelines, and enforcement
and compliance with maintenance orders.
On the issue of taxation, child support payments should not be
considered earned income subject to taxation. The current tax
regime in paragraph 56(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act does exactly
that. I ask, where else in the tax system does such an approach
exist? Child support payments are the fulfilment of an obligation of
parents to their children regardless of family status. It is money
directed from a parent for the well-being of his or her child. The
money that is received for child support is not earned income. The
federal government should therefore not tax these payments as
though they were income.
This can be illustrated by contrasting child support payments and
alimony. Child support payments are intended specifically for the
children and not the mother. Alimony payments, on the other hand,
are payments received as income for support of the divorced
spouse. This distinction is a crucial one, one that must be
recognized.
The effect of the tax system is compounded by the deficiency in
the court system. The levels in support awards do not adequately
reflect and meet the needs of the custodial parent and children, or
perhaps the non-custodial parent.
With these considerations in mind, the Reform position, like Bill
C-241, calls for revision of paragraph 56(1)(b) of the Income Tax
Act that would strike payments received for child support from
being considered as earned income and therefore eligible for
taxation.
The Reform proposal would also redirect revenues collected
from the taxation of the non-custodial parent to those single-parent
families and dual parent families and the children most in need
through a complementary increase in the federal child tax benefit,
which is to say it is directed to those in need.
These positive and proactive measures will strengthen the
circumstances and conditions of single parent families. They will
also address the inequity the current tax regime promotes in the tax
treatment of intact and separated families.
There is a broader issue of the current level of taxation that all
Canadian families face. The reality is that the current tax burden
upon the Canadian family is unjustifiably excessive and onerous. A
1994 study on families and taxation found that the average family
composed of two or more persons paid 46 per cent of their cash
income to various levels of government.
(1350)
Families cannot now survive on a single income. In 1967, 58 per
cent of families were supported by a single income. In 1994 that
figure has been forced to an historic low of 19 per cent, and it is not
by choice. In a 1994 survey of family attitudes, 52 per cent of
respondents agreed with the statement that it is not possible to
support a family on one income any more. The same survey stated
that 40 per cent of parents agreed that if they could afford to they
would stay home with the kids, that they work because they need
the money.
Recognizing the needs of families and the pressures they face,
Reform has developed another positive and proactive measure that
will address the broader issue of taxation faced by Canadian
families. The simplified tax proposal will provide some tax relief
for Canadians, simplify the taxation system through the
elimination of deductions, exemptions, and tax incentives, and in
general promote more economic freedom for families. In
particular, our proposal will provide a generous tax exemption for
children to account for expenses parents incur in raising children.
Such a provision will be particularly important for low income
earners and single parent families.
A second important issue related to child support payments in
addition to taxation deals with a process for administering the issue
of child support payments. Families and marriages often break
down under acrimonious and adversarial circumstances. Many
parents then resort to an adversarial court system. The current
system essentially pits one parent against the other. This is not in
the best interests of the parents and it is certainly not in the best
interests of the children involved.
Changes to the current system are urgently needed. The Reform
proposal addresses this issue. We advocate the implementation of
unified family courts. An important part of this proposal is the
front end process of mediation and conflict resolution. The unified
family court would also resolve the blended jurisdiction of family
law, such as child support, custody, and access. Presently,
jurisdiction for family issues is divided between levels of court at
both federal and provincial levels. The development and
implementation of the unified family court would better facilitate
all aspects of family law by incorporating them under one roof.
17107
The Reform proposal also addresses the issue of guidelines to
determine the level of support awarded. When a family and
marriage break down, courts are left to determine what the level
of payments for child support should be. However, the problem
has been, as my colleague has said, the inconsistency and
sometimes unfairness of the level of support awarded. Such
inconsistency is unfair to all concerned. To address this
inconsistency, our proposal is based on well established legal
principles of demonstrated need and ability to pay.
In practical terms, Reform advocates the establishment of
nationwide guidelines that will take into consideration the income,
taxation, and parenting cost implications for both custodial and
non-custodial parents. Nationwide guidelines would have the effect
of standardizing the level of support awarded. In doing so they will
do much more to ensure fairness for those in the situation.
Finally, there is the issue of enforcement and compliance with
maintenance orders. The present circumstances are abysmal. For
example, in Quebec 25 per cent of non-custodial parents default in
paying child support. The phenomenon of default is in part a
function of the adversarial system I discussed earlier. A system that
perpetuates acrimony and anger is a system that will fail.
Reform's proposal addresses the issue of enforcement across
provincial boundaries. We propose the use of the national registry.
We will pursue studies to see if this could be co-ordinated through
the income tax system. A registry of this type would improve the
access to information and effective response desperately needed to
improve compliance and enforcement of maintenance orders.
In conclusion, the principle and concept of Bill C-241 is well
founded, but more needs to be done to concretely tackle the root
causes surrounding issues of child support. Although this bill
addresses the issue of taxation, it does not consider this issue of the
level of support and the crucial aspect of enforcement and
compliance.
(1355 )
The time for action has come. To foster the stability and
prosperity for the next generation of parents, children and families,
we need to start by reinforcing and strengthening decisions made in
this present generation.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let me applaud the
time, effort and extensive research that has been focused on
women, on their families and particularly on the children of our
country by the very important work that has been done by our
colleague, the member for Nepean, in keeping the government
focused on the true needs of Canada's children.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the two speeches
by the opposition parties. It gives me a great sense of hope that we
will make the kind of enlightened decision that we have been
working very hard for over the last number of months. We hope
that when the changes are brought forward we will receive the kind
of support for the interest and time that we have spent to find the
right solutions.
With respect to my friend from Nepean, I think the children of
this land can thank her and I personally wish to thank her for
bringing this really important and timely issue to our attention
today.
I share the concerns of the member for Nepean that Canada's
child support system must be improved. In the spring of 1994,
following the decision in the Thibaudeau case, which I think came
down in May, our task force was organized, on the road and
listening to groups by the end of June or the beginning of July. The
government named this small task force to hear the views around
this very complex and emotional question.
My colleagues, the member for Winnipeg Centre and the
member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, and I can tell the House that
we spent hundreds and hundreds of hours in a very emotional
setting hearing the views of parents, both men and women,
grandparents, divorced fathers, divorced mothers, leaders of the
legal profession, the accounting profession and those who were
impacted, such as those in the social services and health network.
The stories of these single parents, the child support payers and
those parents in the intact families were so heart rending that one
was moved to wonder how the family had been able to cope with
the well-being of the child in many cases.
We saw over 550 people. We received over 500 briefs. The
information and views that were expressed shaped the report which
I brought to cabinet from this task force on child support. I know,
my cabinet colleagues know, and in particular the ministers
concerned know that we need to present reforms.
However, this is not an easy country to govern. It is vital that we
have co-operation and collaboration. We have been working on
that. I can guarantee that we will have that commitment to change
for the support system. We have been working very hard,
constructively and co-operatively over these many months. We
have practically completed crafting the right and fair balance in the
final analysis for the well-being of the children of this country.
While the government has been very pleased to receive my
colleagues' suggestions for improvements to the taxation of child
support payments, we must also remember that a system of child
support involves a number of elements. We must recognize the
necessity of reforming the system as a whole, not just piecemeal.
That means considering much needed changes to the amount
17108
awarded for child support and the method used to enforce those
support orders. Some of these issues fall, as members well know,
under provincial jurisdiction.
(1400 )
In addition to fair taxation for child support payments, the
parents need a more equitable and simplified system for
determining those child support awards. Under such a system,
awards could generally be higher through more realistic guidelines
to the courts based on the real cost of child rearing and the shared
ability of both parents to pay. The variation in award levels in
similar family circumstances could therefore be greatly reduced.
Frankly, many of the inequities could also be eliminated.
Compliance with court ordered support payments also needs to
be improved. It is a sad fact that approximately 60 per cent of
support orders are not obeyed. I find that totally abhorrent in the
interests of the children and also because it is an abuse of our legal
system. That means many single mothers in Canada receive no
support payments at all for their children. The cost to society is
unfair as many of the families have to resort to welfare. That is
unfair for the rest of country.
Our government is committed to bringing forward a
comprehensive policy solution which will address each aspect of
the child support equation: awards, enforcement, and the taxation
of child support payments. We recognize that the taxation of child
support payments is perceived as unfair. The rules give a tax
deduction to the payer, usually the father, while the custodial
parent, usually the mother, pays taxes on the payments and he or
she, as the case may be, also bears the partial cost of those
supports.
This whole issue is seen as accentuating the problem of poverty
particularly among single mothers and is seen as unfair to intact
families. We also recognize that some changes are necessary in the
complete package.
This government is close to completing its work on child support
reforms. We propose to introduce guidelines to increase the award
levels. We will put forward a program to improve the enforcement
of support orders. We are also completing our review of the tax
treatment of child support payments. Our objective is to reform the
system for child support so that it is fair, consistent across the land
and reflects the best interests of the children wherever they live.
The second facet of Bill C-241 consists of amending the Income
Tax Act so that it includes child support payments within the
meaning of ``earned income'' for the purposes of the child care
expense deduction.
Allow me to explain the rationale behind the provisions of the
Income Tax Act with respect to the child care side of the issue,
particularly with regard to child care expenses. The purpose of the
child care expense deduction is to recognize for tax purposes the
child care expenses that taxpayers must incur in order to earn
income, to attend a recognized educational institution full time, or
to take a vocational training course.
This deduction is a way for the tax system to acknowledge that
these taxpayers have a lower capacity to pay taxes than other
taxpayers who have identical incomes but do not have child care
expenses. With the changing definition of family and because there
are families of a variety of shapes, notwithstanding that we must
have that fairness principle in there and recognize that the family is
the basis of society.
In a sense the child care expense deduction is a recognition of the
contribution to our own future as a society through our children.
Under this deduction the income used to pay for child care
expenses is not taxable.
Including child support payments in the definition of earned
income for the purpose of a child care expense deduction would be
a precedent that would make it difficult to deny the same treatment
to persons in receipt of income from other sources.
(1405 )
All of this information regarding the current tax system is to say
that we need to examine changes to the taxation of child support in
a comprehensive way. We need to look at not only the tax side, but
also review the issue of enforcement and award levels. Any
changes must be done in concert one with the other.
Our challenge is to produce a package of changes in the tax rules,
in the setting of awards and in the enforcement of support orders, as
I have said, that is fair to all concerned and reflects what is best for
our children. The government is acting to meet this challenge. We
expect to announce specific changes very shortly. While I admire
the intent of the member for Nepean and I agree with her
wholeheartedly on the need for these changes, I simply remind this
House that we need complete change and that we must get it right.
Most important, when we are pursuing options to change the tax
treatment of child support, we must consider only those options
that go to the root of the problem. Unfortunately, the member's bill
also includes additional changes to the taxation of child support
which regretfully make it impossible for the government to support
her bill without reservations at this time.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the
House today and speak to Bill C-241 brought forward by the hon.
member representing the riding of Nepean.
I was disappointed to hear the previous member speak on behalf
of our government. She was speaking of the great intent of the
finance department and saying that we must get it right, that we
have to take time. Today in this House new legislation for
employment was tabled. Sometimes we have to redo legislation. It
is very important that we move on this and I do not want to see us
17109
delay. We need to move quickly to amend the Income Tax Act so
that support payments for children are no longer considered taxable
income for the recipients.
Children are our most valuable resource, the most precious asset
of our country. I am in favour of investing in their future. All
people must realize that by investing in our children we are
investing in our own future. Failure to do so will cost us dearly.
Very often the causes of child poverty have been linked to family
breakdown. Whatever the causes of child poverty it must be
addressed. Principle 2 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of the
Child states:
The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and
facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically,
mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and
in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose,
the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
Child poverty in Canada is disgracefully high. More than one
million children in our country live in poverty. These poor children
have many unfair obstacles in the path of their lives. Many children
of poverty will suffer more illness than other children. They will
require more emergency food assistance and they are more likely to
become drop-outs from our schools. These unfortunate children
through no fault of their own can expect to have a shorter life span.
These facts are unbelievable, sad, disgraceful and, I am sorry to
say, true.
I call on our Prime Minister, our cabinet and all members of the
House to focus on one of the greatest tragedies in this country and
one of the greatest tragedies of this century: the neglect of our
greatest resource for the future, the children of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my hon. colleagues to look deeply
into the hurting faces of some of our young children living in
poverty and recognize their hurt. While I do call on all members of
the House to focus more on child poverty in this country, I
gratefully acknowledge that progress is being made in some areas.
Today the Minister of Human Resources Development
introduced a new employment system for Canadians. A family
income supplement provides basic protection for low income
families. Employment insurance claimants with children and a
family income under $26,000 will be eligible for insurance benefits
that top up and reflect their family circumstances. The family
supplement will be better targeted to low income families and will
deliver a larger benefit for those families who are most in need.
This is a real step in the right direction.
(1410 )
In most cases Canadian tax laws have created inequities between
the payers and the recipients of child support. What other country
treats the taxation of child support in this way? The husband
contributes money toward the welfare of his children while he is
married and the wife is not penalized by additional tax burdens
during this period. Therefore, why is there a difference between a
parent paying for household necessities while living with their
spouse and a parent who is living separate from their spouse who is
still paying for the same household necessities? Child support
payments are simply a continuation of a father's obligation to
support his children when he is divorced. They certainly should not
be taxed.
The motion gives us an opportunity to make a significant
difference in a meaningful way which will affect the lives of many
children in Canada. The average child support order covers less
than half of the cost of raising a child. Therefore, it is not fair or
just to tax back a large percentage of support payments which are
meant to clothe and feed our children. We as legislators in the
House of Commons must stand up to introduce further measures of
justice and fairness in our tax system, particularly as they relate to
the future of our children.
Loving parents will take desperate measures to care and provide
for their children. Sacrifices are continually made by mothers.
These desperate measures can be very costly to the mothers, to the
children and to our country in the long run. Scars can be left on the
parents for a long time. Scars of many kinds are left on the
children.
I again congratulate and thank the hon. member for Nepean for a
commitment to this very important bill. I ask all members of the
House to support the bill. It is a bill upon which we should move
quickly.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
recognize there are only a few minutes left in the debate. I have
spoken previously on this matter. I do not want to repeat what I said
at that time, but I do want to reinforce what my hon. colleague has
just said.
The poverty of children costs us. As we look for ways to contain
the cost of our medical system without reducing the quality and
access to care, we have to remember that poor children are four
times as likely to become seriously ill and to die. As we seek to
keep children in school to improve our ability to compete on the
international stage, we have to remember that poor children are
four times as likely to drop out of school.
Poverty costs us all. That is why I want to make this point. I have
no question that we are going to implement the measure proposed
in the bill, to not make child support payments taxable in the hands
of the custodial parent. I simply urge the government to recognize
that this measure will generate substantial amounts of revenue for
the Government of Canada. We have to make the commitment to
direct that money explicitly to alleviating the poverty of children.
In 1991 the House adopted a unanimous resolution to eliminate
child poverty by the year 2000. We are halfway to that target. In
fact, the rate of child poverty in Canada has increased rather than
17110
decreased. It is now 1.4 million children in Canada who are living
in poverty, compared to one million when the House adopted the
resolution.
I rise today only to say to the government that when we generate
more revenue from taxing child support payments, as they should
be taxed in the hands of the income earner and not the custodial
parent, that money should go nowhere but to the children of
Canada.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, the hour provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to our Standing Orders, this item is dropped from the
Order Paper. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until next
Monday at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.17 p.m.)