TABLE OF CONTENTS
Friday, April 22, 1994
Bill C-4. Report stage 3379
Motion for concurrence 3379
Motion for third reading 3379
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 3383
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.32 a.m.) 3383
The House resumed at 11 a.m. 3384
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 3386
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 3387
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3387
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 3392
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3394
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3394
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3394
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3395
Bill C-240. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 3400
Motion for concurrence in 17th report 3400
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 3402
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 3407
3379
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 22, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, an act
to amend the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (for the Minister of Justice)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Robichaud (for the Minister of Justice) moved that the
bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise
today to participate in the third reading debate on this bill, an act
to amend the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
This legislation ensures that trade sanctions cannot be taken
against Canada under the North American free trade agreement
on environmental co-operation or the North American
agreement on labour co-operation.
Bill C-4 is the only legislative measure necessary for Canada
to fulfil our obligations under these agreements.
[Translation]
These agreements improve the NAFTA provisions on the
environment and labour. They guarantee that our objective to
increase trade is not achieved at the expense of our environment
and our workers.
If adopted, this legislation would guarantee that trade
sanctions cannot be taken against Canada in connection with
environmental or labour matters covered by NAFTA.
[English]
Thanks to this bill, any potential fines made against Canada
by a panel will be enforced by our own domestic courts.
If Canada, the United States or Mexico fail to enforce their
environmental and labour laws, the agreements contain an
effective dispute settlement mechanism. It allows for the
establishment of a panel to investigate and make a
determination.
If a panel determines a country has demonstrated a persistent
pattern of failure to enforce its law, it may require the offending
country to adopt an action plan to correct the problems. If the
country fails to do so, the panel could also impose a fine or what
the agreement terms a monetary enforcement assessment.
(1005)
The legislation before us today will permit the Federal Court
of Canada to enforce any panel determination which may be
made against Canada if, and only if we persistently fail to
effectively enforce our environmental and labour laws. Of
course that is not something we expect to ever happen.
If a dispute settlement panel levies fines against the United
States or Mexico for failure to correct their enforcement
problems, those countries will face a suspension of NAFTA
benefit or trade sanctions equivalent to the size of the unpaid
penalty.
Canada views such trade sanctions would constitute barriers
of the very kind that the NAFTA was designed to eliminate.
These agreements protect Canada's environmental and labour
interests in relation to the North American free trade agreement.
They effectively strengthen and expand important commitments
made by Canada, the United States and Mexico.
[Translation]
We are committed to helping to promote environmentally
sustainable growth and to promoting workers' rights throughout
North America.
[English]
Through the North American agreement on environmental
co-operation we have created a commission to effect close and
ongoing co-operation. For example, on March 23 the Minister
of the Environment participated in the inaugural meeting of the
commission in Vancouver with her counterparts from the United
States and Mexico.
3380
The ministers at that time approved a process to establish the
commission and the co-operative work program for the first
year. They agreed that the commission's activities will be
conducted in an open and transparent manner.
The environment ministers from Canada, the United States
and Mexico will oversee the work of the commission to ensure it
meets its goals; to promote sustainable development, to develop
and enforce environmental regulations and to resolve disputes if
laws are not upheld.
The commission will promote a work plan based on areas of
priority. They include limits on specific pollutants, assessments
of projects with transboundary implications and reciprocal court
access. As well, the commission will work with the free trade
commission to achieve the environmental goals of the NAFTA
agreement.
Steady progress has been made on the establishment of the
labour commission formed under the North American
agreement on labour co-operation. Also on March 21 in
Washington the Minister of Human Resources Development met
with his American and Mexican counterparts to establish the
co-operative work plan of the labour commission.
The ministers discussed how they intend to achieve the
objectives of the labour agreement and reviewed a number of
practical measures related to the establishment of the
commission's organizational structure. At that time they
reiterated their commitment to work together on a program of
trilateral co-operative activities.
The labour commission will give effect to the promise in the
preamble to the North American free trade agreement to
``improve conditions and living standards'' and as well ``to
protect, enhance and enforce basic workers' rights''. The
agreement, founded on close and ongoing co-operation among
the three countries, ensures that laws governing health and
safety, child labour and minimum wage standards are upheld.
They go well beyond co-operation. They commit each
country to the domestic enforcement of domestic environmental
and labour laws. This means that no country may use lax
enforcement of its laws to gain an unfair arrangement or trade
advantage.
I can report that negotiations to work out federal-provincial
arrangements on implementing the environment and labour
agreements in Canada are proceeding on a co-operative and
constructive footing.
(1010 )
These agreements are designed to protect the environment
and workers' rights, important issues for the provinces. Canada
will submit to its NAFTA partners a list of provinces
participating in the agreement when negotiations with the
provinces have been completed.
It is my firm belief that the North American free trade
agreement has been considerably strengthened and improved as
a result of the precedent setting side agreement. The government
is satisfied that the NAFTA will advance Canadian trade policy
objectives.
As well the agreement will provide a valuable incentive for
Canadian producers, exporters and investors to look beyond
their traditional backyards to Mexico and the rest of Latin
America as well as to the markets of Europe and Asia.
The agreement as strengthened and improved illustrates that
international trade agreements can be multifaceted and more
attuned to the realities of the 1990s.
It is in Canada's best interests to proceed with the passage of
this bill. Not only will it protect Canada's international trade
interest but also our environmental goals and the rights of our
workers.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to
Bill C-4, an act to amend the Crown Liability and Proceedings
Act. Notwithstanding its vague and somewhat misleading title,
this is a relatively simple bill. It refers to the so-called side
agreements to the North American free trade agreement.
On March 15, in the debate on the Canadian foreign policy
review process, I commented as follows, and I quote:
It is important to point out that this globalization is an inescapable
phenomenon. It is a tendency which affects the economy of all countries,
whether they are G-7 members or developing nations. To try to escape this
reality would be like ignoring the emergence of new means of communication
and production; in other words, it would be tantamount to ignoring the changes
that have occurred in our economic environment.
I also stated the following:
-trade liberalization and market globalization seem to be a trend, an
irreversible phenomenon. The prosperity of nations will depend more and more
on international trade. It is a fact that will be part of Canada's economic reality
from now on.
It is therefore not surprising that developments took us so
quickly from the initial signing of the free trade agreement
between Canada and the United States to the signing of the
North American free trade agreement.
I was in Washington yesterday with several Canadian
colleagues to meet members of the U.S. steel caucus and to
discuss the need for our governments to provide formal
recognition of the fact that the North American steel market is
already well on its way to being integrated.
We also had an opportunity to meet representatives of the
Canadian and U.S. steel industry who shared with us their
concerns and expectations.
3381
Representatives of the American Iron and Steel Institute,
which includes most Canadian, American and Mexican steel
mills, gave us, for our information, a press release published
on July 8, 1992, in which the North American Steel Council,
which is a member of the American Iron and Steel Institute,
explained its position on NAFTA.
One paragraph of this press release was about the concerns
shared by all members of the American Iron and Steel Institute,
and I would like to read this very briefly, if I may, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
``On the interplay between the NAFTA and the environment
the NASC's Canadian, Mexican and U.S. members share
common concerns. We support continued parallel talks by our
governments on environmental standards and enforcement
levels, as well as on other so-called social issues as worker
health and safety standards''.
[Translation]
Reflecting the concerns shared by a substantial part of the
U.S. public, U.S. President Bill Clinton made a commitment to
negotiate and conclude side agreements on these two items
before NAFTA was passed by Congress. After hasty
negotiations, the three partners on September 14, 1993, signed
two parallel agreements to NAFTA: the North American
agreement on environmental co-operation between the
governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico, and the
North American agreement on labor co-operation, between the
same three governments.
(1015)
These side agreements gave rise to two new international
institutions, namely the commission for environmental
co-operation and the commission for labor co-operation.
Incidentally, several days ago, the government announced
that the NAFTA commission for environmental co-operation
would be established in Montreal. The English-language media
and some other interested parties immediately criticized the
government's choice, although it was quite logical and justified.
Need we repeat that Quebec is the only Canadian province
which has promised to endorse the parallel accords on labour
and the environment-but only, I wish to point out-after
serious negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa?
The reasons that Quebec wants so much to be at the leading
edge of international trade practices could not be more obvious:
Quebec exports almost 16 per cent of its $160 billion GDP and
these exports account for 30 per cent of our jobs. Furthermore,
76 per cent of Quebec's exports go to the United States.
Establishing the commission in a place that is hostile to its
purpose would certainly not make for efficient operation. In
addition, the government's choice is justified because Montreal
is an international city which is already home to some 30
international organizations, including ICAO and IATA. The
various levels of government have made great efforts to attract
international organizations to Montreal.
Finally, Montreal is a cosmopolitan city which has the
infrastructure needed for such organizations. It has a large
English-speaking community and Spanish is increasingly
spoken there every day by a rapidly growing Hispanic
community.
For all these reasons and many more, Quebec's business
community and politicians were right to lobby hard to have the
commission for environmental co-operation located in
Montreal.
That said, I do not intend to say any more on the commission
for environmental co-operation and the commission for labor
co-operation than Bill C-4 itself does.
To see what this bill is all about, it is first of all necessary to
put it in perspective. It then becomes apparent that it partially
meets some very worthy overall objectives, since it ultimately
seeks to protect the rights of our working people as well as our
natural sites and our environment.
As I said earlier, Bill C-4 seeks to make effective in Canada
the provisions contained in the parallel accords concluded by
the three NAFTA signatory countries on labour and the
environment. As a document prepared by the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade for members of the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
says, these parallel accords encourage cooperation between
Canada, the United States and Mexico on the environment and
labour; commit the parties to promote compliance with and
enforcement of their environmental and labour laws and
regulations; and advocate higher standards in these two areas.
For at least two centuries, workers in Quebec and Canada
have fought for laws to protect themselves from abuse by
employers and governments. These struggles were hard and at
times bitter. Nevertheless, workers succeeded in having their
rights entrenched in laws which, in a sense, are now an integral
part of life in Quebec and Canada; however, such is not the case
in all countries. For social or historic reasons, workers' rights
have not advanced at the same rate and in the same way
everywhere.
Need we add that this is also true of the environment, where
the gains made are even more fragile? Indeed, although the
progress made in labour relations is fairly well established, this
is certainly not true of environmental protection, where too
often and even recently we have seen governments bow to the
laws of the market, to the detriment of the laws of nature.
3382
(1020)
At any rate, at the 1992 earth summit, there was certainly no
great show of unfailing willingness on the part of NAFTA
partners to work together to solve their environmental
problems. Under no circumstances must trade agreements
between countries, however substantial they may be, adversely
affect either the vested rights of our workers or our
environment.
I am convinced however that certain fly-by-night businesses
have tried to use the elimination of trade barriers to explain to
their workers and the authorities the relaxation of labour and
biophysical environment protection standards.
That is why the NAFTA side deals provide for mechanisms
ultimately intended, on the one hand, to prevent businesses from
taking advantage of legal differences between countries and, on
the other hand, to force governments to maintain and enforce
existing legislation and, ideally, encourage the various
countries to pass legislation that is yet more progressive and
stringent. Any downgrading of working conditions and labour
standards will not be tolerated by the Bloc Quebecois, nor by the
people of Quebec and Canada.
Of course, the temptation is there to restore a number of trade
barriers or at least to adopt once again a negative attitude toward
free trade as an easy way to solve the problem. And some
provincial governments seem to like the idea. However, neither
the current federal government nor the Bloc Quebecois, nor the
government of Quebec for that matter, consider that approach to
be realistic or beneficial.
For now, Bill C-4 appears to be a step toward the ultimate
goal of preventing environmental and social ``dumping'' in
cases where trading partners are on a very unequal footing in
economic and legislative terms. Note that such an approach has
created pitfalls that governments must avoid at all costs, but I
will comment on that later on.
Bill C-4 enables a panel, an arbitration panel convened under
article 24 of the environmental co-operation agreement or
article 29 of the labor co-operation agreement to require either
partner to effectively enforce its own environmental or labour
laws.
Panel determinations will have the same status as an order of
the Federal Court. As indicated in the explanatory notes, the
enactment of Bill C-4 ``amends the Crown Liability and
Proceedings Act so as to permit domestic enforcement by the
Federal Court of Canada of any panel determination that is
addressed to the Crown in right of Canada'', should the latter
fail to enforce its environmental or labour legislation.
In other words, Bill C-4 is a step in the right direction in that
it prevents the legislative gap between the three NAFTA
signatories from widening further. If Canadian businesses
decide to set up abroad, it will not be in hope of benefiting from
some relaxation of environmental standards or of being able to
exploit a poorly protected labour force. The contrary is also
possible, but the chances of that happening are much slimmer,
believe me.
Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the disparity between our three
countries' social and environmental standards is in no way
expected to increase as a result of such a measure. On the
contrary, under article 3 of each side deal, the three signatory
states agree to improve and strengthen existing legislation. In
the event of non-compliance, the panel may assess the party in
default, through an order of the Federal Court, a fine of up to $20
million US. The United States and Mexico could even have trade
sanctions taken against them, while no such sanctions can be
taken against Canada or any of its provinces under the
agreement.
All in all, however, I would say that the positive aspects of
this bill tend to eclipse the less positive ones. The first of these
not-so-positive aspects of this middle-of-the-road solution
that Canada has given its support to is no doubt the fact that the
side deals have achieved no significant reduction in the
observable legislative differences between the three NAFTA
partners with respect to environment and labour.
This means that businesses could be tempted to take
advantage of the fact that, in many cases, our trading partners'
standards are more flexible than ours.
(1025)
Admittedly, all parties expressed their willingness to improve
their legislation, but this expression of faith, although noted in
the agreement and seemingly sincere, is no guarantee
whatsoever that positive changes will in fact occur.
Moreover, we are all becoming better acquainted with the
legendary propensity of our neighbours to the South to turn to
the courts at the slightest little thing. Following the signing of
the free trade agreement, Canadians were surprised indeed to
see the Americans rush to the trade tribunals, apparently to tie
them up with business as quickly as possible. Since they have
not been shy about doing so since the implementation of the free
trade agreement, there is reason to think that they will adopt the
same course of action, if at all possible, in the case of the
NAFTA and its side agreements.
Therefore, it is vitally important that we make our partners
understand that this kind of practice is totally unacceptable.
Special groups that hand down binding decisions must not
become, quite involuntarily at that, institutions at the service of
one NAFTA partner or another.
3383
Another of the problems caused by these side agreements has
to do with the unique features of Canadian federalism.
Regardless of what this centralist government may believe,
labour and environment are largely areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
While Ottawa disregarded Quebec's willingness to negotiate
agreements in the case of the free trade agreement, it is hardly in
a position here to take a similar approach in the case of side
agreements. Discussions are in progress right now between
federal and Quebec officials. According to the information we
have received thus far, these discussions appear to be moving
along well.
The same apparently cannot be said for the other provinces.
From the very beginning, Ontario and British Columbia have
made no secret of their opposition to all side agreements. To
show its discontent, Ontario has threatened on several occasions
to ask the Supreme Court to declare the government's actions in
this matter unconstitutional.
Side agreements which for now apply only in areas of federal
jurisdiction are not likely to apply to all provinces equally
anytime soon.
If our partners did not understand the nature, or should I say
the confused nature, of the Canadian federation, well now is
certainly their chance to get a clearer picture of the situation.
Although they have expressly stated that they would like the
federal government to conclude agreements with the provinces,
their wish does not seem to have been universally heard.
Regardless, Mr. Speaker, we will enthusiastically support this
bill in view of the arguments presented and the underlying
principles which gave rise to it.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, today we
are taking a last look at Bill C-4 as it gets third reading.
This bill was introduced by the government on January 26 and
I spoke to it at length a few days later. At that time I said the
Reform Party supported this bill although we did have some
concerns about there being fair representation on the panel. We
also wondered whether there should be an appeal process. These
concerns were addressed to our satisfaction in committee.
I can now say that I and the Reform Party fully support this
bill which will bring into Canadian law an enforcement
mechanism established under the NAFTA side agreements on
environmental and labour co-operation.
In the area of environmental co-operation we will be assured
that there will be strengthened environmental co-operation in
North America. We will be assured of sustainable development
on a continental basis and of effective compliance with domestic
and environmental law.
In the area of labour co-operation we look forward to
improved working conditions and living standards in Canada,
the United States and Mexico, and the protection, enhancement
and enforcement of basic workers' rights.
The trade pacts we have signed recently are of crucial
importance to Canada since they help us gain better access to
foreign markets. The sooner we get these trade pacts
implemented the better.
Naturally there will be irritants as these agreements become
operational. These will have to be addressed as they come up
and I am confident they will do so.
We are doing the right thing by passing the bill quickly and
moving on with the implementation of NAFTA. However there
is still much work for the government to do to make it possible
for business to take advantage of these trade opportunities.
The most important one is to reduce government spending so
that we can eventually begin to lower taxes in Canada, which is
among the highest taxed countries in the industrial world.
The second one is to eliminate the many interprovincial trade
barriers that exist in Canada. I know these trade barriers are
being discussed among federal and provincial governments
now. I urge these governments to move quickly and without
hesitation in these areas.
We are making great strides in securing our prosperity by
making trade deals abroad. Let us see whether we have the same
resolve to make the same breakthrough at home.
Canada is a trading nation. We support the bill and hope that
we will benefit from the many opportunities this trade deal
brings to Canadians.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
[Translation]
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there
is unanimous consent to suspend the sitting of the House until
the Question Period, at eleven o'clock, and then after the
Routine Proceedings, to go on directly to Private Members'
Business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
motion from the hon. Secretary of State. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.32 a.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 11 a.m.
3384
3384
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to salute the 40th anniversary of the Lindsay Kinsmen
Band. Formed in the spring of 1954 by Lloyd McMullen and
Muriel and Earl Kennedy, the band has become part of the
history of the town. It has touched the lives of thousands of
young men and women who pursued a musical career in the town
of Lindsay and formed a lasting tie to the community.
Furthermore, the band has distinguished itself with
appearances at various national and international fairs and
exhibits, including the Calgary Stampede, the New York
World's Fair, Expo 67 and the 1970 Klondike Days in
Edmonton. It has been said that at each place it visited it left a
lasting impression.
There are now 54 enthusiastic members of this band and they
proudly carry on the spirit of past bandmasters, drum majors,
teachers and members.
I salute the parents who have spent countless hours of their
time with the band. I ask all MPs to wish success and a happy
40th birthday to the Lindsay Kinsmen Band.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, in
my speeches, I often compare volunteers to the blood running
through our veins: they are everywhere, and they are needed in
any well-organized society.
The contribution of these men and women to our society is
invaluable. From the most sensitive gestures in the most tragic
moments to fanatically determined support in highly committed
organizations, volunteers have their place everywhere.
As far back in time as we can go, we see that all major mass
movements resulted from the actions of volunteers. Whether we
are talking about political action, consumers' associations or
humanitarian organizations, we find volunteerism in the
background.
Congratulations to all volunteers. What would our world be
without you? I wish all volunteers an enjoyable week.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, the
revelation this morning that the Hibernia project is $1 billion
over budget and one year behind schedule comes as no surprise
to industry insiders.
The Hibernia project will be typical of economic development
projects promoted and financed by government for political
reasons rather than economic reasons.
This project has already consumed $1 billion in direct
subsidies and almost $2 billion in loan guarantees by Canadian
taxpayers, added to which is the taxpayers' $85 million share of
the current overrun plus their liability for the 70 per cent share
of Petro-Canada. Clearly Gulf Canada made a wise business
decision to take its loss and pull out of this project two years
ago.
With the proposed start-up date still four years away, how
many more tax dollars will be dumped into this misguided effort
to promote job creation in Newfoundland?
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's seniors, like all of us, were concerned to hear this
week of the need to tap into the Canada Pension Plan surplus.
They would like to be reassured that they will continue to
enjoy independent retirement living after paying into the
pension system for decades. Perhaps more than any other group,
seniors understand the need for sound fiscal management by
governments. They do not want their children and grandchildren
to inherit a legacy of debt.
That is why seniors associations such as One Voice would like
to be part of the government's consultation process on a range of
issues from budgetary policy to the renewal of Canada's social
security system. Theirs, after all, is the voice of accumulated
wisdom.
Now more than ever Parliament stands to benefit from the
insight of our nation's seniors as we work to create a Canada rich
with opportunity for all generations.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker, I
stand today to remember and pay tribute to 1.5 million
Armenian men, women and children who were killed in the first
major genocide of the 20th century, planned and executed by the
government of Turkey on April 24, 1915 as a brutal final
solution to the Armenian question.
3385
My parents were not spared this tremendous suffering the
Turkish government inflicted on so many individuals. As a
result, like so many thousands of other Armenians, they were
eventually forced to flee their homeland, leaving behind all
their belongings.
As a citizen of Canada I wish to take this moment and
condemn this unforgivable act of human aggression and ethnic
cleansing.
(1105 )
Similarly I call upon the Government of Canada to recognize
and condemn the Armenian genocide and formally request the
Turkish government to assume responsibility for this atrocity
once and for all as Germany did for the six million Jews in World
War II.
In conclusion, I ask all MPs to join their fellow Canadians of
Armenian descent at a demonstration on Parliament Hill on
Sunday, April 24 at 12.30 p.m.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, this year,
Armenians throughout the world commemorate the 79th
anniversary of the painful events of 1915 that took two million
of their compatriots.
On this occasion, the Government of Canada extends its
sympathy to the Armenian people, and particularly to tens of
thousands of our fellow Canadians of Armenian descent, and
hopes that the conflict in Karabakh will be resolved in a
peaceful, fair and equitable manner as soon as possible.
* * *
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
the Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the way trade relations
between Canada and the United States are developing, in
particular with regard to Canadian exports of durum wheat and
barley.
The Bloc Quebecois condemns the intimidation tactics used
by the U.S. government to end this dispute and asks the
Canadian government to remain firm with its trading partner.
Thousands of Canadian and Quebec producers expect their
government to defend their interests with authority, and the Bloc
Quebecois will support the federal government's
representations as long as it stands up to the unacceptable
pressure exerted by the U.S. and does not let itself be led into
bargaining at the expense of other agricultural sectors such as
dairy products and poultry.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian taxpayers were angered to awake this morning to find
a story in the Montreal
Gazette outlining the federal
government's intentions to invest $4.8 million of their
hard-earned dollars on a theme park in the Prime Minister's
home town.
This project, which I suggest they call Jean's World, calls into
question the new politics that were promised in the Liberal red
book by continuing the tradition of rewarding the Prime
Minister's home ridings with useless patronage projects.
I remind the members opposite of how loudly they bleated
when Brian Mulroney built the patronage prison in Baie
Comeau. In comparison, the reaction from the members
opposite regarding the Prime Minister's patronage park is the
silence of the lambs.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to remind the House that April 17 to
23, 1994 is Action Canada's DES Awareness Week. DES stands
for diethylstybestrol.
Between 1941 and 1971 approximately 200,000 to 400,000
pregnant Canadian women were prescribed the synthetic
hormone to prevent miscarriage. As a result these mothers and
their sons and daughters are at risk of health problems related to
DES exposure.
DES Action Canada is a national non-profit consumer health
organization that has worked since 1982 to alert Canadians of
the potential dangers of DES. Most of the attention to date has
focused on DES mothers who are at an increased risk of breast
cancer and on daughters who may suffer from infertility or even
cancer.
This year DES Action Canada will try to alert as many DES
exposed women as possible.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis): Mr.
Speaker, our First Nations describe the earth as our mother and
treat it with the deepest respect and affection. They say that the
forest and its wildlife are adornments that make the mother more
beautiful. The more beautiful they are, the better the mother
feels.
3386
[English]
They say that rivers, streams and lakes are like the arteries
and the veins in the body of the mother. The cleaner they are, the
healthier they are, the healthier the mother is.
Their respect and love for mother earth is profound. Today is
Earth Day. I suggest we pledge ourselves to learn from the
example and show all the love and respect to mother earth that
they do.
* * *
(1110)
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, these
past few days, I have had the pleasure of taking part in the
announcement of the first phase of a $4.5 million infrastructure
project in the Kamouraska-Saint-Jean-Port-Joli area. Sixty
direct jobs will be created and, better yet, according to the
mayor of Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, the program will ensure the
survival of a construction company located in his community.
This confirms that our government lives up to its commitment
to economic recovery and job creation. With this infrastructure
program, we are finally giving Canadians hope in a lasting
recovery, instead of fostering political and economic
uncertainty across the country, as the members opposite do so
well. Canadians want jobs, and we are delivering.
* * *
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the leader of the Reform Party, while
visiting Quebec, stated that Canada would accept Quebecers'
decision to become sovereign. By recognizing Quebec's right to
self-determination, he has come to the obvious conclusion that
Quebecers constitute a distinct society.
The recognition of Quebec's right to self-determination is
part of a continuum. After the Conservative Party of Canada, the
Liberal Party of Canada, and the New Democratic Party of
Canada, the Reform Party confirms that it too would respect the
democratic choice of Quebecers, a choice they will be called
upon to make in the very near future. I am fully confident that
they will move forward towards their historic goal, that is to be
masters of their own destiny.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, it is of great importance to me as a Reformer and a
proud Canadian that as we celebrate Citizenship Week we begin
the process of elevating the concept and value of citizenship
within our country.
As Canadians we need to restore the value and pride that our
citizenship deserves. As legislators we need to question policies
that stand in the way of that restoration.
Do present policies of bilingualism and multiculturalism
build bridges or walls to our diversities? Do record immigration
levels added to our crippled economy and stressed social
structures promote tolerance or misunderstanding in our land?
Do government policies that weaken families and negate justice
bring hope or despair to our people?
Whether we are Canadians by birth or by choice our
citizenship must be elevated by the decisions to be made in this
House as a privileged opportunity to proudly participate
together in the making of a great future of a great country.
* * *
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, the
United States will notify the GATT this afternoon that it intends
to launch action against Canadian wheat and barley under article
XXVIII.
I want to congratulate our minister of agriculture and our
Minister for International Trade for not caving in to the
Americans on this issue. The American argument is weak as
increased sales into their market are a direct result of their own
use of the export enhancement program. Fair and open trade
cannot continue with these unjust actions.
Canada has a willingness to negotiate but there must be
flexibility on both sides. This only goes to help lawyers and
bureaucrats on both sides of the border. It does nothing to help
farmers.
I call on our government to stay strong on this action and to
tell the Americans that we are not prepared to cave in.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, today I would like to congratulate the members of the
joint federal-provincial-territorial committee in charge of
purchasing flu vaccine for 1994-95.
3387
In keeping with a truly Canadian tradition, the committee
split the contract equally between two companies, BioVac, in
Quebec, and Connaught, in Ontario. This decision saves jobs
and protects the interests of all parties concerned, including
both companies, the federal government and the provinces.
The average price arrived at under the memorandum of
agreement is $1.77 per dosage unit, with Connaught getting
$1.69 and BioVac $1.85. By awarding this contract to the
Quebec company BioVac, the government is saving the jobs of
ten workers in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, in Ontario, who
would have lost them had it been awarded entirely to Connaught.
As the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I thank the
minister for listening to my grievances and those of my
constituents, allowing them to keep their jobs.
* * *
(1115)
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, I raise today the issue of Patrick Kelly who is serving a
sentence for first degree murder for which he has always
professed his innocence.
In recent months, in fact in December, the main witness,
Dawn Taber, withdrew her testimony indicating that she had not
told the truth about events surrounding the case. In fact the
whole case against Patrick Kelly was based on this one eye
witness testimony.
In view of the retraction of that testimony, in view of the
minister's power under section 690 of the Criminal Code, and in
view of the fact that the minister already has the documentation
in front of him and has said that this matter will be dealt with in
the fullness of time, I urge the minister to act quickly on this
matter. It has been in his hands for about four or five months
now.
Not only is Patrick Kelly languishing in jail for a crime he did
not commit but this also raises serious questions about the
efficacy of the Canadian justice system.
I urge the minister to act with haste to resolve this matter.
The Speaker: Before we proceed to question period I would
like once again to thank all of you who have sent your statements
to the interpreters. I thank you also for, if I might call it this, the
cadence of the statements you are making. Usually when they
are a little slower we get a chance to get better, if that is possible,
interpretation.
3387
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Just two weeks from the date initially scheduled by the
Minister of Human Resources Development to table his action
plan concerning social program reform, the minister says that he
``is not ready''.
Also, yesterday a newspaper quoted the Minister of Finance
who said: ``Federal ministers, as well as Quebec's Minister of
Finance, have agreed on a moratorium regarding social security
reform''.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Minister of
Human Resources Development is improvising his reform and
that, at the Minister of Finance's request, the government has
decided to impose a moratorium?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, what we said and what
we discussed last January with the finance ministers, is that
there will be no cuts, there will be no freeze in transfers to
provinces for a period of two years, precisely to give the
Minister of Human Resources Development time to discuss and
negotiate the necessary reforms with his counterparts.
The situation is very clear: We have decided on a moratorium
to have a period of discussion and negotiation. In fact, this
exercise has already been launched by the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
[English]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime
Minister.
I would like to know if she agrees with her colleague, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who said earlier this
week that the duplications in the main power sector are costing
$300 million to the Quebec taxpayers.
I would like to know if she maintains the assertion made by
her colleague.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada
is concerned with duplication at every level.
As a matter of fact we are working very hard with the province
of Quebec and other provinces on harmonization of
environmental laws. We are working very hard on
harmonization of laws relating to trade. We are working very
hard at breaking down the barriers between provinces.
3388
We see this as an important pillar in building the Canadian
economy. Anything we can do to cut down expenses to the
taxpayers we will support.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has not really answered the
question. Will she confirm whether or not the figure of some
$300 million quoted by the Quebec government is true,
especially considering that the strategy regarding the youth
program will create more duplication and overlap?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister and her government pledge to
release the studies to which the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs referred, precisely to downplay duplication and overlap
between Ottawa and the provinces, so that all members of this
House are able to put a figure on the cost of Canadian
federalism, and so that, as the Liberals promised in their red
book, the whole negotiating process involving the provinces and
the federal government can be more transparent?
(1120)
Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to release those
studies, as did the Quebec government in the case of the
Bélanger-Campeau commission, as did the Liberal Party of
Quebec, which is of course pro- federalist, and as did the Parti
Quebecois in that province? Will you release these studies?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the federal government
works very hard with all the provinces to reduce overlap in every
sector, including human resources and the environment.
I also said that the work done by my colleague, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, aims precisely at determining costs
and reducing those costs for all taxpayers.
The hon. member asked about the cost of federalism. I think
that, instead of complaining like he does about every initiative
taken by the government, he should tell Quebecers about the
cost of separation.
The Speaker: Maybe the expressions used were
inappropriate. We may want to refrain from making such loaded
statements.
* * *
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies):
Yesterday, we learned that the Hibernia megaproject was
swallowing up even more money.
The developers are now projecting cost overruns of almost $1
billion on top of the original $5.2 billion price tag. This
represents an increase in costs of close to 20 per cent. An
additional $85 million in federal input and $175 millions more
in loans may be required. A lot of pressure is being put on the
government to pump more money into this white elephant of the
nineties.
Given the sad state of our public finances, is the Deputy Prime
Minister prepared to make a commitment that the government
will not invest a penny more in Hibernia and that this massive
drain on public funds will stop, since the potential profitability
of this megaproject, which the Globe and Mail has called a real
tragedy, is being challenged?
[English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, first of all we
should realize that these are preliminary numbers and
preliminary estimates and that more detailed work is being
done.
We have representatives on the board who are working to
monitor the situation. We have contractual obligations as well
that were entered into two years ago and we will have to honour
those commitments. More money will be flowing to this project
if it has an overrun.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In that case, will the
Deputy Prime Minister undertake to ensure that Parliament will
conduct a detailed analysis of the financing, profitability and
industrial benefits of Hibernia before extending any more
financial assistance?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, what is unfortunate in this
situation is that the Bloc members, ever since the beginning of
this new session, have been demanding job creation programs,
and that is what we are trying to do.
Before asking us to axe Hibernia, I think the hon. member
should take a look at who stands to benefit from these contracts?
Does he realize that 34 Quebec companies are involved in the
project? SNC Lavallin, MIL Davie, Monenco, Janin
Construction, and Atlas Construction have all obtained
contracts, following the commitment on the part of the federal
government to ensure that the project is 65 per cent Canadian?
Does the hon. member want the federal government to break
its commitment to SNC Lavallin, Monenco, Atlas and other
private companies that need contracts from all over Canada?
3389
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also regarding white elephants which do
nothing in comparison to live elephants that are able to walk.
The Hibernia project is at least a year behind schedule and at
least $1 billion over budget. Canadian taxpayers are directly at
risk both through government commitments and through
Petro-Canada. The Minister of Natural Resources has already
said that Canadians are on the hook for another $85 million.
(1125)
In light of the fact that government has been able to back out
of the Pearson airport deal and from the EH-101 contract, can
the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee that the federal
government will not spend another cent of taxpayer money on
this boondoggle?
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, it is passing
strange that the member would raise this particular matter when
we know full well that his leader has indicated this project is too
far along to back out.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party said the problem is that
governments keep getting themselves in deeper and deeper and
the sooner we extricate ourselves from these types of
mismanaged projects the better.
When is the government going to learn? Hibernia is joining
the Bricklin auto plant, the Mirabel airport, and now the
Lloydminster upgrader has run out of operating funds. These are
all entering the white elephant hall of fame.
What would have been the benefit to Canada's unemployed if
the money spent on so-called megaprojects had been directed to
deficit reduction, leading to lower taxes and thereby creating
real jobs?
When will the government come to its senses and rescue
taxpayers from the Hibernia project before it sinks?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the member makes the comparison with Pearson
airport and other projects. These are projects that had not begun,
where hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars had not yet
been spent, and where 5,300 Canadians are currently employed.
The policy of the Reform Party is, notwithstanding
expenditures of billions already under way, to shut down a
project and to throw away those billions, to throw away the lives
of 5,300 Canadians who are currently employed and to bankrupt
hundreds of secondary supply companies currently involved in
this project.
Let me complete my answer by quoting Wood Gundy which
has done an independent assessment of this project: ``We
believe that the upside potential from developing Hibernia and
the returns that should be generated from the project offset the
levels of risk that currently exist''.
The assessment went on to compare this project with the
Syncrude project of western Canada which now profitably
produces approximately 12 per cent of the total Canadian
production.
We believe in the west, we believe in the east, we believe in
people. We do not abandon Canadians or projects halfway
completed in the heartless fashion as proposed by this so-called
Reform Party.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I get really concerned when I hear the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans answering a question on megaprojects.
I am trying to bring to the attention of the government the
boondoggles it is involved in. I wonder why the Prime Minister
is preparing to waste $4.8 million tax dollars on a patronage
park in his home riding. It is my understanding that perhaps the
feature attraction will be a fantasyland ride called debt
mountain.
Why is the Deputy Prime Minister ignoring a federal study
which says that just like the failed humour museum in Montreal,
the patronage park is also a bad joke?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I get concerned when I hear
the leader of the Reform Party claiming to speak on behalf of
Quebecers.
From the point of view of the government we are very happy
that the minister who is the spokesperson for this project
happens to be a minister who is from Newfoundland and who
understands how beneficial the Hibernia project can be for not
only Newfoundlanders but for those 34 Quebec companies that
are receiving $800 million in contracts, those literally millions
of other dollars in contracts that are going out across the
country.
Frankly, we on this side of the House are not going to
apologize for creating jobs for Canadians.
Yesterday for the first time in the House the Reform Party
started asking questions about the real issue that touches
Canadians, and that is jobs. When the government through the
minister responsible for FORD-Q or through the ministers
responsible for energy or through the ministers responsible for
industry and environment are out there creating jobs we do not
expect to take flack from the Reform Party.
The Speaker: The only thing the Speaker really gets
concerned about is the length of the questions and the length of
the
3390
answers. I would ask hon. members to please be as concise as
they can.
* * *
(1130)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday,
during the special debate on the situation in Bosnia, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs announced that the government was
supporting the United Nations' proposal for air strikes in order
to protect the six safe areas designated by the UN in Bosnia
following repeated violations of the various ceasefires by
Bosnian Serb forces.
Can the Minister of Defence tell us exactly where things stand
at this point in Gorazde and indicate if Russia approves of the
UN Secretary-General's proposal for air strikes in Bosnia?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as
you know the North Atlantic Council has been meeting since
nine o'clock Ottawa time. We do not have any results of the
discussions. Should I have them before the end of question
period, I will perhaps rise at twelve o'clock and make a
statement if the House is willing.
With respect to the position of the Russian government, as
you know, Mr. Speaker, it has had some reservations on the
whole question of broadening air strikes in the former Yugoslav
republic of Bosnia. We have no information as of this moment as
to whether or not it has changed its position, but it is certainly
something that has to be taken into consideration by the council
at its meeting this morning.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, could the
minister tell us what positions Canada took at the NATO summit
in Brussels, particularly on the safety of Canadian peacekeepers
in Bosnia and could he tell us also what decisions were made at
that summit meeting?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we
did cover this last night in the debate. The instructions that we
gave immediately following the cabinet meeting last night were
to endorse the Secretary General's proposal for the Sarajevo
type air strikes being widened to include the five safe havens
under certain communications and control procedures of the
United Nations and with NATO.
Our military people in Brussels will be consulted as to the
exact methodology in terms of control to make sure that our
objectives have been met.
With respect to the question of the safety of our troops, we did
acknowledge yesterday that we have taken some precautions in
and around our base in Visoko so that we do not unnecessarily
expose our troops to the Bosnian Serb lines. However I should
say that this does not mean, contrary to some media reports, that
our troops are hunkered down in the base in Visoko. They are
performing the humanitarian aid which has resumed into
Sarajevo in the last day or so and they are carrying on their work.
Certainly any question of the safety of our troops will be taken
in concert with all the members of the United Nations protective
force in Bosnia.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
According to the American trade negotiator, Mickey Kantor,
today marks the beginning of a trade war between Canada and
the United States. It is obvious that Mr. Kantor has a chip on his
shoulder and will not bring an open mind to the negotiating
table. In fact Mr. Kantor says he expects a bit of a dust-up.
Mr. Kantor's attitude and comments are clearly unacceptable.
One would hope the Prime Minister has already called the
American president and demanded him to rein in his
loose-lipped negotiator. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell this
House if the Prime Minister has made such a call and if so, what
the president's response was?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said
that he intends to raise the matter specifically with the president.
We expect if that has not already been done, it will be done
before the weekend.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer.
I would suggest that this durum wheat issue goes beyond
North America. While the Americans complain about Canadian
durum they subsidize their own durum by $35 to $52 per tonne
for export to world markets. Meanwhile the Europeans have
their own durum shortage and have put a $52 per tonne export
tax on it to keep theirs at home.
I would suggest and I would urge the Deputy Prime Minister
to insist that the Prime Minister call the President of the United
States and be prepared to demand that the American export
subsidies-
The Speaker: Order, please. I would request of my colleagues
that the questions be just a little bit shorter. There was a question
in there, if the Minister for International Trade would care to
answer.
3391
(1135 )
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, I had a little difficulty hearing the end of the
question, therefore I am not sure what the question is. I can
simply say that in the case of durum wheat, we certainly had the
considerations he raised in mind during our negotiations with
the United States and they will be very much in our mind in any
further discussions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, those we now call the
forsaken of Oka participated in a calm and peaceful
demonstration to show how desperate and impatient they have
become because of the federal government's failure to meet its
commitment. These people own homes on highway 344, south
of the Kanesatake territory; they have been waiting for an
answer for nearly four years now.
Will the government now commit itself to settling that issue
before the end of the present session in June by buying the
properties of these forsaken residents of Oka, as it promised to
do and as it has done for all those living north of highway 344?
[English]
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr.
Speaker, no decision has been made with regard to the property
south of highway 344, but the minister is willing to meet with
these people and I am sure that will be forthcoming.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, how can we
explain the slowness with which the government is dealing with
the Oka situation, knowing how fast the federal government
proceeded to buy the property of Mr. Bernard Roy, former Chief
of Staff to Prime Minister Mulroney, located in the same area,
south of highway 344, for $500,000. Do we have two kinds of
justice in this country?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be more
useful if this question were directed to Brian Mulroney, the
former friend of the Leader of the Official Opposition.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister for International Trade.
Canadian apple growers are looking to this government for
action to protect them from wholesale dumping by the
Americans, a blatant violation of the Canada-U.S. free trade
agreement, of NAFTA and of GATT. The government asked for
proof and the growers provided that proof. Truly time is of the
essence in this matter. It has to be dealt with quickly.
Will the minister assure Canadian apple growers that this
government will immediately initiate action to stop this
dumping?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite will be aware of the fact that
the Canadian International Trade Tribunal has already inquired
into the question raised by the hon. member. It is indeed open to
the Canadian apple growers to petition foreign anti-dumping
investigation if that is their wish.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why this government
is so ineffective when it comes to protecting Canadian farmers
against dumping by the Americans?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would argue the absolute
contrary. In fact, this government has stood very fast in the face
of rather ridiculous comments by people like Mickey Kantor and
the senator from the United States who has the nerve to suggest
he would turn cruise missiles on us, the very cruise missiles we
were testing for them for a number of years.
We are very unhappy. We do not intend to cave in. We have not
agreed to the American negotiations. The Prime Minister is
going to be discussing it with the president and we intend to take
future action.
* * *
(1140)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Deputy Prime Minister.
We know that Corporation Québec 2002 needs help from the
federal government to complete its presentation to the
International Olympic Committee in order to be a candidate for
hosting the Games. The corporation has been asking for a long
time that a representative of the government be appointed in
order to initiate trilateral negotiations on the $240 million
financing guarantees that are required, and were given to
Calgary in the past.
3392
The deadlines have been moved forward by the IOC, and
rather than urging organizers of Québec 2002 to be patient, like
the Minister of Canadian Heritage is doing, could the Deputy
Prime Minister tell us whether the government intends to give
a speedy answer to Québec 2002?
[English]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, we are naturally
enthusiastic about a united Canada hosting the Olympics in
Quebec in the year 2002.
We have already committed $2.8 million to the bid and are
currently exploring funding possibilities in conjunction with the
organizers.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister or the parliamentary
secretary. The deadline for the bid is getting very close. Québec
2002 must have an answer from the federal government in the
next few weeks, because the deadline is August 18.
Could she tell us whether an answer will be given and a
negotiator appointed? Will the negotiations be modelled on
what was done for Calgary?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary
has already indicated the willingness of the federal government
to help Québec 2002. Clearly the Quebec site is fantastic. I have
personally visited the proposed site. Everybody is waiting to
find out whether Canada will be selected as host for the 2002
Olympic Games. Negotiations are going on and you will get an
answer shortly.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
While his announcement earlier this week has brought
welcomed relief and hope to many fishing communities in
Atlantic Canada, the minister will know that a potentially
explosive situation is brewing in the snow crab fishery in the
Gulf of St. Lawrence.
With the groundfishery there all but decimated, gulf
fishermen without snow crab licences have watched with
growing envy and frustration as a small group of snow crab
fishermen do extremely well from their access to this now
valuable and plentiful resource.
How is the fisheries minister proposing to address this glaring
inequity and avert a crisis in the snow crab fishery in the Gulf of
St. Lawrence?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question. Indeed, he
has brought to the attention of the House one of the more
difficult situations in Atlantic Canada. That is the incredible
irony in the comparison between those who have plenty and
those who have very little or nothing. It is causing great tensions
in our communities. Frankly, in some communities in the
province of Quebec in the last week fishermen are in conflict
with each other. None of us want to see that in Atlantic Canada.
I have spoken to representatives of both the crab fleet and
representatives of groundfishermen in the last 24 hours from
Quebec, New Brunswick and elsewhere in the region. The
fishermen have begun a dialogue across the gear sectors. The
fishermen are suggesting they will attempt to reach a means of
seeing a better sharing of the wealth of the resource in question.
I want to give them that chance to work among themselves and
to hear what they recommend, I hope during this weekend, so
that we can have a working solution in time for the beginning of
the crab season next week.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. The choice of
Montreal for the environmental secretariat was supposedly
based on the following criteria: transportation accessibility,
support services, diplomatic services, cost of living, and
environmental record.
An analysis of the consultant's report shows that Toronto has
more flights to all three capitals than Montreal. Ottawa offers
more diplomatic and government services. Montreal's cost of
living is 10th on the list of 25 contenders and Montreal's
environmental record is 20th on the list, a terrible record.
Clearly-
(1145)
The Speaker: Order. I invite the hon. member to put his
question, please.
Mr. Gilmour: How can the minister justify the selection of
Montreal for the environmental secretariat?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, today is Earth Day. Today is
the day when every Canadian should be thinking about how we
can improve our earth.
Instead, what I hear from members of the Reform Party is
constant carping, criticism and carving up of the country. Its
leader went to Montreal yesterday and I think he got a very
strong message. If the leader of the Reform Party wants to begin
3393
to understand what the country is all about, he had better not
start thinking in small pieces; he had better start thinking big.
One of the things we did in making our decision about the
centre was that we looked at all applicants. We looked at the
criteria that we established and we made a decision based on our
best political and environmental advice.
The reality is that any decision made by a government is a
decision that involves politics. The difference between this
party and that one is that we actually understand all parts of the
country. In the case of the Reform Party, it is obvious that its
understanding is very limited.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is sending mixed signals. One day she is saying that it is
a political decision; the next, she is saying that it is based on this
consultant's report.
Will the minister tell us what she means by a political
decision?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the budget for the suits of
the leader of the Reform Party is also political.
The reality is that if one follows the criteria of the member
and suggests that the centre should have gone to Toronto
because it has the most number of flights, every single thing
done by every ministry in the government should go to Toronto.
Toronto has more direct flights to all parts of the United States
and Mexico.
The reality is that sometimes we have to make tough
decisions. I said that it was a difficult decision. I said that we
tried to consider all the factors. My own community was bitter.
Do members think it was easy for me to say no to the people of
Hamilton?
The reality is that politics is about making difficult decisions
and making them in the best interest of the country. That is what
we have tried to do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
A month ago, an adjudicator at the labour court in the Vancouver
area handed down a ruling ordering Canada Post Corporation to
guarantee the social benefits of the same-sex spouse of one of
its employees. We heard that the Minister of Justice did not
intend to appeal this ruling, which caused considerable
consternation in the gay community and among all those with a
concern for human rights.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what her
government's plans are with respect to extending guarantees and
recognition of the rights of same-sex spouses?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of
Justice said he was not prepared to proceed with an appeal in
each case. In fact, he gave instructions that in some cases where
an appeal had been made, the appeals should not be pursued.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect for the Deputy Prime Minister, if
this had been a question on an examination, she would have
failed her exam.
May I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the Minister of
Justice promised to proceed with a thorough review of the
Canadian Human Rights Act and that on several occasions
during the election campaign, her government repeatedly made
a commitment to recognize sexual orientation as grounds for
discrimination. When will this government stop its double talk
and ask the Minister of Justice to go ahead and introduce
legislation that will guarantee an end to discrimination and
recognize the rights of same-sex spouses?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member
asked me some questions about a court ruling, and I made it
clear that the Minister of Justice had already given instructions
not to pursue these appeals. I think the message is pretty clear.
(1150)
Moreover, the Minister of Justice has stated that the
government is working on meeting its commitment in the red
book to prohibit discrimination because of sexual orientation,
whatever it may be. The government promised in the red book
that it would proceed with a review of our human rights
legislation. The government is working on this, and there will be
a policy very shortly as far as the Justice Department is
concerned.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Solicitor General.
A short while ago Correctional Service Canada announced the
appointment of a kikawinaw or a matron for the healing lodge on
the Nekaneet band reserve in my riding. This is a very expensive
senior position but that institution will not be operational for at
least another year.
Does the minister approve of this sort of management within
his department?
3394
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the staff in my view has to be hired and ready to work with local
and native groups.
There is no way in my view the institution could operate
efficiently if the people who are going to be the staff come there
after the doors are open. It is just common sense.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. minister had
been my employer when I was in the working world.
This is going to be a relatively open institution but, as I
understand, it will house serious offenders now incarcerated in
other institutions.
What reassurances could the Solicitor General offer for the
security of farmers and ranchers who are understandably
concerned about the matter and who will be living next door to
the place?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the point the hon. member has raised is being taken into account
in the planning of the institution.
There will be the proper facilities and staff to deal with the
fact that some people in it will be of maximum security nature.
Certainly the approach we are taking makes more sense than that
of the hon. member who would have the prisoners go into the
institution before the staff is even hired.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The government is working hard to create thousands of jobs
throughout the country. The crown jewel of those initiatives is
the Canada infrastructure program.
Could the minister tell the House the status of the many
infrastructure project applications that have been received?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to bring
some good news to members of the House.
The program is up and operating in record breaking time. It is
now at a point where we have approved 200 projects worth $300
million. To date 5,000 jobs are to be created by those projects,
which puts us well on the path toward the 90,000 jobs we have
projected will be created by the program.
There are people now being employed in engineering and
design work. There are tenders being called. There are
construction workers who will soon be getting out and getting
shovels into the ground so we can get Canadians back to work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, now that government advertising is over, we will
go back to regular programming.
According to a federal study, Ottawa is about to spend $4.8
million on an industry interpretation centre project in
Shawinigan. The study in question, which was commissioned by
the Federal Office of Regional Development in Trois-Rivières,
concludes that it is a mistake and a bad joke.
(1155)
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does she admit
that this project cannot be self-financing and that her
government is about to repeat the same mistake it made with the
Humour Museum in Montreal, which closed its doors less than
12 months after opening?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a
project that was supported not only by the long-standing local
authorities and the former government but also by the Bloc
member for Trois-Rivières, Mr. Yves Rocheleau.
It must be said that, although there is some dissension within
the Bloc Quebecois, the project is supported by all the local
authorities. There is also a study which raised some very valid
questions, and the government intends to answer these
questions. This study is only one of many. It must be said that
when local communities have the desire and the capacity to
support a project, I think it is worthwhile for both the Canadian
and the Quebec governments to follow suit.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is a serious man; now, the
study we are talking about, which was commissioned by his
office, his officials, concludes that this project has no chance of
being viable and that the figures submitted are inflated in
several respects.
Instead of wasting $4.8 million in public funds to honour an
election promise made by the Prime Minister, does the Minister
of Finance admit that what the people of Shawinigan and the St.
Maurice region need is industrial projects that create real jobs
instead of a white elephant without any kind of guarantee it will
be self-supporting?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the Legault, Grysole
and
3395
Associates study undoubtedly concluded that the project needed
certain changes. That is the purpose of the study and we intend
to make these changes.
If you want to talk about jobs, I would ask you to listen to the
President of the Treasury Board, who just told us that we
invested $300 million in a project that will create 90,000 jobs in
Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development or for whomever the government chooses to
answer.
The red ink book advocates an extensive increase in the
number of child care spaces available. The government funding
for this service will be paid by individual taxpayers whether or
not they use it. Government funded day care increases the tax
burden on Canadians and will further discriminate against
families who choose to be single income households.
Does the government recognize that such a proposal will force
more parents to send their children to day care even if they
would prefer to stay home with them?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member's
colleague was asking the government what we could do to get
people working.
Obviously one of the things we could do to get people working
is to ensure that they have proper support for their children when
in fact they are out in the paid workforce. I happen to believe
that women who work at home are working every bit as hard so I
specify the paid workforce.
However, for the member to suggest the government pull out
of child care funding, it would take the case of the Canadian
economy back decades. At the moment child care spaces across
the country are set up by provincial governments with the
financial assistance of the federal government directly to those
families, primarily single income mother led families who
without the assistance would not be able to go out into the paid
labour force.
The member suggests that for some people it is not necessary.
The same thing holds true for health care. Would he like to
abolish national health care or education?
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister misses the point. I do not advocate
withdrawing funds or inhibiting people from going to work.
A voucher system would allow parents to stay home with their
children or to send them to the most suitable day care. It would
also direct public assistance to those who really need it.
(1200 )
Will the Deputy Prime Minister and the government consider
the introduction of a child care voucher system rather than
universal day care?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am a parent and there is no
government that tells me where I have to send my child for child
care. We do live in a free country.
At the moment what this government has said is that when it
comes to employment outside the home obviously child care is
an important component of any initiative to help people get out
to work. Our government intends to meet its commitments in the
red book.
I only wish that the member had a better understanding of how
hard it is for those women trying to juggle work outside the
home and work at home. I only wish that he and his party would
give them more support.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
Yesterday I met with a number of U.S. congressmen to discuss
U.S.-Canada trade issues, including the durum wheat question.
My conclusion is that this being an election year in the United
States with many U.S. legislators up for re-election, they have
become strong protectionists to the point of ignoring certain
trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT.
Can we have his government's assurance that it is going to
protect Canadian farmers' interests and not cave in to these
American protectionists' posturing at this point?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, the member can certainly have that assurance. I
believe it is reflected in the stance we have taken in the
negotiations, in the discussions during the past months. We will
continue to protect in every respect the interests of Canadian
grain farmers. We have done so in the past and we will continue
to do so in any future discussions.
The Speaker: I am sure all members heard the cannon. There
is a point of order from the minister of fisheries.
3396
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, during question period I referred to Hibernia's having
created 5,300 direct jobs. That information was wrong and I
want to stand to correct the record. The number is actually
6,282.
_____________________________________________
3396
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official
languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, today is Earth Day in
Canada, a day that we have set aside to join with people around
the world in making our own personal contribution to the
well-being of our environment.
Since Earth Day was first celebrated in Canada on April 22
four years ago, the grassroots support for this event has grown so
rapidly it now involves nearly one in three Canadians in some
form of environmental activity. There is much energy,
enthusiasm and support for greening our way of life.
More than ever before Canadians are aware of our natural
environment and we are doing something to make sure that what
we now enjoy can be passed on to our children and to their
children. By planting a tree, composting kitchen waste, reusing
shopping bags, recycling cans, returning bottles and demanding
less packaging from producers, Canadians are showing that we
want governments to sit up and take notice.
In fact, recent surveys have shown that 60 per cent of
Canadians support more spending for environmental protection.
Industry too is quickly coming to realize that green planning and
green operations mean green savings and green bucks.
Almost every sector of our economy now realizes that
consumer demand means that by producing a product in an
environmentally friendly manner you can have the critical
competitive edge.
[Translation]
Business and industry, for their part, are asking the
government to put its house in order. They need our
co-operation as well as clear, specific directions to achieve our
environmental objectives.
(1205)
I am proud to announce to this House and to all Canadians that
our government is answering the call. Canadians can stand up
and say that their federal government is the first green
government in our country.
Three former federal environment ministers currently sit in
this House, along with a former provincial environment
minister. Two of these people are leaders of their respective
parties.
We are also fortunate to have the highly qualified Chairman of
the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment
and Sustainable Development and finally, my parliamentary
secretary who is absolutely indispensable to me.
[English]
Canadians can also feel secure that there is environmental
leadership within their government. We are proud to have a
Prime Minister who understands that environment is an integral
part of job creation and growth and who made sustainable
development an underlying theme of our red book.
Our Prime Minister appointed our former Speaker, the one
who initiated the greening of the Hill program, to be our
ambassador for the environment to the world. We have a Prime
Minister who created more national parks than any other
minister in the history of Canada. We have a Prime Minister who
announced clearly on his first international trip that Canada's
water is not for sale.
Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs understands that we
must work globally to attack environmental degradation and
make sure that the global environment facility, the GEF, and the
Montreal protocol receive Canada's fair contribution.
Our minister responsible for infrastructure made water and
sewer upgrades, environmentally friendly projects, an
important part of our national infrastructure program.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans moved quickly to fulfil
promises made about Kemano and has also recognized that
eco-tourism can play an important role in the revitalization of
our economy.
The Minister of Human Resources Development and the
secretary of state for youth have announced a plan to involve
youth in environmental training programs to help us get
environmental industries on the cutting edge of the world
community.
My colleague, the Minister for Natural Resources, has been
actively promoting sustainable development in her natural
resource sector. She has also been working very hard on energy
3397
efficiencies, an integral component of any future use of energy
when we realize that we are the most energy consuming country
in the world. Her department's model forest program provides a
model for sustainable forest management.
She has also recently tabled the first report to Parliament on
the Energy Efficiency Act which outlines the environmental and
economic benefits available to energy users to improve energy
efficiency.
[Translation]
We have a Minister of Finance who acts in a progressive
manner on environmental issues. Last February, he announced a
major new initiative in support of sustainable development.
In the budget, it was announced that a task force involving
government, industry and representatives of environmental
groups would be established to identify barriers to sound
environmental management.
This task force will also focus on a wide range of economic
instruments which rely on market forces and demonstrate
potential for rapid implementation either as an alternative to or
to complement environmental regulations.
Speaking of this task force, I am delighted to announce today
that following consultations will all interested parties, the
Minister of Finance and I will be releasing shortly the names of
the task force members and the nature of the task force's
mandate.
[English]
I am very pleased on behalf of the Minister of Finance and
myself to announce that we are moving ahead rapidly with our
commitment to analyse how tax policy and how economic
instruments can be used to help build a strong environmental
record.
Very shortly we will be announcing the membership and the
terms of reference of a committee. It will be examining the
whole issue of not only economic instruments as they can help
government policy but also a review of taxes and subsidies to
make sure that they are environmentally friendly and do not
work against a clean environment.
I could go on and mention the environmental contributions of
every single member of this cabinet, for example the Minister
for Industry and his secretary of state who are working very hard
on environmental industries, but the point is clear. This
government, this cabinet and this Prime Minister are committed
to the environmentally sound management of our nation's
business.
(1210)
[Translation]
As Minister of the Environment, I am proud of my
department's achievements. In the six months since taking
office, we have built strong foundations to meet our
commitments. I said that we would pass legislation providing
for a round table on the economy and the environment. This will
give existence in law to a vital organization and also fulfil a
commitment made in the red book.
The throne speech spoke of the government's intentions and I
also announced that we would pass an environmental
assessment act this spring, as was requested by the Leader of the
Opposition. As promised in the red book, we will also
strengthen regulations, thereby fulfilling a second commitment.
In co-operation with my colleague, the Minister of Industry,
and his Secretary of State, we are in the process of developing a
government strategy for environmental industries and we
sponsored consultations earlier this winter, in order to generate
the required public support. We are currently looking at the
comments received and the strategy will be announced very
soon. This is the third commitment fulfilled.
Last Monday, I had the pleasure and the honour of announcing
phase II of the Great Lakes action plan, as well as the
implementation of the plan for the St. Lawrence, Vision 2000.
These two plans are major steps to clean up the largest
freshwater expanse in the world.
These initiatives, combined with the statutory five-year
review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which
will soon be undertaken by the standing committee of the House,
will enable us to fulfil another promise made in the red book
regarding pollution prevention. We should soon get the answer
of the parliamentary committee on our commitment regarding
the Auditor General, and we also expect results very quickly.
This is the fourth commitment fulfilled.
An oil tanker sank some time ago. We worked with the four
provinces concerned, in co-operation with the Minister of
Transport, and we found a solution which will soon be
implemented. This is another commitment fulfilled.
Earlier this spring, I gave the Standing Committee on
Sustainable Development the very important mandate of
looking at the concept of an auditor general for the environment.
The committee made its recommendations, thus allowing us to
fulfil another commitment made in the red book.
[English]
Our government is keeping its promises and we hope with the
help of the Parliament of Canada to continue to do so.
3398
On Earth Day I wish to give my friends and colleagues in this
House and all Canadians my personal pledge that we want to
work with the provinces, the municipalities, workers,
environmental groups, businesses and, most important, we want
to work with the children of Canada to ensure the protection and
promotion of our natural environment.
As Minister of the Environment for Canada I am proud of
what we have accomplished. I would be prouder still if I could
stand today and tell this House that we have no need for Earth
Day, that we do not need a special day to think about the
environment because every day is Earth Day in Canada.
This House has heard many speeches from many eloquent
individuals but I would like to leave members with the motto
which I think should be the standard bearer for Earth Day, for
this House, for our country and for the world. It is an ancient
Haida saying which we all know and which we should take to
heart: We do not inherit the land from our ancestors; we borrow
it from our children.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, now that the Minister of the Environment has praised
the government's actions with respect to the environment, the
Official Opposition would rather talk, on this Earth Day, about
the real problems, that is problems in our ecosystem and
challenges that must be met so that we can live in a sound
environment.
The minister would rather dwell on her government's
accomplishments since the election. So, allow me to put in
perspective some of those accomplishments that must leave
more than one Quebecer and Canadian totally confused.
(1215)
Regarding the legislation, the minister has made several
statements in the House and in the media. However, we still have
not had the pleasure of seeing one single bill come out of her
department. The minister seems to misunderstand the
legislative process leading to the meeting of an electoral
commitment. It is not enough to announce that regulations
relating to the Environmental Assessment Act will be produced
and that a bill on the round table on the economy and the
environment will be presented for people to consider that the
Liberal Party has kept its promises. If the government thinks
that its commitments have been met simply because they were
announced, we may end up once again facing needless verbiage
and pious hope.
After announcing with great pomp that there will be
consultations on governmental strategy with environmental
industries, it seems, as was the case in Montreal, according to
some observers, that in fact these consultations were only an
excuse for a social gathering of officials. It would appear that
the environmental industry was not really associated with the
process. Yet, the Official Opposition had given its support to
this initiative, hoping it would be an opportunity to promote
research and development in environmental industries. So, there
is still much to be done before the minister can proudly
announce that her commitment has been met.
Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to have talks with the minister. I
know she is in a good mood today and it is always with great
pleasure that I have talks with her. So I will continue to do so.
As for the St. Lawrence Action Plan-
Mrs. Copps: But not always in good faith.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I realize that, from
time to time, there may be some friendly give and take between
two members, but perhaps we could stick to the subject of this
debate.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your vigilance.
As for the St. Lawrence action plan, now pompously called St.
Lawrence Vision 2000, this government is merely continuing
the Conservative Party's policies. I do not think we can see this
as meeting a commitment made by the Liberal Party.
Unfortunately, the budget brought down by the Minister of
Finance, to which the minister refers with such enthusiasm,
contains no funding for dealing with harbour sediment
contamination, although according to the minister, the
infrastructure program would be able to provide the necessary
funds. If that were the case, we would be delighted. However,
according to Le Soleil, and the minister has probably read this,
one of the department's officials expressed some serious doubts
about that possibility.
Although there have been many important announcements, it
is clear that implementation is lagging, while the public's very
legitimate expectations are increasing. Consider the case of
chlorinated organic compounds, which include most
pesticides-whose presence in our Great Lakes are a threat to
the health of the people living in these densely populated areas,
as was pointed out in the latest report of the International Joint
Commission.
Furthermore, as was pointed out by the chairman of the
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the
hon. member for Davenport, Canada has been postponing
ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea for nine years now, a convention that, if implemented,
would contribute very substantially towards protecting the
oceans, improving the fisheries and reducing the risk of
pollution. So far, 57 countries have signed the convention, but
60 signatures are required to ratify it. Now that, Mr. Speaker,
would be good news. That is something tangible the very
energetic Minister of the Environment could have done.
Quebecers and Canadians have no illusions about the
triumphant announcements made today by the Minister of the
Environment. I am surprised that I am the one in this House who
will
3399
have to describe the serious problems facing Canadians,
Quebecers and humanity.
Since the early 19th century, more than half of our tropical
forests have disappeared. Only 40 per cent of the forests are still
standing in Third World countries, and this dramatic situation
has led to the extinction of 100 species daily. Desertification is a
problem in more than 100 countries and it affects more than 800
million people.
One third of Asia's arable land is threatened by
desertification, and 80 countries, with 40 per cent of the world's
population, lack clean drinking water, and deteriorating water
quality is a death sentence for millions of children. The global
environmental situation has reached crisis proportions.
(1220)
Instead of dealing at length with the qualifications of her
Cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister, the Minister of the
Environment should have taken advantage of Earth Day
celebrated today to bring the discussion to a higher level and
inform us of the direction her government will take regarding
solutions that will have to be put forward by Canada and other
countries if we want to live in a community where environment
meets the demands of the population, in particular those of
young people who will inherit the outcome of the decisions we
are taking today.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I want to say to the minister that
we wish to be part of any initiative that she will propose to this
House, but until now, concrete measures have been delayed for a
long time and we pray St. Basile that legislative action will be
taken as soon as possible.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I cannot help asking
myself if the invitation of the minister is still on the table or on
the ground, but anyway the issue is worth following.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, as Earth
Day is a positive day, I will keep my comments in a positive
vein.
Earth Day is a time for all of us to look inward and examine
what many of us take for granted, the planet on which we live.
I am pleased to see that we are on a path through the forest that
leads toward a sustainable future and that we are addressing,
although sometimes quite slowly, ways to prevent pollution thus
ensuring a healthy planet for our children and our grandchildren.
The Brundtland commission's definition of sustainability:
``Leaving our planet to our children in the same or better
condition than the one that we inherited'' should be the goal of
each and every one of us. In order to achieve this goal we need to
get into the regular habit of doing more with less.
Although I agree with the minister that government should be
involved, I feel that it is more up to each and every one of us
personally, not someone else, to do what is right. Only when we
take responsibility and learn to live our everyday lives by
conserving resources will we have achieved this goal of
sustainability.
As I said earlier, we are still on the path in the forest.
Sustainability is still some distance away. Only when we live
each and every day as Earth Day will we have achieved that long
awaited goal.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if I could seek
unanimous consent of the House to allow the member for
Regina-Lumsden to say a few words on behalf of the New
Democratic Party. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, and thank you to my colleagues in the House. It is my
pleasure today to join with members of this House of Commons
in celebrating Earth Day. First, I congratulate all those in
Canada who are taking as a priority not only our country but our
planet in terms of its environment.
I have met with many individuals and organizations in my
constituency in the city of Regina who are taking an active role
in their community to ensure that when they leave this earth as
living persons, they leave it a better place in terms of
environment and resources for their children.
I congratulate them on their efforts in terms of recycling
programs and other approaches that they are taking, which I
participate in as well. I recycle all of my glass, tins, plastics,
newspapers, clothing and other things that I or my family
consumes. I think it is important that all legislators consider
following that example that, indeed, many of our children have
set for us.
I agree with the government's priority of ensuring that we
have an environmental plan in this country. I agree with its
sentiment that we should leave this earth better than we found it
because we are indeed caring for this earth on behalf of future
generations. Nobody knows that more than parents who see their
children growing through various stages of their lives and see
some of the very difficult challenges that face our young people
in today's economy and today's environment.
(1225 )
I have a little bit of a difference of opinion from the
government. The Liberals in opposition spoke very loud in
terms of opposing the green plan that was put forward by the
former Conservative government. The catch words here are:
Actions speak louder than words. Their action in opposition was
that they opposed the green plan .Their action is government is
that they are implementing the Conservative green plan. To me
that is a flip-flop.
3400
I do not believe the government is taking seriously its verbal
commitments to ensuring we have a healthy and strong
environment in this country. That is demonstrated very clearly
by the fact that here we are into the end of April 1994, we have
been sitting here for three months, and the government has yet
to bring forward any major discussion opportunity in the House
of Commons on our environment in Canada. There is no new
green plan. It is implementing an old green plan that was not
acceptable to the Liberals in opposition. Now they flip-flop in
government and support the green plan. Actions speak louder
than words.
The other action the government has undertaken is it
appointed the NAFTA environment office to the city of
Montreal which does not have an example of good
environmental protection for its citizens. It has one of the worst
records in Canada.
My sense is that actions speak louder than words. The
Liberals are very, very wordy. They get up, talk and rant and
rave about all sorts of wonderful things they are doing but they
are not doing anything. Their actions prove the opposite.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party we will continue to
ask the government to ensure that it does put the environment on
the agenda and to ensure that Canada's environment is sustained
for future generations.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 17th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the membership of committees.
If the House gives its unanimous consent, I intend to move
concurrence in the 17th report later this day.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-240, an act to amend the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal
Code.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act as well as the Criminal
Code to provide for the detention of high risk violent offenders
after the expiration of their sentences and to provide for the
detention of sex offenders convicted of offences against
children.
This bill will give the Correctional Service of Canada and the
National Parole Board the power to refer the offender to the
appropriate Attorney General for a dangerous offender hearing.
Upon making a dangerous offender finding, a court could then
make the following orders for the protection of society: First,
custody for an indefinite period of time; second, custody for a
definite period of time; and third, supervised release in the
community for a period of 10 years.
The second aspect of this bill would eliminate the need to
prove the serious harm criteria when dealing with high risk
offenders who victimize children. The current requirement to
prove serious harm is difficult in cases involving children as the
actual harm to the child may not be evident for several years. A
child's difficulty in clearly communicating the effect of a sexual
crime makes serious harm very difficult to detect.
It is my pleasure to introduce this bill. I hope it is given great
consideration as it is very important for the protection of
society.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1230 )
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 17th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition that
has been signed by over 300 residents of Ontario riding and
elsewhere concerning Frenchman's Bay.
The petitioners call on Parliament to urge the government to
use its powers over navigation and shipping as outlined in
section 92(10) of the Constitution Act and in the Federal
Navigable Waters Protection Act to undertake dredging
operations in Frenchman's Bay in order to correct the loss of
draught both in the bay and in the channel entrance.
Due to a severe build-up of silt the draught in Frenchman's
Bay has been dramatically reduced and now a serious threat is
being posed to personal safety and to boats entering that
channel.
3401
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in
the House to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of
petitions on behalf of constituents.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge
our government to constitute the appropriate representations to
the El Salvadoran government to comply with the peace accords
and human rights standard before their April 24 run-off election
and thereafter.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition from the
Association québécoise des retraités,
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup section, expressing to the
House the association's dismay over the numerous attacks
which the Liberal government has launched on the incomes of
retired persons, in particular its proposal to reform old age
pensions and to abolish the universal age tax credit. I believe
that the views of the senior citizens in my riding must be taken
into account and I therefore wish to table this petition.
[English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to
present a petition requesting that the laws of Canada be amended
to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture
of killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that
their product, if destined for Canada, will be seized and
destroyed.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I rise
under Standing Order 36 to put forward petitions concerning
killer cards.
I thank the minister for bringing to the attention of the House
that he plans to introduce legislation in this area.
The numbers of petitions from places throughout my riding
give support to him in getting rid of these killer cards.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present a petition from my constituents in
100-Mile House, British Columbia.
(1235 )
My constituents ask that Parliament not repeal or amend
section 241 of the Criminal Code and uphold the Supreme Court
of Canada decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted
suicide, euthanasia.
This petition is presented with my concurrence.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and
pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of
constituents of Prince Albert-Churchill River calling for the
repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code.
The petitioners strongly oppose this clause which allows
convicted murderers serving mandatory life sentences of 25
years without parole to apply for parole after 15 years.
I urge all members to consider these views expressed by the
residents of La Ronge, Buffalo Narrows, Smeaton, Shellbrook,
Waskesiu, Holbein and Southend in my riding in northern
Saskatchewan.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition, along with
my colleague from the opposite side of the House, to repeal
section 745 of the Criminal Code.
This section is called faint hope. It allows a convicted
murderer sentenced to life without parole for 25 years to apply
for parole after 15 years.
I support this petition. I feel that when a judge and jury make
the determination that somebody should not have access to
parole for 25 years it should be respected, and I support this
petition 100 per cent.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present on behalf
of the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and area a petition
which has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions.
It urges the Government of Canada to ban the sale of the serial
killer board games and serial killer cards in order to protect
innocent children.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 1,000 Canadians from
several communities in a number of provinces.
The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament not to repeal or
amend section 241 of the Criminal Code and to uphold the
Supreme Court of Canada decision of September 30, 1993 to
disallow assisted suicide and euthanasia.
I wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to indicate to you
and to the House that I fully concur with the views expressed in
this petition.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present a petition
on behalf of the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and area.
3402
The petition has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions.
It urges the government to amend the National Energy Board
Act to provide authority to the National Energy Board toward
intervener funding in cost to land owners who intervene in
proceedings before the board on issues of public interest and
relevant to the construction and operation of pipelines.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions
be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As agreed earlier today,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3402
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of ensuring that the reform of the tax system is harmonized and
integrated with review and reform of the Canadian system of social security as a
whole with a view to most efficiently realizing the fundamental objective of
income security for all Canadians.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my motion is seconded by the member
for Regina-Lumsden.
(1240 )
It calls on the House to agree that the government should
consider the advisability of ensuring that the reform of the tax
system is integrated and harmonized with the review and reform
of the Canadian system of social security.
My motion has three themes to this point. The first is that our
tax system needs to ensure that we have the revenue needed to
provide for the social programs we have deemed necessary so as
to ensure that all Canadians can live at a reasonable level of
security and dignity.
The second aspect of this motion revolves around the use of
the tax system in social policy administration. The tax system
has been used over the years as an integral way of ensuring the
administration of social policy through various different
measures, tax credits and so on.
The third aspect of the motion deals with the issue of the
unfair tax burdens and tax implications on Canadians who are
moving off social programs into the workforce. I will deal with
each of these separately.
To date, the focus of the government as it looks at social
programs, as it was for the previous Progressive Conservative
government and following the wishes of the Reform Party, has
been to focus on cuts to expenditures and programs, cuts to
people, cuts to those most vulnerable, the poorest in society.
That has been the focus of the government's attention to social
programs.
It is worth pointing out that the Bloc Quebecois has made
many important contributions against that approach, arguing as
the New Democratic Party would, for a more holistic, a more
people oriented approach to social policy reform. I thank the
members of the Bloc Quebecois for that.
The government has placed no emphasis on solving the
problem. The problem is that the economy simply does not work
for more than four million Canadians because these people do
not work in the paid workforce, not through any fault of their
own but because the government has not made a priority of job
creation. Neither did the government before it.
No emphasis has been placed on making the economy work,
giving Canadians the opportunity for the jobs they so sorely
need in order to feed themselves and their families and make a
contribution to our society. As a result of this, we have seen an
increase in social program payments because of the large
numbers of Canadians who have been unable to find work.
In addition, there has been no emphasis by the government or
any emphasis from the previous government on ensuring a
progressive, fair tax system even though this is recognized in the
budget. Indeed one of the budget quotes from the government
says that the fundamental basis of a sound tax system is the
reality and perception that everybody pays his or her fair share.
That may be the perception but clearly it is not something the
government has seen fit to do anything about. We continue with
a tax system which is unfair to most ordinary Canadians because
it loads the tax burden on middle and lower income Canadians
while allowing those who are wealthiest and our largest
corporations essentially to get a free ride.
We need some action in a holistic way to deal with our social
programs. They are there for those who need them. Those who
need them have grown in numbers because our economy is
simply not working for them. We also have a tax system which
unfairly burdens middle and lower income Canadians.
Essentially we have seen no action from the government on this
measure even though in opposition they frequently criticized the
Conservative government for its regressive tax changes.
3403
I would just like to point out too that Canadians are
concerned about the speed of social policy reform and its
implications. They are concerned the government is focusing
only on cuts to social programs, cuts in the order of billions
of dollars, with inadequate consultation and inadequate
consideration of the major impact this will have both on the
provinces but more important, on those Canadians who need
those programs.
In spite of the advice to the contrary from the government's
own advisers, it continues to make ad hoc social program
changes while trying to consider the overall picture.
(1245)
One member of the task force of the Minister of Human
Resources Development, Mr. Ken Battle, proposes a
moratorium on changes to social programs and changes to the
income tax system until a comprehensive in-depth review of
those programs has been conducted. That advice of the
government's own adviser is not being taken.
Going to the tax system itself, we have seen nine years of
Conservative government focusing on cutting expenditures to
deal with the debt and deficit problems that Canada faces. We
see governments across the country, Conservative and Liberal
governments, focusing in that same way. We see New
Democratic governments balancing budgets without cuts to
social programs.
My own province of Saskatchewan cut the deficit from the
highest per capita to the lowest in three years, the very best
deficit cutting record of any province or any government in the
country, according to all the reports of financial managers who
are not normally friends of the New Democratic Party. In
addition it has increased spending on social programs and health
care.
It is not necessary to attack the deficit by attacking those who
are most vulnerable in society. The New Democratic
Government of Saskatchewan has proven that to all Canadians.
Anybody who would rather live in Alberta with Ralph Klein's
slash and burn deficit cutting than in Saskatchewan is probably
somebody making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in
income.
The debt as we know was not caused by social programs.
Statistics Canada has indicated many times that half the debt
Canada has faced since 1975, which is when the debt became a
major problem, was due to tax breaks and tax loopholes for
wealthy individual Canadians or about 50 per cent. Forty-four
per cent was due to high interest rates; only 6 per cent to
increases in government spending, and of that 6 per cent only 3
per cent was for social programs spending.
The problem has not been social programs spending. It has
been a weak tax system, a tax system that has favoured the rich.
After all, the rich have their own political parties in the House
that have served them well by providing them with this very
favourable tax situation.
Surely, if we are to attack the problem, we need to attack the
regressiveness of our tax system. More than $140 billion in
corporate taxes, for example, have gone untaxed in the last nine
years. Eighty corporations each owe $100 million or more in
deferred taxes. Workers often pay more taxes than the
companies they work for. New Democrats and Canadians think
it is time the government at least treated corporations as they
treat other Canadians.
Why not impose a minimum corporate tax? Even Ronald
Reagan imposed a minimum corporate tax. Why not charge
interest on deferred taxes which are outstanding on the part of
these corporations? Why not pursue more aggressively those
companies that are deliberately avoiding paying their taxes?
Let us look at one example of the implications of the unfair
tax system. If Imperial Oil had paid its 1992 deferred tax bill of
$1.58 billion, we could have created 600,000 child care spaces
in the country or we could have built 54,000 social housing
units. The costs to Canadians are significant as a result of a tax
system which favours the rich. It also ensures that middle and
lower income Canadians pay an unfair proportion of taxes and
that there are not enough resources available to deal with the
social program costs required as a result of the fact the economy
is not working for four million Canadians.
Another example which we know well in Canada is that of the
family trust. It is an example in which the richest Canadian
families are able to escape taxation while others have to go to
the food bank to beg for food. Estimates indicate that over a
billion dollars a year are lost to the federal treasury as a result of
giving Canada's richest families a tax break that enables them to
hide their tax benefits.
This tax benefit was introduced by the Liberal government of
Pierre Trudeau and was extended by the government of Prime
Minister Mulroney.
(1250 )
It is an outrage that Canadians are faced with a tax system
which gives the richest Canadians huge tax breaks while it
forces the poorest Canadians to go to food banks to find food.
There are many other tax loopholes that could be eliminated.
We have seen some attention in the government's budget paid to
the business entertainment tax deduction. More could be done
there. Another half a billion dollars could be saved as a result of
closing that loophole. I do not see why my constituents who
cannot afford to get to Toronto to watch a Blue Jays game should
subsidize business people who are entertaining their friends in
skyboxes at the SkyDome. There is a clear inequity in that
process.
3404
We should eliminate special tax breaks enjoyed by real estate
developers. To give real estate developers tax breaks on an
imagined depreciation of their assets when in fact their assets
are increasing in value is a perverse gift to the richest of
Canadians. We see very large wealthy development companies
paying no or very low rates of corporate tax.
We should eliminate the tax breaks for corporate mergers and
acquisitions. There is absolutely no gain to the average
Canadian there. These three tax breaks to the very wealthy
would save another billion dollars for Canadians and provide
more resources for the social programs we need.
I could go on. We could tax wealth. We could clamp down on
tax cheaters. As I mentioned we could put a minimum corporate
tax on corporations to ensure they at least pay something.
I have made my point that our tax system is unfair, balanced in
favour of the wealthy who have had political parties and
continue to have political parties in the House working for them,
and unfairly harsh on middle and lower income Canadians who
have seen their taxes increase significantly over the last few
years.
It is time, if Liberal words mean anything and if Liberal words
in opposition mean anything, to make some changes to ensure
that Canadians do not see this matter continue.
Briefly my second point is with regard to the use of the tax
system for social policy implementation. It has a long tradition
in Canada. It can work well if those tax changes are progressive.
However, it works badly if those tax changes are regressive.
Mr. Ken Battle, an adviser of the Minister of Human
Resources Development, has pointed out over the years that
progressive changes to social programs and tax policy have been
undermined consistently by regressive changes under the past
government. The only significant change in the first budget of
the Liberal government was to get rid of the lifetime capital
gains exemption. There is perhaps $12 billion lost to the
treasury as a result of high tax deductions for RRSPs which only
the wealthy can take advantage of and child care expenses that
favour well-off taxpayers.
We have also seen how our tax system has impacted on our
social programs in a way in which most Canadians have not
realized until well after the fact. The minister's own adviser,
Ken Battle, calls this politics of stealth. We are seeing that same
politics of stealth carrying on under this government, although
its members criticized it extensively when in opposition.
We see universal child and elderly benefits no longer existing
as a result of the clawbacks imposed on old age pensions and
family allowances. We see a replacement of family allowances
based on an income tested child tax benefit, all things that were
criticized by the Liberals in opposition, all things they continue
to allow to take place in government.
Lastly we see the impact of partial deindexation which is
catching ever more lower income Canadians in its net, excluding
them from social programs and placing them in ever higher tax
brackets.
It is necessary for the Minister of Human Resources
Development, in conjunction with the Minister of Finance, to
take charge of the issue to make sure that tax policy as it impacts
on social policy is progressive, helpful to those who are
experiencing difficulties in our society, and contributes, as the
government's own words indicate, to a fairer tax system so that
we can all be satisfied the tax system is fair and that we are
paying our fair share as is everyone else.
My last point deals with something about which there has
been much loose talk.
(1255 )
As with the previous government, this government is fond of
talking about deterrents to work which can be addressed by
reducing the social programs for people who are not working.
The biggest deterrent to work, as every Canadian will say, is that
there are not enough jobs with adequate wages. If we address
that problem we also address not only our deficit problem but
our social programs. We would simply not have as many
Canadians drawing on social program expenditures.
There are significant practical problems to be addressed
dealing with moving off social programs, social assistance or
unemployment insurance, and into the workforce. This has been
described as being a welfare roll. Thousands of welfare
recipients each year are blocked from moving into the
workforce because of the adverse economic consequences that
would give rise to, the so-called welfare taxback in which those
who move off social programs experience the very highest
marginal rate of income tax in the country. Either 100 per cent or
something very close to it is taxed back from them on earnings
they make as they attempt to move from social assistance to the
workforce.
Many Canadians who are on the verge of moving from social
assistance to work and are able to earn a bit of money on social
assistance lose a dollar of welfare assistance for every dollar
they earn. That is the highest rate of marginal tax in the country
on the very poorest of Canadians. Of course it is an outrage.
We have also seen the value of refundable tax benefits and
GST being determined by net income. As a person leaves social
assistance they lose those programs. We have to ensure that is
not a deterrent, as it presently is, to moving off social assistance
and into the workforce. We have to ensure that our tax policies at
the federal and provincial levels and our welfare policy fit
together so that we encourage wherever possible, wherever
3405
there are jobs, those people who can fill them to move off social
assistance into the job market.
We have to ensure that the transition period from social
assistance or unemployment insurance into the workforce is a
smooth one and is possible for Canadians to make. We have to
take notice of the high cost of working for some families as they
move from social assistance into the workforce.
In conclusion, it is incumbent upon the Minister of Human
Resources Development to work with the provinces to ensure
these transitional arrangements are smooth and encourage
participation in the workforce.
The motion brings together the important points on how we
deal with one of the most serious problems in our country: how
to find the resources necessary to ensure that those who are not
part of the paid workforce live in security and dignity. Surely
that is a role of any democratic and decent society.
We have to ensure that our tax system is fair, that those who
can pay do pay, and that we close tax loopholes which would
bring in, as I have indicated, billions of dollars that could be
used on social programs. We have to ensure that tax policy as it
affects social policy is progressive and that the transition from
social assistance or unemployment insurance into the workforce
is a smooth one.
This is not easy but with political will to solve this problem it
can certainly be achieved as it has been in many other countries.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I was pleased when I read the motion. In the beginning
I searched to see whether it was from the member for
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing or put forward by the Minister of
Human Resources Development.
[Translation]
Of course, as we know, the two hon. members have the same
surname, and that has caused some confusion. I thank the hon.
member opposite for fully supporting this government's policy,
seeing that by and large, what he is proposing in his motion is in
fact what this government is seeking, and indeed has
undertaken, to do.
(1300 )
[English]
I am sure the hon. member across has read the red book. I say
that because of the way his motion is written. He has inspired
himself with Liberal policies. I am very glad though that he has
done so. I do not agree with the text of his presentation to the
House today but I do agree with his motion.
For instance, today he complimented the provincial
government of Saskatchewan for its social policy. My very
distinguished colleague from the riding of Prince Albert has just
informed me that a number of hospitals were closed in his riding
alone. Can you imagine that? That is the kind of policy that gets
praise from the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.
He also complimented the NDP generally. I am sure it was an
oversight on his part. I cannot for the life of me think of anyone
wanting to compliment Bob Rae for any of his policies,
particularly social policy, job creation policy and tax policy, in
the province where you and I have the honour and privilege to
represent constituents, namely the province of Ontario.
In my area in Ontario we have seen the devastation of NDP
provincial policies. We have seen what they have done to our
area. It is more than a passing coincidence that every single NDP
candidate, every single NDP MP in Ontario without exception,
was soundly defeated. That tells you something. The NDP in my
riding got approximately 4 per cent of the votes. That tells you
what the people thought of that party.
I get back to the motion because it is a good motion. I want to
read portions of the red book. I know that all members of the
House will consider it a privilege. Reading from page 22 of the
red book, let me read the following:
The federal and provincial governments share common problems of too
much government debt, too much foreign owned debt, and too high borrowing
requirements, domestically and internationally. All three levels of government
put the burden of these problems on the same taxpayer who is subject to taxes on
income, capital and consumption. To this list governments add other charges in
the form of licences, permits, user fees, and additional payroll deductions. A
Liberal government will work closely with the provincial governments to
achieve maximum possible co-ordination of tax policies.
That is just the kind of thing that is advocated in the motion. I
read further, Mr. Speaker, from the red book because I know that
you would want me to do this. It says the following:
In the first session of the new Parliament the Liberal government will give the
all party finance committee of the House of Commons a 12-month mandate to
consult fully with Canadians and provincial governments and to report on the
ways to achieve tax fairness, simplicity and harmonization.
That is the exact thing that is asked for in the motion. Let me
read the motion a little bit here. It says:
That the government should consider the advisability of ensuring that the
reform of the tax system is harmonized and integrated with review and reform-
And so on. This is exactly what our government is doing. I am
sorry I was interrupted in my reading of the red book and we
should never do that to the red book. I continue:
In particular, the committee will be mandated to report on all options for alternatives
to the current GST. A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system
3406
that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers, to small business,
minimizes disruption to small business and promotes federal-provincial fiscal
co-operation and harmonization.
[
Translation]
So, you see, Mr. Speaker, that is what the Liberal Party was
suggesting during the last election campaign and we, of course,
had made our intentions known in the red book, from which I
have just quoted.
(1305)
But that is not all, Mr. Speaker. As you know, earlier this year,
the Minister of Finance tabled a budget, a budget that this House
has passed.
In this budget, we have made good our promises, if not all at
least most of our election promises, and this just in the first year
of our mandate. So, you see, Mr. Speaker, I think that on the
strength of this first budget alone, this government would
deserve to be re-elected. Of course, in the years to come, we will
give the public many more reasons to re-elect us, as the hon.
members opposite will learn to appreciate.
In our red book, and again in the budget, we promised to bring
the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP within three years. There it
is, in the budget.
Also in the budget: to implement a national program to renew
infrastructure; restore funding for the National Literacy
Program; establish a Youth Service Corps; provide new youth
internship and apprenticeship programs; improve access to
capital for small business; replace the GST; re-institute the
Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program; create a
Canadian information highway. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, I
could go on and on. Perhaps I should: set up a Technology
Partnership Program; launch an Engineers and Scientists
Program, and so on.
These are all things that we had promised in the red book,
electoral promises that we are acting on.
There are two main thrusts. The first one is to make the tax
system better, more balanced and more in line with our social
programs.
I will now outline the second.
[English]
The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development
proposed to this House a change in the system in which we
deliver social programs. Much to the chagrin of some opposition
members, we are proceeding to do exactly what the motion is
asking us.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has
mandated a committee to do some work. Stage one of that will
be hearings by this committee, federal-provincial and territorial
labour market and social services ministers to meet and to
discuss this, later on a task force to advise the minister and then
an action plan to be drafted and presented in this House.
I congratulate the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
for supporting so wholeheartedly the policies of our
government.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today as a member of the committee responsible
for reviewing the social program reform action plan of the
Minister of Human Resources Development and, unlike the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I think that the
vision of Mr. Chris Axworthy, the hon. member for
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, is much broader than that of his
namesake, the Minister of Human Resources Development.
His motion, in favour of which I will speak, has only one flaw
in our eyes: it should be more proactive since the hon. member
says that ``the government should consider the advisability of
ensuring that the reform of the tax system is harmonized.''
I myself think that the government must ensure that the
reform of the tax system is harmonized, and I think it is
important to make that clear because the current approach used
by the Minister of Human Resources Development in this area is
no guarantee of future success and because he announces
changes, to the Unemployment Insurance Program in particular,
even before his reform initiative is in place, and it is clear that
there is no harmony between the budget and the objectives, and
the way social program reform is being conducted.
So we obviously support the proposal of the hon. member for
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, since the Bloc Quebecois has
been calling for tax reform since the election. This issue was
part of our election platform and we think it is important to
harmonize the two elements, namely the tax system and social
security programs, regardless of our opinion on how to approach
social program reform in the future. Be it the Reform Party or
the Liberals, I think that, in this respect, everybody will admit
that we need a little more harmony. I believe that, at the present
time, there is a serious lack of co-ordination on the part of the
government, and a warning such as the one the member for
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing is proposing is in order.
(1310)
It seems to us that the planned social program reform might
create more inconsistencies if it does not take the tax system
into account. We will end up with the same counterproductive
situations we saw in the past, where we gave people incentives
to increase their income but these same incentives discouraged
them from working and being productive members of society.
Harmonization is a must.
We must harmonize because the present government does not
seem in any hurry to deal with some elements of the tax system
which impact on the reform of social programs. I am referring to
family trusts, for instance. We can reform all the social
programs in the world, but if we do not take care of the revenue
3407
side of things, making sure that everybody pays their fair share,
we are not doing our job as a government, as a Parliament.
In 1969, there were $18 billion in family trusts. In 1982, there
were $80 billion. The potential growth of those trusts should
encourage us to check to see what today, in 1994, the exact
amounts involved are, to determine why these people pay no
taxes and to find ways of obtaining a reasonable amount of tax
revenues from those trusts. After all, they belong to a few very
rich families, as Mr. Claude Piché said in La Presse on January
19, 1994, when he explained that the creation of a trust is a very
complex and costly process which is not really worthwhile
unless you have a real fortune.
Therefore, on the question of family trusts, it would be
interesting to know exactly what is going on as soon as possible
because since 1983-84, we have not been able to find out what
funds are in there. In my view, the government should take a
close look at its own actions on that issue and publish the exact
figures as soon as possible.
Tax reform also seems very important because the tax
structure must be fair for everybody. We should make our tax
tables much less regressive because right now taxes do not serve
justice and equity in our society and there is a lot to be done in
that area. The present government is saying nothing and does not
seem to be really willing to make the necessary changes; it is
burying its head in the sand.
There is also the issue of tax shelters that need to be
abolished. There would be a lot of work to be done just to
determine which shelters should be maintained and which
should be abolished. In that sense, the motion of the hon.
member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing is very interesting
and it is a needed reminder for the government which seems to
forget that what it does on the one hand does not necessarily
agree with what it does on the other.
The other important element is that the fiscal structure must
be harmonized to take income security into consideration. There
are examples from the past which demonstrate that income tax
tables can be used to help low-income earners. In Quebec, Mr.
Parizeau, when he was Minister of Finance, made sure that
low-income families would pay no income tax. That kind of
initiative should be taken by the current government, which
seems to be forgetting its electoral promises to the neediest and
more inclined to protect those who financed its electoral
campaign.
We therefore consider it important to support the motion of
the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing. There are
also a few other things that I would like the government to take
into consideration when harmonizing, and one is a minimum
corporate tax. There is no doubt that Canadian tax policy is very
favourable to business. Naturally, businesses should be allowed
to develop, but at the same time we have to avoid an imbalance
between the share individual taxpayers must bear and that of
business. In that area, I thing we have a long way to go.
(1315)
Another thing I would like to mention are the changes to fiscal
arrangements that apply to foreign corporations. For example,
in 1990, taxpayers with incomes of over $80,000 accounted for
more than 70 per cent of all taxable capital gains, and 66 per cent
of those were investors. We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that
the financial position of the government requires a larger
contribution of high income taxpayers, and in the spirit of this
motion we could, at the very least, undertake a thorough study of
this aspect, to make sure that in the future, the tax policy and the
forthcoming reform of social programs guarantee some
harmonization between the two and that, in effect, we do not
create situations that are even more absurd than the ones we now
have.
I would like to add that when the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell quoted from the red book, it
reminded me of a saying my grandfather was fond of. Do not
judge people by what they say but by what they do. It is
particularly true with the Liberals' election platform. During the
campaign, all they promised were jobs, jobs, jobs, but they have
yet to deliver. The Liberals made a lot of commitments
concerning social equity in the red book, but they have not
achieved much. And worst of all, they do not seem to have the
will to forge ahead in this area.
To conclude, I would like to say that, unlike the hon. member
for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I do not see how you can
compare the motion put forward by the hon. member for
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing with the position taken by the
Minister of Human Resources Development. There is a
fundamental difference between the two in that the minister
tends to act a bit like a bulldozer these days. However, he may be
realizing that provinces have some rights in this area and will
expect the government to respect them.
The public also want things to be done legally and has shown
in the past that if governments are divorced from the realities of
their constituents, voters can remind them of the harsh realities
come election time. I think that a motion like the one before the
House today should prompt the government to review the need
for more harmonization at the Cabinet level, which would allow
people to share their ideas and dovetail their programs.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
agree with the bill that has been put forward by the hon. member
for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing. The tax system does need to
be reformed. How can anyone disagree with that broad goal of
income security for all Canadians?
3408
The disagreement, however, comes on these two questions:
How should the tax system be reformed, and what constitutes
social and income security?
Let me deal with the second question first. What is social and
income security? In the minds of most Canadians it can only
exist in a society in which there are good jobs with good
incomes. That is the bottom line. To have good jobs there must
exist good investment opportunities and there must be good
rates of return or profit. Without that we will not have good jobs
in this country. Such a society must also have an
environmentally sound, financially viable economy alongside a
supportive, responsive public services sector.
How do we get on the right road to achieving this objective for
our society? How do we get there from here? There are many
areas that need to be reformed. Reforming our tax system would
be a major variable in the equation.
What kind of tax reform is needed? Our current system with
its unjustifiably high taxes is a wedge, one that is being driven
between Canadians eager to be fruitful, prosperous and just and
the ultimate goal of achieving a socially and income insecure
society. It is a wedge that is being driven between the intentions
and the realization of that goal.
(1320)
What is the real culprit? Why is the current system of high
taxes a problem? These unfair high taxes are only a symptom of
a bigger inherently related problem. We cannot separate the two.
What is the real problem? The real root that necessitates high
taxes and prevents us from achieving the kind of society which
we really want is government fiscal irresponsibility. We
consistently spend more money than is brought in. These high
taxes are detestable and they are a wedge that is coming between
the ambitions of Canadians and the realization of their goals.
The driving force that forces up taxes and that fuels the
underground economy and that causes unnecessarily high
unemployment and makes businesses and jobs pack up and flee
the country and creates social unrest and crime and a general
loss of confidence in our whole country drives up interest rates
and depreciates our currency.
The root cause is the fact that as a country we have lost control
of our finances. We spend too much. Let us not blame anybody.
We are in this together. High taxes are destroying jobs and they
are destroying social programs because they destroy the
initiative of the people and their desire to invest and work.
The common sense of the common people could have foretold
us our fate. Do we seriously believe we can continually spend
more money than we bring in? Can we keep borrowing from our
neighbours, from businesses and from other countries?
Someone, some time, has to pay.
Many of my hon. colleagues from the other parties in this
House will on almost every subject in this House Reformers talk
about the same thing, fiscal responsibility. Why are they stuck
on that? Let me explain why.
We are focused on the financial matters of this country
because we want Canada to decide its own future and not destroy
it. We want Canada to have the best social programs and
infrastructure, the most beautiful environment, the best jobs and
incomes for its people. We are not going to get it the way we are
going now. We cannot achieve a socially and income secure
society for ourselves and for our families and future generations
by continually demanding more.
We cannot withdraw from what will happen. We will
eventually deny ourselves and our children everything that we
are trying to preserve. We have to decide now how we are going
to adjust our lifestyles, that we are going to tighten our belts and
that we are going to expect less. It is really a cruel hoax on all
our fellow Canadians to let them think that we can continue as
we are. It is wrong.
It is a lot of fun to talk about spending, talk about social
programs, to talk about women's rights and minority rights and
immigrant rights and refugee rights, criminal rights, language
rights, universal social programs like health care and day care
and many other noble causes which some other group might feel
is deserving money. It is fun to talk about those things and plan.
The final result is that somebody has to pay.
Occasionally we may sound apocalyptic when we talk about
our nation's finances. Perhaps things will turn around. Maybe it
will happen some day. Maybe it will happen soon. Perhaps our
debt crisis will not become drastically worse. Maybe we will
look back in 50 years from now at this session of Parliament and
on the continual attention that Reformers gave to the
government finances as overkill. Maybe we will look back and
see it as that.
I sincerely hope that happens. If it does it means we have done
one thing, that we were able to control spending and taxes and
bring in real fiscal reform. At the present time we are in a free
fall. We are plunging downward. We are skydiving without any
intention of opening our parachutes.
(1325)
I agree with the motion. Let us reform our tax system. Let us
reform the GST. Let us slash personal income tax, corporate tax
and payroll tax. Let us pretend for a moment that all govern-
3409
ments were able to cut taxes; federal, provincial and property.
Would Canadians not love us? We would be heroes. We would go
from being one of the highest taxed countries in the developing
world to one of the least taxed.
What would Canadians do with all the money that previously
went to government? One can only imagine and we should
imagine. Canadians want to be freer. Canadians want to be free
to decide what to do with all their hard earned money. What if
the government kept its greedy, grimy tentacles out of the
people's pockets?
Governments often have a philosophy that they have some
absolute sense to know what is best for people. It is deceitful, it
is dishonest and it is immoral. That ideology has manifested
itself in the extreme repression of the former East Germany,
Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the Soviet Union, just
to name a few. Such regimes were ruled by elites, elites who
believed very strongly that they had the ultimate answer for a
perfect society, indeed for a perfect world. Because of this elitist
attitude they taxed to the max. Poor, hard working citizens had
to pay the bills. There was very little regard for them. Their
mental skills were seen as inferior.
If Canadians felt that the government was spending their hard
earned dollars in a responsible way and that these programs
were good for all Canadians, they would jump on board.
However, Canadians see governments misspending their money
and they feel things are out of control.
Canadians see government responding to policies and
programs and funding any group or cause that will keep them in
power. Our current system allows a majority government to
implement policies to a myriad of controversial programs. Quite
frankly, the government simply does not have a mandate for
these programs.
One example is the bilingual-multiculturalism notions that
the government is inflicting on the nation. We have never had a
referendum on official bilingualism or official
multiculturalism. We simply have to accept these policies
because the elites have told us it is good for us.
When we question them we always get: ``If you don't like it,
five years down the road you can throw us out''. However, if our
leaders are accountable only every five years and not every day
they end up representing the people only once every five years.
The essence of democracy is that we must be accountable
every day. We are usurping individual freedoms, choices and
responsibilities in favour of some elitist version of ``what is best
for them''. The guiding hand must come from the bottom not
from the top. We need government to promote law and order, but
the big disagreement comes over how and what amount of
government we have. The Reformers call it the legitimate role of
government.
The legitimate role of government is to do for people only
what needs to be done for them or they cannot do at all or as well
individually or through non-government organizations. That is
the legitimate role of government. If we want to have the best
tax system in the world we must look at our expenditures. We
must finance only those services that Canadians cannot provide
for themselves or through non-government agencies.
In order to do that we must also have a different attitude
toward government and a different attitude by our government
toward ordinary Canadians. That is the only way we are going to
have real tax reform.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to rise on this motion that has been
brought forward by the member for Saskatoon-Clark's
Crossing.
In his motion he suggests that while the reform of the tax
system needs to go ahead, it needs also to be harmonized and
integrated with the reform of the Canadian system of social
security.
If we look at what is involved in reforming a tax system and
what is involved in reforming a social security system we can
see some very complicated and very difficult, long and tedious
hard work to do.
(1330 )
For instance, if we look at the GST, a very small portion of the
taxation system that is now being reviewed with a view to
changing it and making it better, we see that hours and hours of
study need to go into it, consultation, hearing from the people
affected by it.
It would seem even this small area within the taxation system
that needs to be reviewed takes a lot of work. We can imagine the
effort it is going to take to completely review the entire tax
system.
At the same time, with the social safety net review the
Minister of Human Resource Development has begun an
unprecedented consultation across this nation with provinces,
with citizens across this country to find out what they are
thinking about these issues, what the problems are, what the
needs of Canadians are.
In this motion it is suggested that these two massive reviews
be brought together. I see a lot of danger in this. This proposition
in my view would delay reform in an interminable fashion, years
to complete this type of integrated review.
I am not saying that there is not overlap in specific areas
between the taxation system and the social safety net system.
For instance, we have the child tax benefit, child care expense
deduction, the personal pension income credit, the age credit,
the disability tax credit, the medical expense tax credit and there
are certain other tax measures for people who have disabilities
within the taxation system which assist with the social safety
net.
3410
Where there are these links, they can be dealt with on their
own. There does not have to be a complete linking of these
reviews. What is so dangerous about this is that we can see that
our present welfare system and much of our social safety net
system are designed and have created dependencies across this
country.
Welfare and a lot of the housing and things like that, all the
things that have gone together to compose the social safety net,
have become a prison from which people cannot escape.
I have gone around my riding a number of times before the
election and after the election. When I talk to people who are on
social assistance there is no doubt that they want to work. What
is the biggest inhibitor to going to work? It is the dependency
and the rules created and put in force dealing with welfare that
keep people from being able to earn money, that keep people
from using their initiative and drive to make better lives for
themselves and their families, that keep people from having the
dignity that comes with having a job and putting bread on the
table.
What worries me is that if these two major reforms are
brought together the pace of reform is going to slow down to
nothing. Then perhaps that is what the hon. member who is
proposing the motion wants. Perhaps he wishes to keep a system
in place that is going to prevent people from getting away from
the dependencies that have been created by this very system.
That cannot happen in this nation. It cannot happen in my
riding. There are too many people who have been asking for
years for the opportunity to get out of the system that presently
holds them captive. We cannot take a chance that this type of
reform will be derailed, that it will be stalled.
We want to see a simplified tax system. We want to see an
equitable tax system. We want to see the deficit go down. The
Liberal Party has stated that it wishes to see the debt go down to
3 per cent of the GDP within the first three years, but we want to
see people go back to work. We have undertaken a number of
initiatives to achieve that, whether it is our infrastructure
program, whether it is a number of the small business
initiatives, or whether it is other initiatives designed to get
people back to work.
I do not think we should delay what we are going to do any
longer. I think the motion is designed to do exactly that, not to
allow another generation to go forth before getting rid of a
system that creates dependency. The people need to be free to
succeed and the Government of Canada is committed to making
that happen.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
It being 1.38 p.m. the House stands adjourned until next
Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.38 p.m.)