CONTENTS
Wednesday, December 11, 1996
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7379
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7382
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7384
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7384
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7385
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7385
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7386
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7386
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7387
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 7387
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 7387
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7388
Bill C-76. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 7390
Bill C-77. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 7391
Bill C-362. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 7391
Bill C-363. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 7391
Motion for concurrence in first report 7391
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7391
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 7392
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 7392
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7394
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7394
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 7394
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 7394
Motion moved and agreed to 7395
Motion moved and agreed to. 7395
Motion moved and agreed to 7395
Motion moved and agreed to 7395
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 7405
Bill C-236. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 7412
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7415
Question deemed put and division on motion deferred 7418
7379
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, December 11, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member for Skeena.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to stand in the House and congratulate Chief Bill
McCue, the Chippewas of Georgina Island and the minister of
Indian affairs for their hard work in introducing a bill that will
enable 14 First Nations to opt out of the land management section
of the Indian Act. Chief Bill McCue, along with this colleagues,
initiated this historic agreement.
This progressive piece of legislation promotes economic
development in native communities and enables these communities
to manage their own lands and resources.
This is a significant step closer toward full self-government and
all of us in the House should applaud this initiative.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the Liberals do not like to be reminded of their
promises, but the Prime Minister could not escape the frustration of
Canadians about the broken promises on CBC's town hall last
night. Jobs, jobs, jobs. It was evident then, as it is every day in the
House, that the government has no real solutions to ensure a
reduction in unemployment.
Reform's tax reduction strategy is the real solution. For low
income Canadians our tax reductions would reduce their tax bill in
most cases to zero and provide them a credit that would be put
toward job training and education. For middle class families tax
reductions will provide up to $2,000 more in their pockets each
year by the year 2000. This will help the growing number of
entrepreneurs that are starting their own businesses or improve
consumer spending.
The reductions in capital gains tax and unemployment insurance
premiums which the Liberals despise so much will give Canada's
job creators more incentive to create jobs. Canadians now have a
real choice.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Canada Post has given Profac responsibility for managing the
renovation and replacement of its buildings in a territory that
extends from Windsor in Ontario to Halifax.
Not long ago, after a call for tenders in which three companies
were asked to bid, Profac awarded the contract for repairs to
windows in the Thetford Mines post office to a firm in Ontario.
Profac offers its services as a contractor and then works on the
principle of contracting out. Since we are talking about public
moneys, it would be normal for the exact value of the contracts
awarded to Profac to be made public. More transparency is
certainly needed in the process of awarding contracts for the crown
corporation.
We think it is too bad that calls for tender are not open to the
public, because this system would encourage local businesses and
promote growth and development in the regions. It is clear that
Canada Post is creating some controversy about its current
management methods.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is starting to show his
true colours. During his annual town hall meeting last night
Canadians watched him display arrogance, ignorance and his now
infamous temper.
7380
When questioned by Canadians about-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in each session of Parliament I offer a challenge to the pages who
serve us in the House of Commons. The current group was given
the challenge of producing a picture of their home area. The contest
included a small six-pack of Crayola crayons which are produced
in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton in the town of Lindsay, and a
single piece of white paper. The contest was judged by Hélène
Monette, a security guard in the lobby. This session's winner is
Theresa Cooke of Hull, Quebec.
Congratulations to all pages who took part in the contest with
such enthusiasm. Merry Christmas.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on February 2 to 4, 1997 a micro credit summit will take
place in Washington, D.C. to focus attention on the provision of
credit to the world's poorest entrepreneurs, especially women, in
order to provide them with employment and a better quality of life.
This summit is being supported by the OECD, the World Bank,
NGOs, experts and individuals from all over the world. It has been
shown that by lending small amounts of money, between $35 to
$300 in developing countries, one can start up small businesses and
cottage industries which allow individuals to support themselves
and their families.
I ask our government and all members to support this initiative.
By contributing to the capital of micro credit banks, they can work
wonders with small amounts of money.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
universities have proposed a five year $1.8 billion program to build
and renew Canada's research infrastructure, and to help keep the
country's top young researchers in Canada.
The federal government would pay for roughly half of the
project while the rest would be provided by the universities and the
provinces. The program would provide funding for top quality
researchers and would help stop the brain drain to the United States
and renew the network of centres of excellence program.
As technology becomes more and more sophisticated, and
research more collaborative and interdisciplinary, the renovation
and expansion of laboratory areas in such fields as information
technology, environmental science, engineering and biotechnology
become essential for Canada's ability to compete in the global
marketplace.
Innovation at home means exports abroad and jobs for
Canadians at home. The research infrastructure program is
essential for Canada's economic growth.
* * *
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the economy wide costs of regulation in Canada are an average $86
billion a year. For a Canadian family of four, like those in my riding
of Okanagan Centre, it means annually a cost of $12,000.
Yes, we need regulations. But too many ineffective and
inappropriate regulations are stifling Canadians entrepreneurship
and thus the economy.
(1405 )
We could avoid this unnecessary burden if federal governments
did a few simple things: carry out thorough cost benefit analyses,
study the economic impact of regulations and write them in simple
language.
Unless we do so, the effect of regulation will continue to create
impediments to Canada's competitive position in the global
marketplace. For Canadians it will mean an unacceptable and
unwelcome level of government intrusion into our lives.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's record on human rights has improved
dramatically since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights by the UN General Assembly in 1948. In many
respects, the declaration of that seminal document has served as a
watershed in Canada's own record in human rights.
Since then, Canada has taken a leading role in advancing the
interests of women and in its treatment of minorities, aboriginal
people, people with disabilities and those with different sexual
orientation.
Canada has also taken a very different approach to new
immigrants and ethnic and racial minorities of all kinds, an
approach which has embraced diversity and encouraged an open,
tolerant and multicultural society.
Human rights day reminds us that there is always more to be
done and new struggles to be waged. We have come a long way.
Human rights day allows us to reflect on where we have gone and
simultaneously to plan for the future.
7381
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the last session of Parliament, Bill C-114, an act to amend the
Canada Elections Act, was introduced and passed.
Section 31 of the elections act requires that a party that could not
field 50 candidates must have its status revoked, all assets
liquidated and all debts paid.
Section 31 caused the Communist Party, the Social Credit Party
and other parties to be deregistered. Most newspapers came to the
defence of such parties: the Toronto Star calling the change a
draconian treatment of fledgling political parties, while the
Vancouver Sun called such an act unjust.
[Translation]
Other medias commented negatively in this respect, and I think
it is a very serious matter when parties that have been recognized
for more than 75 years are forced to relinquish their status of
official political party. They also had to liquidate their assets.
Last year, I presented a bill that would restore the democratic
rights of these parties.
[English]
Unfortunately the bill collapsed. In the meantime, the
Communist Party sent a petition with almost 4,000 signatures,
respectfully calling on the government to repeal section 31 (11-14)
of the Canada Elections Act. This problem must be redressed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as of
January 1, Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay will become Chief
Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission,
headed by a woman for the first time in its history.
Human rights are everyone's concern. However, not unless these
rights are known and accessible can we stand up for those rights in
full confidence. Mrs. Falardeau-Ramsay's main task will be to
inform the public of its rights and how those rights are protected.
After explaining how the system works, the commission and its
new chief commissioner will be responsible for gaining acceptance
for the principle of equal rights and for taking corrective action
when complaints are filed.
The Bloc Quebecois proudly congratulates Mrs.
Falardeau-Ramsay on her well deserved appointment.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it will not be a very merry Christmas for more than a
million Canadians who remain unemployed despite Liberal
promises of jobs, jobs, jobs.
There is a terrible human cost to unemployment which is nearly
double that of our largest trading partner, the U.S.A., whose
average is 5.4 per cent.
However, a new federal study also points to dollar costs of $29
billion to $77 billion in lost productivity, plus $14 billion in health,
crime and other social costs for the year 1994 alone.
The sorry fact is that Canada's net job creation from 1993 to
1995 inclusive was nearly 25,000 less than the number of
immigrants admitted during those same years. Consumer
bankruptcies were at a record high of 65,432 last year, with three
million people on welfare and 2.9 million who collected
unemployment insurance. Years of Liberal and Tory
mismanagement have created this bleak result.
Merry Christmas, Canada, from another caring, sharing Liberal
government.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister got the message last night when it was
confirmed on the national news that Canadians across the country
view that he has betrayed them. He promised to can, to kill, to axe
the GST and now he denies saying it. He promised jobs, jobs, jobs
but now he says that governments do not create jobs. Obviously
jobs is a four letter word in the Liberal Party.
(1410)
He promised to keep the Crow benefit but cancelled it. He
promised stable funding to the CBC. How ironic, the day after his
CBC town hall meeting the axe falls on 1,200 more CBC
employees. He promised to protect health and education but
instead he has slashed core funding of $7 billion from these
programs to the provinces.
The Prime Minister is stealing Christmas from millions of
unemployed Canadians who see a dismal future for themselves and
their families. The Prime Minister has a lot to think about this
holiday season.
I recommend that he get out of his office, go down to the shelter
for the homeless and talk to his friend. I think his friend will advise
him to keep his promises and stop the lies.
7382
The Speaker: I would like the hon. member to please withdraw
that last word in his statement. The hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden.
Mr. Solomon: Canadians on television said he lied, Mr. Speaker,
and I agree with them.
The Speaker: I would like the hon. member to please remain. I
will take this matter up again after question period.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the National Research Council and the Natural Science and
Engineering Research Council have just approved $6 million in
funding for 19 new projects.
I should point out that two projects of researchers at Laval
University in Quebec City were among those selected. One team
will receive a little over $500,000 for research in virtual reality.
This research may be used in connection with hydro-electric dams.
Another team of researchers at the same university will be
getting $89,000 to do research on frequency measurement in
telecommunications.
With these grants, the Government of Canada is reaffirming its
commitment to research and development, two of Canada's prime
competitive advantages on the international scene.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to mark the signing last Monday of the Canada-Ukraine
memorandum on co-operation in health.
Canada's Minister of Health and Ukraine's Dr. Andriy Serdiuk
exchanged signatures to advance health reform in Ukraine,
particularly in health care delivery and medical sciences.
Minister Serdiuk's week long visit to learn more about the
Canadian health system offers Canada the opportunity to show
support for this reform process. The minister's visit, initiated by
Partners in Health, a CIDA funded program managed by the
Canadian Society for International Health, will build on existing
collaborative activities between the two nations and their private
sectors.
These activities, which can only be strengthened by the
memorandum, will contribute to a healthy citizenry and a
prosperous society which are essential to maintaining a healthy
democracy in Ukraine.
Let us salute Canada and Ukraine on this historic agreement.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Louis Riel remains a paradox.
On March 10, 1992, the House of Commons unanimously passed
a resolution recognizing Louis Riel as one of the Fathers of
Confederation. Today, however, from a legal standpoint, Louis Riel
remains a criminal, because he was sentenced for high treason.
History portrays Louis Riel as a traitor to Canada, because,
among other things, he wanted the rights of francophones and
Metis to be given the same consideration in his country's
Constitution as those of the anglophones.
The refusal to overturn the guilty verdict against Louis Riel
sends the message in the now famous 19th century remark by John
A. Macdonald to francophones in Canada and Quebec: ``He shall
hang, even though all dogs in Quebec bark in his favour''.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning at a press conference, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois
made the claim that our government had done nothing concrete to
create employment and had, on the contrary, created more
unemployment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Our government has an overall plan, a comprehensive view of
economic recovery, and the results of our decisions are more
positive every day.
(1415)
The deficit is being reduced at a phenomenal rate; interest and
mortgage rates are the lowest in 30 years; the export market for
Canadian products is expanding; and more than 672,000 new jobs
have been created in Canada since our election.
We have taken appropriate measures to accomplish this and we
are pleased to see that, as a result of our policies, consumers are
finally regaining confidence in our economy.
_____________________________________________
7382
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, unemployment is the public's No. 1 concern. This is the
message the Prime Minister received loud and clear again
yesterday. Unemployment is increasing and Statistics Canada
released
7383
figures today showing that over 5 million people, up 38 per cent
from 1989, are living under the poverty line.
It is now December 11, 1996, and the EI reform takes effect in
three weeks. The Minister of Human Resources Development has
been trying for weeks now to reassure the public that the reform is a
good one, but we are worried, and so is the public.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development claim
that complete information on the new EI system is available to
everyone from a 1-800 number, when it was impossible to obtain
this telephone number in Canada employment centres, when it took
several days to get it, and when those answering this 1-800 number
were not even able to tell us anything useful about the transition
measures?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now that our government has
finally decided on an active measures approach, and I see that Mme
Harel in the Quebec government is trying to do the same thing with
social assistance, I have trouble understanding that, when
Quebecers have led the way with active measures, the opposition is
today trying to discredit a reform that is actually based on active
measures.
The transition measures have been worked out, and I signed and
ratified them last week. The Leader of the Opposition was absent
that day. These measures have all been designed to favour workers.
We are looking out for workers, and each of these measures is to
their advantage.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how unfortunate it is for the minister's reputation that he
always comes up with the wrong answer to the right question. I do
not get it.
If we question the minister about active measures, he tells us
about transition, when we ask him about transition, he talks to us
about employment centres, and when we ask him about
employment centres, he goes off on another tangent.
I will ask him another question. We have checked, and it is quite
obvious that public servants are still not able to inform the public
about the new EI system.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm
that nothing, and I mean nothing, has been done as of yet to provide
public servants with the information they need to inform the public
properly about the new system and the related transition measures?
In short, will the minister admit that the situation in his department
and in employment centres is one of total confusion?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have checked, and employees
of our department have had training sessions since the bill became
law. They are perfectly aware of how the new legislation will apply.
I have checked and the transition measures have been worked
out, and they are to the advantage of workers, in the sense that each
week worked in the last 26 weeks will be considered to contain 35
hours.
(1420)
The only employees not yet trained are those who have no
contact with the public, with clients. And those who will begin
processing applications referred to them by their colleagues have
asked to have these training sessions at the end of January, when
the first applications come their way.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it took our researchers several days to come up with the
1-800 number that all unemployed workers in Canada will need to
know. Our extensive research showed us that employees were
unable to answer the questions put to them. And the minister thinks
that the poor folks who will soon be unemployed will have no
trouble obtaining all the answers and information they need. It is to
weep.
The 1-800 number is to all intents and purposes not in operation
at the present time. Three weeks before the system is to start up,
and I draw the minister's attention to the coming holiday period,
employees have still not been trained to implement the EI system. I
ask the minister to tell us what has become of the transition
measures that were going to ensure that people moving from the
old to the new system received fair treatment? Where are they
written down, where can a person see them? That is a clear
question.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I find encouraging is that
it took you three weeks to find the 1-800 number. It is a sign that
not too many of those on your team are unemployed.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I would remind you always to
address your comments to the Chair.
Mr. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the 1-800 number has been given
out to all those who have received UI benefits since the month of
July. This number, and I am giving it out because it is important, is
1-800-276-7655. This number has been given out to anyone who
has received EI benefits since the month of July.
I can therefore assure you that the information is available to our
people, and that, throughout the country, our people are well
trained to receive clients and provide them with very good service.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Since the minister raised the issue of active measures, let us talk
about them. Last week, after several days of questioning and
denials, he finally realized that transitional measures were
required. The minister will now have to admit that the shift to
active
7384
measures is in fact window dressing to hide cuts to the consolidated
fund.
Does the minister know that the federal government will spend
some $150 million less on active measures in Quebec in 1996-97
than it did in 1993-94? Will the minister recognize that the
so-called shift to active measures is nothing but window dressing?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the active measures we are
implementing now are designed to break the old cycle of
dependency. It is extremely important to put people back to work.
We are very happy to have a system that fosters active measures.
Over the next few years, an extra $800 million will be added to the
$1.9 billion already available, for a total of $2.7 billion.
(1425)
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister did not answer my question. Does he know that, in
1993-94, $854 million was spent on active measures in Quebec and
that, according to figures I obtained from his own senior officials,
this amount will be reduced to about $710 million this year, or
some $150 million less? Does he know that?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always shocked by the
attitude of people who like to fiddle around with this figure or that
figure. I am glad that our government's transparency seems to be
operating in favour of the hon. member for Mercier.
But do we recall the number of times through equalization
payments, for instance, made to the Quebec government, Quebec
alone receives 47 per cent of all amounts paid in equalization; 47
per cent, that is quite a large share.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday at a CBC town hall meeting, Canadians started
to hold the Prime Minister accountable for his broken campaign
promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. Lori Foster of Saskatchewan wanted to
know why she could not find full time work with three university
degrees. Alain Reny of Quebec used his UI to go back to school and
upgrade his skills, but still no job. Juanita MacKeigan of Cape
Breton wondered how the Prime Minister expected her to start her
own business when she does not have enough money to pay the
bills.
Canadians could not get a straight answer from the Prime
Minister last night so I would like to try today. After three years of
being in office, why is it that these Canadians and thousands like
them feel that the Prime Minister has broken his number one
election promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we said that jobs were to be the priority of this
government. Over the last three years 672,000 new jobs have been
created in Canada.
We have worked very hard to put the finances of the nation in
good shape. We have been very successful. Today we have the
lowest interest rates in Canada in 40 years. Because we have turned
the fundamentals the right way, yesterday we read in the press that
last month housing starts rose by 17 per cent. People now believe
that they have a future and can borrow money at the lowest rates
they have ever known. We have done what is right.
Nobody can promise that there will be a job for everyone in
Canada tomorrow. There will always be some unemployed people.
What is important is that the government have a priority to create
jobs and give everyone an excellent chance to find a job. That is
exactly what this government has done.
We wish that we could have created a million jobs, but 672,000
jobs were created. That is the best record of all G-7 countries other
than the United States.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, those numbers and that answer did not satisfy the
audience last night and those numbers and that answer do not
satisfy this House.
The Prime Minister last night told the 17.2 per cent of Canadian
young people looking for work: ``Go back to school''. His answer
to the two million to three million people who are underemployed
in this country was: ``Get a loan and start a business''. His answer
to the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians was: ``Some are lucky.
Some are unlucky. That is life''. That sounds like rolling the dice
with the lives of the unemployed.
Is that really what the Prime Minister has to say to 1.5 million
unemployed Canadians, that some are lucky, some are unlucky and
that is life? Is that the Prime Minister's position on the
unemployed?
(1430 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very true that the government has put order into the
affairs of the nation. I said that we could not put everybody on the
federal payroll. Is that what the leader of the Reform Party is
proposing?
We have set the conditions for people to find and create jobs in
Canada because the conditions are now the best. When we started,
the interest rates were much higher than they are today. Today they
are the lowest they have been in 40 years and people can start to
work. It is why three-quarters of the jobs have been created by
7385
small businesses in the last three years, and 672,000 new jobs have
been created in Canada since this government came to power.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is completely unacceptable for the Prime Minister of
this country to tell 1.5 million unemployed Canadians ``that's life''.
That is a tragedy .The policies that were created are a failure. The
Prime Minister is the one who promised people jobs, jobs, jobs and
gave them the heave ho. He is the one whose jobs strategy is not
working. He is the one who will not balance the budget until the
next election. He is the one who will not provide the tax relief
required to create more jobs.
Instead of wishing unemployed Canadians good luck, why does
the Prime Minister not adopt a new jobs strategy? Why does he not
balance the budget, lower taxes and facilitate the creation of the
millions of jobs required by unemployed Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last budget the government put $350 million new
dollars toward helping young people in their search for work. Not
long ago for example the Minister of Finance reduced the
contributions for employers who are employing new employees,
exemptions for EI contributions so that it would be easier to create
jobs. Jobs are created by the private sector because the government
has decided to put the nation's fiscal house in order, and that is
what we have done so far. That is why we are praised around the
world. We have been the best in bringing down our deficit and
creating the proper conditions for job growth.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development, the
one who is on the workers' side.
The Liberal government is obviously more generous with
businesses than with workers, regardless of what the minister may
say in his speeches. Indeed, in addition to allowing the
non-payment of pension contributions, the federal government also
remitted customs duties to Singer, from 1982 to 1986, for an
undiscounted amount of $30 million. This is outrageous.
How can the minister justify such generosity toward Singer,
when the only compassion he is showing to the retired employees
of that company is nothing but hot air? As we say: ``With a friend
like this, workers do not need enemies''.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously, I was not a
government member in the early or mid-eighties. Maybe the hon.
member should talk to his friends of the time.
As regards this very important case, I wish to point out that
Singer's solicitors asked us to settle out of court. I looked at
everything that relates to this issue, and I came to the conclusion
that there were no precedents, and my legal advisers said that this
very serious issue had to be settled by the courts.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the
minister does not have his little piece of paper, he really has a very
hard time answering.
The federal fund that manages private pension plans, including
the one for retired Singer employees, is called ``government
annuities''. This fund generates actuarial surpluses of $2 million
per year, and these $2 million are put into the federal government's
consolidated fund.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1435)
The Speaker: We are getting close to the question. The hon.
member for Saint-Jean.
Mr. Bachand: Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit that he is
currently letting the dispute deteriorate because he wants to get
these $2 million and put them into the government's consolidated
fund? Instead of settling the basic issue, he is appropriating these
$2 million and too bad for his friends, the retired Singer
employees.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it want to tell you, since we
must address the Chair, that we asked our legal advisers to review
this extremely important issue. Given the seriousness of the
situation, I asked my department's officials to act with great
diligence, so that the issue can be settled at the earliest possible
moment.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
night Johanne Savoie from Montreal wanted to know why the
Prime Minister had broken his promise to abolish the GST. Instead
of giving her a straight answer, the Prime Minister said that he did
not make such a promise, but the tape does not lie. During the last
campaign when he was asked about the GST, the Prime Minister
said publicly on CFRB radio in Toronto: ``I will abolish it''.
I ask the Prime Minister: Which statement is true? Is it the one
he gave Johanne last night when he said that he did not promise to
kill the GST, or is it the one he gave on CFRB radio that he did
promise to abolish the GST? What will it be, flip or flop?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, contrary to the Reform Party, we put in writing what we
were going to do. We said that we were going to modify the GST,
that we would harmonize it with the provinces so there would be
only one form of taxation.
7386
Not long ago the Reform Party said that was the solution.
Reformers applauded the actions of the Minister of Finance. They
agreed that it was the proper solution to put provincial tax with
the federal tax to make a new tax, a harmonized tax. The GST
is not a harmonized tax.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, maybe
this is a classic case of believe what I write but not what I say.
Ms. Savoie showed last night that her memory was certainly far
better than the Prime Minister's. In October 1990, December 1992
and May 1994 the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he
would scrap, kill and abolish the GST. He even said it in this place.
That is the promise that Johanne Savoie said she voted for in 1993.
That is the promise the Liberals ran on in 1993 regardless of some
small print in the red book.
Instead of trying to rewrite history and change what was seen on
the news last night which was the actual truth, why will the Prime
Minister not just admit that he broke his campaign promise to
abolish the GST? He should just admit it.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we wrote in the red book that we were going to modify the
GST. For a while the Reform Party had the GST in its program.
After it did not have-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1440 )
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I was just
commenting that in the report made by the Reform Party on the
harmonization of tax on page 118 it said: ``We commend the
government on its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces.
While we support the much needed harmonization of the tax, this
will be a very difficult political objective to achieve''.
Let us not forget that at its party convention in 1992 it promised
to eliminate the GST only after the budget is balanced. It changed
its position about six or seven times. We put it in the program and
we are in the process of harmonization right now.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Until November 1, there were 126 people working in 11 Quebec
information centres, 66 of these people in Montreal, and the other
60 distributed throughout the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebec
City, Outaouais, Eastern Townships, Eastern Quebec and North
Shore regions. According to certain sources, the government
apparently intends to close 9 of the 11 information centres as early
as February of 1997.
Will the minister confirm that his government intends to close
nine information centres, retaining only two: one in Montreal,
which is totally logical from a geographical point of view, and the
other, purely coincidentally, in the Prime Minister's riding, in
Shawinagan?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that today's technology
makes it possible for us to repatriate certain services to a certain
number of strategic spots, to which we can gain access in a far
more interesting and administratively far more efficient manner.
We are, therefore, taking advantage of the technologies now
available to deliver better government services.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let
us call a spade a spade. Will the minister admit that there is only
one thing involved here: patronage?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the people in the opposition will
have to do their homework a bit better. The Quebec regional
division selected Shawinagan for their centre for reasons of
efficiency, because the Revenue Canada centre is already located
there.
Since Revenue Canada is there, this was an opportunity to save
the Canadian taxpayers a considerable amount of money.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
night the Prime Minister tried to browbeat a waitress from
Montreal simply because she had the nerve to call the Prime
Minister on his bogus GST promise. At least the tape does not lie.
Is this Prime Minister so arrogant and so out of touch with reality
and so contemptuous of the electorate-
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to please proceed to
his question now.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister prepared to
beat up on people simply because they expect him to keep his
promises?
(1445 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian people are entitled to know what the agenda of the
Reform Party is. Reform stands up in this House and talks about
taxes, what it would do with taxes and about what the government
does. I think the Canadian people would be very interested in
7387
knowing what the hon. member himself, as he sets out the Reform
Party program on the Internet, says about what we have done.
The Reform Party has criticized the government for eliminating
the tax advantages for family trusts. The Reform Party has
criticized the government for taking measures to combat the
underground economy. Reform would let tax cheats off the hook
and would call it tax breaks.
The Reform Party has criticized the government for the
elimination of the preferential rate for large corporations. Reform
does not believe that we should help small businesses.
Some hon. members: Liar.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Canadians are entitled to know
what the real tax agenda of the Reform Party is.
The Speaker: Colleagues, sometimes my sound system is not as
good as I would like it to be. I hope I did not hear what I thought I
heard. I do not know where it came from but it is not in keeping
with our traditions to use the words I think I heard. I hope that those
words would not be used in the House of Commons.
I want to proceed directly to the member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
not surprised the Prime Minister did not get up to address that
question. He should be embarrassed to get up after that
performance last night
For almost 33 years straight, the Prime Minister has been part of
the elite of Canada. He has been a big city lawyer and a
professional politician. He has no idea what people go through in
the real world out there.
Last night he chided people who were unemployed. Today, Stats
Canada tells us that child poverty has rocketed upward in the last
year.
Is the Prime Minister's `them's the breaks' answer all he can
muster for the 1.5 million unemployed people out there today, all
the poor people who have been revealed by Stats Canada and all the
people his government has completely abandoned?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is not very well informed. I was elected
to Parliament and represented a rural riding of Quebec all my
career. I am very proud of that. My career has been based on
coming to Parliament in order to serve my constituents and all the
people of Canada.
A little snipe like the one from the hon. member will not take
anything away from my record as a servant of this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I understand that they are all wound up, but I
would like to at least have the opportunity to ask my question. My
question is for the secretary of state responsible for regional
development.
(1450)
The matter of transferring the regional airports in Sherbrooke,
Charlevoix, Forestville and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu is still
dragging on, and the municipal representatives are anxiously
awaiting answers from the federal government. The federal
government is the one responsible for withdrawing from airport
management, and thereby imposing unacceptable financial burdens
on the municipalities.
Is the secretary of state aware that, unless the federal
government rehabilitates these airports' infrastructure, the
Government of Quebec will not sign the agreement to transfer
these airports, as the Quebec Minister of Transport has recently
stated?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have
already stated in this House, my colleague, the Minister of
Transport, has indeed drawn up a national transportation policy in
order to give full responsibility for certain facilities back to
communities. At issue are wharves and airports.
The policy was introduced so that regions could manage airport
facilities in a manner better suited to their particular situations and
needs.
This said, a policy has been implemented in connection with
airports, and will be adhered to throughout the country. It is aimed
at allowing us to provide assistance, under a certain program, to
airports serving commercial airlines. The others, which are not
used by commercial carriers, will receive somewhere in the order
of $50,000, if memory serves me correctly.
I have met with all of the mayors, and the matter is being looked
into.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the same response as I got last
week. I get the impression that the hon. secretary of state has
acquired the same bad habit as his colleague, the Minister of
Human Resources Development, but I will give him another
chance to answer a real question.
Since a number of major projects are now on hold, pending a
federal government decision, can the secretary of state tell us when
he intends to settle this matter of vital importance to the economic
development of the regions?
7388
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): First of all, Mr.
Speaker, I would simply like to point out that, in large part, this
matter has been brought to my attention by all of the members
of the Quebec caucus, who represent the interests of the Province
of Quebec very well.
I have met with all of the mayors and some reeves of the regional
municipalities, and I must say that my Quebec colleagues and
myself are greatly concerned by the airport issue. I believe,
however, that it is incorrect to say that the projects are on hold. The
municipalities are awaiting a government decision, but there is a
national policy in place which applies at the present time, and a
decision will be brought down shortly as to whether we shall be in a
position to provide a positive answer to the various requests from
the municipalities. This is of considerable concern to all members
of the Quebec Liberal caucus.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Minister of Justice.
Last Friday, December 6, 1996 Canadians everywhere held
vigils and church services to commemorate the 14 lives lost in the
Montreal massacre.
Is the Minister of Justice planning a national gun amnesty
program for Canada, a program with a national focus and a national
thrust, and will the details be released soon so that all interested
Canadians can co-operate and participate?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Leeds-Grenville has been a vigorous and longstanding proponent
of a gun amnesty. On those occasions when he has spoken about it
the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has pointed out the many
advantages of a gun amnesty. It provides Canadians with an
opportunity to turn over unwanted guns to the authorities, no
questions asked. It gives people a chance to get removed from their
homes, in a convenient way, weapons that could be dangerous if
stolen or found by children.
We are going to consider very carefully the declaration of an
amnesty in conjunction with the implementation of the firearms
act, Bill C-68.
This government is profoundly convinced that the
implementation of Bill C-68 will make this a safer country. The
suggestion made by the hon. member for a gun amnesty is a very
constructive one which we will actively consider.
(1455)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's answers today are very similar to his
answers on a CBC town hall last night.
To quote commentator Brian Stewart of the CBC: ``The Prime
Minister made a number of strong statements in defence of the
government's record but he did not always tell the whole truth''.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: We cannot say in this House what someone else
said that we would not say ourselves. I would simply caution the
hon. member for Calgary Southwest not to quote what we cannot
say in the House. I ask the hon. member to please proceed to his
question.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, we accept the cautioning but we are
wondering why it is okay to say in a town hall meeting that the
Prime Minister did not tell the whole truth on jobs or GST but it is
not okay for this House to ask that question-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleague, as you know, I have no control
over what is said outside the House but inside this House my ruling
would be very simple. We cannot take words said by someone else
and bring them into the House when here they would be
unparliamentary. That is what I am conveying to the hon. member.
Once again, without further elaboration, I would ask the hon.
member to put his question directly.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister give a
straight answer to this question. His government has failed to
deliver jobs, jobs, jobs and to scrap the GST. What is his
explanation, the whole truth, for breaking the number one and
number two promises of his election campaign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we say that we work on the creation of jobs, and I
reported on TV and I say to the House of Commons, in the last
three years Canada has created more jobs than Great Britain,
France, Germany, Italy and Japan together.
It is a question of debate. He can say that he would have done
much better. He can say that he would wave his magic wand and
there would be no deficit tomorrow. That is a matter of debate.
The record is there. More jobs have been created in Canada than
in the five nations I mentioned in the last three years. This is a fact
and it is recorded clearly.
7389
(1500 )
We had a program with respect to the GST. He had a program.
We said that we wanted to harmonize the GST. We have
harmonization in four provinces. If the other provinces want to
have only one tax to make life easy for business in Canada, there
will be no GST, there will be a harmonized tax. However, only four
provinces have agreed to it so far.
The Minister of Finance is working to make the harmonized tax
the system for Canada. No, it is not complete yet. I admit that.
However, we cannot make decisions for the provinces. We respect
the Constitution of Canada.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, I wish to return to a matter which
occurred during Statements by Members and then I am going to
hear a point of order.
I put the case squarely before the hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden. During the statements you made a statement
which I found to be unparliamentary. Subsequent to that I asked
you to withdraw the statement and you made another statement
which I also find to be unparliamentary. After that, my colleague,
you were kind enough to approach the Chair and converse with me
for a few seconds.
You are in your seat now and I put it squarely to you. I would ask
you to withdraw what I deemed to be unparliamentary language in
your statement and subsequently, I would ask you to withdraw the
statement that you made after that. Will you do that?
(1505 )
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
out of respect for the institution of the House of Commons and out
of respect for the Speaker, I withdraw remarks in reference to the
broken promises of the Liberal Party. The remark was specifically
the word ``lies''. I also withdraw the remark that I made subsequent
to my statement which made reference to that very same word.
The Speaker: I thank the member for that. I consider the matter
closed.
Now I will proceed to a point of order by the hon. member for
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning my
statement today. According to Standing Order 31, the Speaker may
among other things rule out of order any personal attacks.
The Speaker: My colleague, I am well aware of the citation that
you are giving to the House. The reason I intervened was that in my
view the statement that you were making was unparliamentary. I
only heard part of it, but from my point of view while I was sitting
here it was unparliamentary.
If the hon. member would like to discuss it further with me, I
invite you to see me in my chambers. But when I do not know
where a member is going with a statement and I feel it is in the
interests of the House to intervene, I do and I will continue to
intervene.
_____________________________________________
7389
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to table in both official languages the State of the
Environment Report for 1996 from Environment Canada, which
for the first time in the House is presented in CD-ROM format in
addition to its printed equivalent.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, copies of the annual review for 1994-95 on
the implementation of the Inuvialuit final agreement.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Under the
provisions of Standing Order 32(1), I have the honour to table in
both official languages copies of the 1995-96 annual report of the
Nunavut Implementation Commission.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour
to table, in both official languages, copies of a report entitled
Compilation of 1995 supplementary reports of the Nunavut
Implementation Commission.
7390
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both
official languages the government's response to nine petitions.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion to
amend the Excise Tax Act. I am also tabling explanatory notes. I
would ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration
of the motion.
* * *
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food which deals
with Bill C-38, the Farm Debt Mediation Act. I am proud to report
this bill with several amendments.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present in both official languages the fifth report of
the Standing Committee on Transport with respect to Bill C-58, the
Canada Shipping Act.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table in both official languages the sixth report
of the Standing Committee on Finance.
(1510 )
I think this report is a first in the sense that the same report will
be tabled by two separate committees. My colleague from the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
will be tabling the same document under a different report number.
The report is the result of a joint effort by two subcommittees that
each received a mandate from its respective standing committee to
carry out a joint review of the Special Import Measures Act.
[Translation]
I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who took part in
the hearings of the sub-committees. I would also like to emphasize
the way our assistants and committee staff worked together to
ensure that our efforts were successful.
In concluding, I may point out that the report contains a request
for a comprehensive response from the government, pursuant to
Standing Order 109.
[English]
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade.
As the previous speaker mentioned, this represents the first
report of the subcommittee on trade disputes which was conducted
jointly with the subcommittee of the finance committee on the
review of the Special Import Measures Act.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to present in both official
languages the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Health.
Pursuant to its order of reference dated December 5, your
committee has adopted Bill C-71, an act to regulate the
manufacture, sale, labelling and promotion of tobacco products, to
make consequential amendments to another act and to repeal
certain acts with amendments.
I thank the committee and the staff for the support we had on this
important issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health. In
accordance with its order of reference of June 4, your committee
has adopted Bill C-24, an act to amend the Tobacco Products
Control Act, without amendments.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Special
Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this
report later this day.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-76, an act respecting the safety and
effectiveness of materials that come into contact with or are used to
treat water destined for human consumption.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
7391
Hon. Don Boudria (for Minister of Foreign Affairs) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-77, an act concerning an order under
the International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance
Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-362, an act to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences).
(1515)
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce this bill
providing that a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for life
who has been convicted of first degree murder or for more than one
count of second degree murder is not eligible for parole until he or
she has served, in addition to the portion of the sentence that must
be served for murder, one third-up to a maximum of seven
years-of the sentence imposed in respect of another offence
arising out of the same event.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-363, an act to amend the Patent Act
(investigations regarding the making of medicines available at no
charge to the seriously ill).
He said-Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce a bill that
amends the Patent Act and will give additional powers to the
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, in order to monitor, on an
annual basis, the availability of urgently needed medicine to the
seriously ill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the House gives its consent, and I suggest this motion be
concurred in without debate, I move that the first report of the
Special Joint Committee on A Code of Conduct, presented to the
House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure and privilege to present to the House a petition signed by
over 10,000 Canadians from across the country.
May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, acknowledge and pay
tribute to the McLeod family who are with us today to witness this.
On their behalf I would like to present this petition.
The undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the
House to the following: that public safety is the number one
priority of the criminal justice system; that no convicted felon
while incarcerated in a federal institution will profit financially due
to any monetary awards; that any money awarded to a felon must
be given to his victim and if the victim is not living, the money will
go to the registered victims' rights groups.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, your petitioners request that Parliament
support legislation which will prevent monetary gain for convicted
felons.
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to table in the House a petition signed by over 11,000
Canadians asking Parliament to allow Portuguese citizens to visit
Canada without a visa.
The Conservative government passed legislation in 1986
requiring Portuguese citizens to obtain a visa when visiting
Canada. This measure, which was intended to be temporary, has
lasted ten years.
I join with the representatives of the Portuguese community here
in the gallery today and the people who signed this petition in the
hope this government will resolve a situation that has gone on too
long.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present four
petitions by voters in my riding of Frontenac.
(1520)
The petitioners are asking the government to undertake
proceedings to abolish the Senate as soon as possible. I fully
support their request and I encourage the government to give
serious thought to
7392
this progressive measure, which will mean an annual saving of
over $43 million. Candu=wordwatch
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
two petitions to present under Standing Order 36.
Several people from western Canada have signed a petition
which states that the application of the 7 per cent GST to reading
material is unfair and wrong. It is certainly not the first time we
have heard that in the House. Education and literacy are critical to
the development of our country and this is a regressive tax on
reading and hampers the development of literacy.
The petitioners urge all levels of government to demonstrate
their commitment to education and literacy by eliminating sales tax
on all reading materials and not just the way the government is
trying to weasel it through.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present a second petition under Standing Order 36.
Several residents of Canada are drawing to the attention of the
House that whereas this nation is in danger of being torn apart by
regional factions, they pray that the Prime Minister and the
Parliament of Canada declare and confirm these things
immediately. First, that Canada is indivisible and second, that the
boundaries of Canada, its provinces, territories and territorial
waters may be modified only by a free vote of all Canadian citizens
as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or
through the amending formula as stipulated in the Canadian
Constitution.
That would be good news to us all and I say Merry Christmas.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table petitions signed by the constituents of
Lambton-Middlesex and surrounding areas, each of which has
been duly certified by the clerk of petitions pursuant to Standing
Order 36.
The petitioners request that the House of Commons enact
legislation or amend existing legislation to define marriage as the
voluntary union for life of one woman and one man to each other to
the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present two petitions from constituents.
The first petition is signed by 50 residents of
Fredericton-York-Sunbury and requests that Parliament
proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code that
will ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving
while impaired or causing injury or death while impaired reflects
both the severity of the crime and zero tolerance.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by 137 constituents who
request that Parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a
provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec Civil Code, and to
further amend the Divorce Act to give a grandparent who is granted
access to a child the right to make inquiries and be given
information as to the health, education and welfare of the child.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
tabling today a petition signed by Quebecers who are very
concerned by the sale of Candu reactors to China. These people are
therefore asking the government not to finance or subsidize the sale
of the reactors to this country or any other and to withdraw
immediately from any arrangements for financial and technical
assistance to China.
Although I am aware of the economic consequences of the sale
of the Candu reactors, I consider the fears of those opposed well
founded. We must not be blinded by the economic benefits of such
projects, which, in the end, could have disastrous consequences.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today. The first
petition is from 140 individuals from across British Columbia.
The petitioners urge all levels of government to demonstrate
their commitment to education and literacy by zero rating books,
magazines and newspapers under both the GST and the harmonized
sales tax.
They also ask the Prime Minister to carry out his party's repeated
and unequivocal promise to remove the federal sales tax from
books, magazines and newspapers.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is from individuals in the lower
mainland area.
These petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament to keep
dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles locked up for life;
eliminate statutory release; impose stiffer sentences for violent
offenders; have criminals serve their full sentences and have time
added for bad behaviour; have a central registry for names and
addresses of violent offenders; give more powers to legal
institutions to keep dangerous criminals even after their sentence is
served; give police authority in apprehending and interrogating
violent offenders, including the ability to take blood and saliva
samples; eliminate the
7393
insanity or drunk defence; impose stiffer laws and sentences for
stalker criminals; and reinstate capital punishment for first degree
murderers if there is not doubt of guilt.
(1525 )
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition signed by
scores of constituents from the Ontario riding.
If the hon. members in the Bloc Quebecois would give me a
moment they might actually learn something.
The petitioners call on Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to
include a provision preventing a father or mother from placing,
without legal cause, obstacles between the children of the marriage
and their grandparents.
The petitioners also ask that the Divorce Act be further amended
to allow grandparents the right to access, make inquiries and be
given information as to the health, education and welfare of their
grandchildren.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from scores of citizens of Peterborough who are opposed
to the recent announcement that Canada Post get out of economy ad
mail.
They point out that a recent article in the Peterborough Examiner
suggests that Canada Post is making money out of ad mail. As
Canadians, they also point out that they are shareholders in Canada
Post. They support the recommendations in the Canada Post
mandate review that door to door service be expanded, especially
in rural areas.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
second petition signed by 260 citizens of the Peterborough riding
who are concerned about the taxation of reading materials.
They urge all levels of government to demonstrate their support
of education and literacy by eliminating sales tax on reading
materials. They ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and
newspapers under the GST.
As the provinces and Ottawa consider harmonizing their sales
taxes, reading materials must be zero rated under the provincial
sales taxes as well as the GST.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to present two petitions. The first petition contains 26 names on
behalf of the Canadian Automobile Association.
They call on the government to join with provincial governments
to make a national highway system upgrading possible beginning
in 1997.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition contains 139 signatures on behalf of the Don't Tax Reading
Coalition.
They call on the government to demonstrate its commitment to
education and literacy by eliminating sales tax on reading materials
under the proposed harmonized sales tax.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present petitions on behalf of two of my colleagues from
Capilano-Howe Sound and from Fraser Valley West.
The petitioners ask the government to eliminate sales tax on
reading materials. Further, they ask that as the provinces and
Ottawa consider harmonizing the sales tax, reading materials must
be zero rated under the provincial sales taxes as well as the GST.
Education and literacy are critical.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table two petitions signed by constituents
of Capilano-Howe Sound, wherein they urge Parliament to amend
existing legislation to define marriage as the voluntary union for
life of one woman and one man to each other to the exclusion of all
others.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present a petition signed by 2,740 Canadian
citizens asking the House to take note of the recent actions in
Cyprus resulting in injury and loss of life of innocent, unarmed
people and urging support for President Cléridès' proposal for the
demilitarization of the Republic of Cyprus; and also urging the
Government of Canada to use Canada's influence in pressing for all
parties to abide by the UN Security Council resolutions and to
contribute to a peaceful settlement of the issues.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I also have the pleasure to submit three other petitions. The first
one has been signed by 28 citizens of Canada with regard to the
condition of the national highways.
7394
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition has been signed by 25 citizens on the question
of child custody.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition has been signed by 36 citizens asking that
convicted criminals not be allowed to profit from the publication of
their memoirs.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present today. The first petition is from
Abbotsford, B.C.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that our police and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily
basis as they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians.
They also state that in many cases the families of officers and
firefighters who are killed in the line of duty are often left without
sufficient financial means to meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish
a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and
bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
(1530)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition comes from Edmonton, Alberta. The petitioners
draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home
and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession
which has not been recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families that choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Speaker, my third petition is from Kentville, Nova Scotia-
The Deputy Speaker: Two to a customer today, since there are
so many people waiting.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
present two petitions today on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre.
The first group of petitioners requests that the Government of
Canada not amend federal legislation to include the phrase sexual
orientation.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition concerns the age of consent laws. The petitioners ask that
Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children
from sexual exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to table on behalf of several western Canadians, under
Standing Order 36, a petition that calls for an end to the GST on
reading materials.
Specifically, the petition asks the Prime Minister to carry out his
party's repeated and unequivocal promise to remove federal sales
tax from books, magazines and newspapers.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today on behalf of the
constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt pursuant to
Standing Order 36.
The first petition deals with the concern that the national
highway system is substandard. Therefore the petitioners call on
Parliament to urge the federal government to join with provincial
governments to make the national highway system upgrading
possible.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my second petition deals with taxing reading
materials.
The petitioners ask that the Prime Minister carry out his party's
repeated and unequivocal promise to remove federal sales tax from
books, magazines and newspapers.
The petitioners are simply asking the government to carry out its
promise.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have three
petitions and I will be very brief.
The first two petitions bear 2,889 signatures and call on
Parliament to have our present laws on obscenity strengthened,
demonstrating the will to protect the men, women and children of
Canada from pornography's impact and thereby also fostering
recognition and treatment for sexual addictions which most often
have been fuelled by the use and impact of pornography.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the other
petition with 25 signatures deals with a national highway system in
Canada.
7395
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed
to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to
try a series of four travel motions, the negotiations on which have
been happening during Routine Proceedings.
If it is agreeable to the Chair, I would like to propose them one
by one.
The Deputy Speaker: I take it that all parties are agreeable to
this.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) moved:
That the Subcommittee on International Financial Institutions of the Standing
Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Washington D.C. from January 27
to 30, 1997, to meet with the president and officials of the World Bank.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1535 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) moved:
That the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development and the necessary staff be permitted to travel to Vancouver and
Edmonton from January 26 to January 30, 1997, to conduct hearings on Bill C-65,
an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or
extinction.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): moved:
That as part of its study of new technologies and privacy rights, six members of
the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal and Fredericton
during the week of February 10 to February 14, 1997, for the purpose of holding
hearings and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): moved:
That in relation to its study of the mandate and operation of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts, four members of the committee and two staff
members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to
the Republic of Ireland from April 6 to 13, 1997, to meet with members of
Parliament and government officials of Ireland.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
7395
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from December 9 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak today to the report of the Standing Committee on
Finance on the prebudget hearings.
I started speaking on this matter a day or two ago and,
unfortunately, I was interrupted, so I am back again. I will begin
where I left off. I left off by saying that, in my judgment, the
government was searching for the answer but it would not tell
people what the question was. I want to advance the debate a bit
beyond that now.
This whole debate will be seen in a new light today as a result of
the Prime Minister's town hall meeting last night. Last night we
saw a side of the Prime Minister which I have not seen before. We
saw a Prime Minister who seemed almost disdainful of the people
who came forward, whose lives were in disarray because they were
unemployed or because they had fallen on hard times. That stands
in stark contrast to the words of the committee report.
The chairman of the finance committee is sitting across from
me. I am certain he believes very strongly the words that are in his
report which emphasize how much he cares about people who are
unemployed, the poor and people who have fallen on hard times.
However, I did not see that in the Prime Minister's responses to
7396
questions from regular Canadians last night. Those people have
fallen on hard times.
I want to talk about these issues one by one. These issues are
very important to Canadians.
Last night at the town hall debate there was a graph shown on
television which indicated that 42 per cent of Canadians said the
number one priority they saw for government was unemployment.
It is a huge problem. The Prime Minister brushed the whole issue
aside.
(1540 )
In the finance committee report the government does speak of
the unemployed, but mostly it boasts about the job the government
has done in creating an environment so that the economy can create
jobs. Last night I think that claim was really challenged by
reporters at CBC when they pointed out that since the government
came to power, only 109,000 jobs truly had been created outside of
the natural growth in the workforce. Therefore it amounts to only
about 30,000 jobs a year since the government came to power,
which allowed the unemployment rate to come down to about 10
per cent, still a double digit.
I know I speak for Canadians when I say 10 per cent
unemployment is completely unacceptable. When we look at the
regional breakdowns it is even worse. In Saskatchewan there is 6
per cent unemployment; we are getting there. But in Atlantic
Canada, Cape Breton, 22 per cent, as the lady claimed last night.
That is unbelievable.
What did the Prime Minister say in response to that lady's
queries about what can be done to help people get a job? He said
``we have ACOA, some ACOA grants''. I think we have been
trying ACOA grants for 20 years and they have done nothing to fix
the unemployment problem in Atlantic Canada.
He said ``perhaps you can start a business''. But as the lady
correctly pointed out, when you are unemployed you do not have
the money to run out and start a business. These are common sense
responses. And with respect to the Prime Minister, after 33 years in
this place and serving as a big city lawyer, I think has has become
too far removed from the common people. I think he has forgotten
what it is like to come from humble beginnings. The people who
spoke last night were simply not satisfied with the Prime Minister's
answers.
I think it would be irresponsible to criticize without offering
some answers of our own. We have suggested there is another
approach. We have suggested that the way to deal with the problem
of unemployment is to create an environment, as the Prime
Minister says, where the economy will produce real jobs. But the
government has not done that. That is not done simply by reducing
the deficit ever so slowly but not giving people any of the benefits
of a balanced budget and surpluses.
We are proposing, and I think it is what a lot of Canadians want
to hear, is balance the budget, shrink the size of government, get rid
of the wasteful programs; and there are many of them. Give the
provinces some of the responsibilities which are theirs in the
Constitution and which the federal government has never done a
good job with. When that is done, a surplus will be run. When that
is done, people can be offered lower taxation.
The Reform plan is to download $15 billion in tax relief to
Canadians across the country so that the people in Atlantic Canada,
where taxes are unreasonably high and are going to get even worse
under this harmonization agreement that the Prime Minister spoke
of today in question period, will benefit tremendously from lower
taxes. The problem with the Atlantic Canadian economy is it is so
bound up by taxes that it cannot possibly create the amount of jobs
necessary to help the people in Cape Breton, Newfoundland, all the
regions of Atlantic Canada.
One of the saddest commentaries on the failure of the
government to deal with the problems that seize the country is
today's release from Stats Can that says an estimated 1.472 million
children liven in ``straitened circumstances'' in 1995, in poverty,
up 110,000 from the previous year. In the finance committee report
government members pointed out that child poverty is a problem. It
certainly is but words are not enough. During the last election
campaign the words were jobs, jobs, jobs. What has happened?
Virtually nothing. This time apparently it is going to be child
poverty, but words do not put food on the table.
(1545)
The government report says that not too much can be done.
Maybe some money can be put into a working income supplement,
maybe it could be enhanced. That is not enough. The Reform plan,
$15 billion in tax relief, would take 1.2 million low income
Canadians completely off the tax rolls. That is how people who are
struggling just to get by are helped. That is how the poor are
helped. That is how children living in poverty are helped. That is
how 1.2 million Canadians would be taken completely off the tax
rolls. That is the Reform fresh start.
Just a couple of minutes ago, as we went through Routine
Proceedings, we heard petition after petition make reference to the
GST. Probably a dozen or 15 members of Parliament got up with
petitions in their hands saying that the government should fulfil its
promise to get rid of the GST on reading materials.
Unless I missed it, I did not see that addressed in the finance
committee report. Sometimes when things are not said it speaks
volumes about the approach to an issue. This was a blatant promise
7397
that was broken. Nowhere is it addressed in the finance committee
report.
It is important that this is brought to the attention not only of
Canadians who voted for the government on the basis of this
promise but also the government MPs.
It is incumbent on government MPs to stand up and represent
their constituents. They know very well that the Prime Minister
wrote to the Don't Tax Reading Coalition just before the last
election and said that he would get rid of the GST on books. It is
still there. Yes, the government made some minor changes but it is
still there. It is another broken promise. It should have been
addressed.
The GST is barely mentioned in the finance committee report
but Canadians had some hard questions for the Prime Minister last
night. We had the spectacle of a waitress from Montreal standing
up meekly at first, trying to challenge the Prime Minister on his
GST promise, and what did he do? He attempted to dress her down.
He tried to corner her and suggest somehow that she did not know
what she was talking about. But she knew a lot better than he did
what she was talking about.
She pointed out that the Prime Minister had said many, many
times that he would scrap the GST and it was the basis on which
she had voted for him. What did the Prime Minister do? He did not
say: ``You're right. I am sorry''. He did not do what the Deputy
Prime Minister had to do. He certainly did not resign. What did he
do? He tried to deny that he had said all the things that a couple of
minutes later appeared on the television news.
I would think, after having gone through the debacle of the
Mulroney government and the myriad broken promises and the
myriad times when people completely lost faith in government, the
Prime Minister, the hon. member from Shawinigan, would have
learned his lesson. Instead he let pride get in his way. He denied
that he had said the things that ended up on the TV news a few
minutes later and again, people have a very good reason to not trust
government.
I wonder how many million people watched last night. I wonder
how many million people saw a side of the Prime Minister that they
had never seen before. We are all amused when the Prime Minister
puts on his little guy from Shawinigan act. He is very amusing. He
seems like a very nice man, but last night, although sometimes the
words were there, there was a curled lip, there was an arrogant
attitude. I did not see any sympathy at all for what the people out
there were asking about.
(1550 )
After what we saw last night this whole debate has been put in a
new light. I hope Canadians remember this as we approach the next
election.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of
our most important challenges is to work toward restoring the level
of credibility and integrity of this place. The words we have just
heard have not helped that cause.
I was particularly disgusted with the attack on the Prime
Minister. He has been characterized as a big Bay Street lawyer who
has somehow lost touch with the people. If the member would look
more carefully into the Prime Minister's background he would
know that the Prime Minister comes from a rural area, that he
comes from a family with 19 children. I do not know how the
member could possibly characterize the Prime Minister as some fat
cat Bay Street lawyer. He does a disservice to this place by
somehow twisting the facts.
The member has agreed with the Prime Minister that the role of
government is not to create jobs but rather to promote an
environment which is conducive to job creation. The member did
not articulate what the elements of that environment are.
Interest rates in Canada are currently the lowest they have been
in 40 years. Inflation is also at a very low, very acceptable rate. The
economy has performed exceptionally well and is projected to be
the highest of the G-7 countries. The government has worked on
these elements to promote an environment conducive to job
creation.
This member said that Reformers would not mess around with
little pieces on the deficit. He said that they would use their
extreme policies to balance the budget and cut all those things in
order to create that environment.
I have articulated the government's position vis-à-vis an
environment to promote job creation. I would like this member to
tell this place exactly what elements of the environment he feels his
party is shooting for.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the word
extreme. An extremist is anyone who happens to be winning an
argument with a Liberal.
I want to make sure the member understands and does not take
too much credit where credit is not due. The reason interest rates
have fallen to this point is because the economy is so soft. That is
why there are tremendous unemployment problems in this country.
That is why interest rates have continued to fall. Everyone would
acknowledge that the economy has been extremely soft.
Exports have done well because the dollar has been low but no
one will say that the domestic economy has been anything but
extremely soft. I do not think the hon. member should be taking too
much pleasure in that fact. The same thing applies to inflation.
I will answer the member's question very specifically by
pointing to what the Government of New Brunswick has done. It
has acknowledged that low interest rates alone cannot fix the
problem.
7398
That is why that Liberal government has introduced income tax
cuts.
Note that it has a balanced budget. Note that it has the capacity to
do that. Most people would acknowledge that Frank McKenna in
New Brunswick has done a good job with that province. It should
be a model for the federal government. Our approach parallels
exactly what is being proposed in New Brunswick. When you give
people more money for their pockets they will start to spend it.
That will create jobs.
The member talked about the fresh start plan.
(1555 )
The fresh start plan will provide people with $15 billion in tax
relief. It gives them more money in their pockets so they can go out
and spend money in the economy, save for their retirement, look
after their children's education, take a holiday once in awhile. It
allows small businesses to create the jobs that are so necessary for
the people, certainly of Atlantic Canada, Ontario, the prairies and
British Columbia.
People everywhere are suffering today under this government's
policies. It is about time Canadians had the chance to take the
dollars that the government uses right now and spend them on
things that are their priorities, not the government's.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, following up on that, the member
stated balancing the budget and after that they would lower taxes.
However, he also said that 10 per cent unemployment is
unacceptable. With the program he has outlined, he is prepared to
suggest that Canadians should wait until the budget is balanced and
taxes are reduced. When that is done then jobs will come.
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot suck and blow at the
same time. They cannot balance the budget and give tax cuts at the
same time.
The member has to answer the question. What is he going to do
for Canadians to create an environment that will get Canadians
working again? What elements is he going to create, not in two or
three years from now, but today because that is exactly what he is
asking of the government?
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the government did promise
jobs, jobs, jobs. Three years later those things have not happened.
The evidence is clear. If one brings down a plan that clearly
states that there will be a balanced budget and tax relief, the
stimulus effect is immediate. There is evidence from around the
world to demonstrate that is the case because finally investors have
the confidence to begin spending again in the economy.
We need not speculate about this. There are many examples
around the world. Probably the best example is right here in
Canada. When the Government of Alberta announced that it was
going to balance the budget and begin running surpluses, there was
an immediate influxof investment into the economy because finally
someone had a plan to deal with the problem, something that this
government is missing.
People are paying for it with their jobs. People are paying for it
with lower standards of living. The average family has taken a
$3,000 national pay cut since the government came to power
according to the Fraser Institute. We have had a massive attack by
the government on transfers to the provinces of $7 billion. This
government has closed more hospitals than all of the provinces
combined. That is unacceptable.
That is the price of delay when the government cannot get its act
together and recognize the importance of balancing the budget and
starting to deal with the tremendous problems that were left not
only by the Conservative government but by the Liberals before
them as well.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have my Christmas tie on because I am in a very
Christmas mood. My friend from Medicine Hat has just had some
things to say and I will be responding to some of those.
Given the tone of his speech and watching the House during the
afternoon, I wanted, in the Christmas spirit, to get something on the
record.
There was a party back in 1993 that was going to come here and
do politics a new way, I say to my friend from Red Deer. I was
excited and said: ``This is marvellous''. ``There will be no more
shouting, no more screaming and no more nastiness,'' that party
said. This is a light at the end of the tunnel. ``Rational debate. No
talking out of both sides of your mouth,'' that party said. ``No
maligning people. No character assassination''.
In the Christmas mood, let us give them credit where credit is
due. They have not shouted. I have not heard them scream once.
Mr. Speaker, have you heard them malign anybody? Even this
afternoon in the last speech, have you heard them malign anybody?
Have you, Mr. Speaker, heard any character assassination? Have
you heard them speaking out of both sides of their mouth on the
issue? Let us have the Christmas spirit. Let us give credit where
credit is due. If anybody has brought a new kind of politics, it is the
people who said they would bring a new kind of politics.
(1600)
The member for Medicine Hat made a lot of sense. He said that
words do not put food on the table. He is absolutely right. My
friend from Bourassa is right. Words do not put food on the table.
I will suggest something which does put food on the table, in a
way. If a house mortgage is now $800 a month instead of a $1,000,
I would suggest that the extra $200 could put some food on the
table.
7399
An hon. member: You would probably take it back in taxes.
Mr. Simmons: Like I said, Mr. Speaker, no shouting. We have
just heard from the no shouting party again.
The extra 200 bucks could put some food on the table. Or maybe
if a car payment is $250 instead of $275 or $300, thanks to low
interest rates, the lowest interest rates in this country in over 40
years, maybe that would put some food on the table.
An hon. member: Every country has lower interest rates.
Mr. Simmons: What will not put food on the table is all that
shouting. That will not put any food on the table.
Let me say it for them one more time slowly. All the shouting, all
the screaming, all the maligning, all the character assassination, all
the talking out of both sides of their mouths; none of the above
would create one job in this country and none would put food on
the table. Low interest rates will do it. They are doing it for people
all across the country, particularly the 670,000 who have jobs
because of the mandate of this government.
Of course the hon. member for Medicine Hat is right. We have
not employed everybody but there are 670,000 more jobs now than
there would have been.
An hon. member: What about taxes?
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I cannot take this, all this business
of attacking that party for shouting. Talk about spreading malicious
lies about people. I want to come to their defence.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have great
respect for the hon. member who is speaking. I cannot imagine he
implied that the Reform Party was spreading malicious lies. Out of
respect, I would love to have him withdraw that statement.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair did not catch that word. I
wonder if the member would be kind enough to indicate what in
fact he did say.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I was viciously attacking all the
people who go around suggesting that the Reform Party has not
brought new politics to this place. I said that the people who
suggested that are spreading malicious lies. We all know it is the
non-shouting party. We all know it is the party that never maligns
anybody.
I want to talk about this marvellous report of the Standing
Committee on Finance.
I say to the hon. member for Medicine Hat that it is not the
government, it is a committee of which he is a member. Not one
single person on that committee, including my good friend from
Willowdale, the chairperson, is a member of the administration.
They are all MPs from various parties.
That committee went to St. John's. When in St. John's it heard
concerns from seniors and from small business. It heard concerns
about youth and about job creation. It heard concerns about deficit
reduction targets, social programs and the fishery. The hon.
member for Medicine Hat, the hon. member for Willowdale and the
other members of that committee from all parties heard those
concerns. Then the committee responded to those concerns.
(1605)
On the issue of seniors, the report points out that as of the 1996
budget, thanks to the Minister of Finance, those 60 and over, along
with their spouses whatever their age, are guaranteed no less than
current pension payments.
On small business, the total lending ceiling under the Small
Business Loans Act has been raised to $12 billion.
For youth, over the next three years the government is going to
put out $1.2 billion including an additional $350 million
announced in the last budget a few months ago.
On job creation, over 600,000 jobs have been created.
On deficit reduction targets, we are meeting them and we are
beating them. That is performance. Let us stop right there.
Mr. Speaker, you are looking at a person who never particularly
got his jollies out of deficit reduction. I had to tell you that. I have
never seen deficit reduction as an end in itself. I never go to bed
and say ``thank the dear Lord I have reduced the deficit some more
today''. It is never in my prayers at night because it is not an end in
itself. If it were an end in itself we should shut the government
down and all go home.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, you have to hand it to me, I know
how it feels to the Reform crowd.
Deficit reduction is not by itself an end in itself. It is just a very
important, pivotal, crucial way to an end, but we should never lose
sight of what the end is because the end is all about people. It is all
about those 670,000 who got jobs in the last three years but it is
also about those people, 10 per cent in some provinces, 25 per cent
or so in parts of my province, those large numbers of people who
are kind of camouflaged by near percentages, those people who are
hurting every day because they do not have jobs.
For them we must see to it that not only is the deficit reduced but
that the interest rates are low, that they have more access to capital
if they are in small business. If they cannot start a business because
they do not have the first bit of capital we have to find a way to get
them to a job so that they have an income. An $800 mortgage
cannot be paid if there is no job in the first place to put food on the
table.
7400
For those who suggest that somehow with a wave of a magic
wand suddenly all is right with the world, it does not work that
way, even a couple of weeks before Christmas.
I am sharing my time with my friend for Annapolis
Valley-Hants. Before I sit down let me say I believe the
committee, through its recommendations on children and poverty,
people with disabilities, the old question of productivity, a better
deal for the volunteer and charitable sectors, has done a marvellous
job.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on the
prebudget debate, following my friend from Newfoundland who
did an eloquent job. He did not need to put anybody down in doing
it.
I would like to congratulate the members of the finance
committee for their comprehensive report and many excellent
recommendations. The committee has tabled a thoughtful report
and has offered many positive and tangible actions our government
can take to help improve the economy and help reaffirm our
commitment to the principles of social equity and fairness.
When we look at the financial record of our government the
numbers speak for themselves. Let us look at the facts. When our
government took office the deficit was $42 billion, 6 per cent of our
gross domestic product. In three years we have reduced that
number to a figure below 3 per cent of GDP. Recently the Minister
of Finance confirmed that this figure will be down to 1 per cent of
GDP, or $9 billion, by the year 1998-99. This is significant because
it will mean that our government will no longer have to borrow
from the markets to fund the deficit. This, combined with low
interest rates and a strong economic growth rate, will allow us as
Canadians to have greater sovereignty over our economic affairs.
As a result of our tough fiscal actions we now have broader options
to set our own economic agenda rather than being at the mercy of
international financial institutions.
(1610)
In the past, it would seem that the deficit targets were never met.
Governments would table budgets offering rosy financial outlooks
and would then proceed to miss their targets year after year.
Our government, however, has reversed that trend. We are
restoring Canada's fiscal credibility. Our government has shown
that when we make a commitment, we keep it.
There are two specific issues raised in the report that I would like
to focus on, child poverty and the need for active job creation
measures.
In a country as prosperous as ours, it is unacceptable that 20 per
cent of our children still live in poverty. I sit as a member of the
Standing Committee on Health and in recent months we have been
conducting a study on the health of Canada's children. As part of
our efforts we have heard from health groups and child advocacy
organizations from across the country. These groups have raised
many serious concerns and put forth many excellent
recommendations.
I am pleased, and I think many children's organizations will be
pleased to see that the committee has recommended an increase in
the working income supplement in order to target the children of
working poor.
The chair of the finance committee stated in his remarks in the
House Monday that families among the working poor often have
benefits of $3,000 a year less than those on social welfare. In many
instances this creates a disincentive to work.
I would strongly urge the Minister of Finance to accept this
recommendation as a means of working to alleviate child poverty.
But I do not believe that we can stop there.
I want to take this further and recommend that our government
target increased assistance toward federal programs that deal
directly with the issue of child health and child poverty. One such
program I am sure members are familiar with and which I believe
is worthy of increased investment is the community action program
for children, CAPC.
I noticed in the finance report that the future of CAPC was
addressed during public consultations. I agree with the
recommendation that government funding intentions for CAPC be
made clear and that the support for CAPC continue.
In communities across Canada 450 community based groups are
using CAPC dollars to provide families with parenting education
and support and children with opportunities for early learning
experiences. I have seen firsthand this program and how it
strengthens families and helps children achieve their goals.
However, in April 1997 the CAPC program is scheduled to face a
51.9 per cent reduction in federal funding. This could in turn
threaten the very viability of this program at the community level.
Recently I hosted a meeting where members of the Nova Scotia
Association of Family Resource Projects briefed members of
Parliament about the important role CAPC programs play in their
communities. At this meeting members of the organization played
a cassette recording of comments by parents who have benefited
from the program. There was no question in our minds that this
cassette left members with a firm understanding of how a
government can positively affect the day to day lives of people.
I would like to read for my hon. colleagues one of the comments
that I was particularly touched by. This message was left by a
young mother of two. She said: ``I was trying to do the best I could
7401
with the resources I had, but they were limited. I felt helpless not
knowing where to find the skills, but I knew they were out there''.
(1615 )
Once she started attending the family resource centre, a CAPC
funded program, she said: ``I have learned so many new skills that I
have been applying not only with our children but with other
relationships in my life. Our family is much happier since I have
been coming to the centre. I feel that the programming offered at
the centre for our children is doing all that is necessary for our
children to be prepared for school''.
We are making a difference through programs such as CAPC. I
would urge our government to commit targeted resources toward
this program and other similar proactive programs aimed at
assisting poor children and families. By focusing on the
elimination of child poverty now, we are making a direct
investment in our own future as a nation.
I would now like to turn for a moment to the issue of job
creation. In my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants, job creation
continues to be one of the most important concerns I am hearing.
Even the finance committee's report states that Canada is faced
with a situation where employment growth remains strong but
unemployment continues to persist at unacceptably high rates.
It is true that during the last three years jobs have been created.
At last report there were some 670,000 new jobs created in Canada.
While this is no small number, unemployment numbers across the
country clearly show us that more needs to be done. I believe in the
position put forward by our government that our primary
responsibility is to create the right economic climate for job
growth.
When I say that our government must play a greater role in job
creation, I am not referring to costly short term, make work
projects that have little long term benefit. Instead our government
must continue to focus on creating new partnerships with the
private sector, research and educational institutions and other
levels of government. We need to be an active partner in those
areas where we can help create new jobs.
A perfect example of this type of partnership is the national
infrastructure program. The first tripartite agreement was a
tremendous success. In my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants a
total of $22.3 million was invested in order to address local
priorities. This program showed that when governments are
working to achieve common goals, our communities reap the
benefits from this co-operative spirit.
I was pleased therefore to see that in the finance committee's
report there is a recommendation calling for a new infrastructure
program. I was also pleased that as a part of this program the
committee has recommended that we refocus our infrastructure
dollars toward research and development. This is a
recommendation I fully support.
I would like to also add that as well as partnering with
universities and health institutions, we should focus greater
attention on R and D in the agriculture and natural resources
sectors. These sectors are extremely important to rural
communities like those in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
As well focus must be given to our transportation and
communication infrastructures. This is particularly true in Atlantic
Canada. By focusing more attention to these areas we can help
create sustainable jobs in our rural communities.
There is a lot more I would like to say on this issue but I see that
my time is running short. I will close by once again commending
the work of the finance committee and the many excellent
recommendations it has put forward. This document offers a
thoughtful analysis of the many serious issues still facing our
government and all Canadians.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to congratulate the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants for his
thoughtful comments and remarks.
It is very difficult for a member to talk about his or her own work
but other members can. I would like to let the hon. member's
constituents know that he has been one of the leading spokesmen in
this place about family, children and has been an advocate on
behalf of the CAPC initiative. He shared that experience and
expertise within his riding with other members so that they could
see the valuable contribution that makes to the strengthening of our
families and children. I congratulate him on the excellent work he
has done on behalf of this place.
(1620)
My question has to do with the infrastructure program. I concur
with the member that it has been helpful. Would the member care
to elaborate a little on the initial infrastructure program that the
government had and the contribution it made to his area? Maybe he
could give some ideas on the specific things that might be of
benefit to his constituency.
Mr. Murphy Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind
remarks.
The infrastructure program in my riding was very successful.
The major success was that it built some infrastructure to help draw
in new companies and industry to our area. That is very important.
The infrastructure program is not meant just to create short term
jobs; it is to set a tone, to set an infrastructure foundation for future
growth and development. It did that in our area.
We worked very closely together. The communities and the
municipalities chose the direction in which they wanted to go and I
was there to help them do it. I went to every one of the chambers
7402
and talked about the infrastructure program with them. I heard
what their priorities were and acted on them.
For the future, yes, we want to talk about partnering with
universities and hospitals, partnering with provincial and
municipal governments. But there is another aspect I would like to
see us get into, which is the whole area of being in partnership with
businesses. We could help businesses build their infrastructure so
that they could employ more people with more sustainable jobs.
That would be a really helpful endeavour for instance in my riding
of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
I look forward to the government coming forward and initiating
this project so that we can do what we said we would do and
continue to do what we have been doing, which is creating jobs and
economic development.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to participate in this debate on the prebudget report. Naturally, I
support the Bloc's dissenting opinion expressed in the report of the
Standing Committee on Finance entitled ``The 1997 Budget and
Beyond: Finish the Job''.
This government has made unprecedented cuts in health, social
assistance and higher education, but we still have double digit
unemployment. Compared to the 1989 employment situation, we
are still 925,000 jobs short. The federal government is forcing the
jobless onto welfare and forcing the provinces to make the most
difficult choices in its place. We will recall that Liberals ran on a
platform of ``jobs, jobs, jobs''.
Today, three years into the Liberal government's mandate, the
unemployment rate, at more than 10 per cent, remains outrageously
high, roughly double the American rate. We must recognize that, in
the area of employment, this government's record is poor. I
watched, last night, the Prime Minister's interview on the CBC.
Several questions were about Canada's high unemployment rate.
We heard accounts of the hardship individuals and families are
going through across Canada today. The CBC itself just announced
job cuts affecting more than 1,000 people.
It should be pointed out that the cost of high unemployment has
become huge, totalling some $91 billion a year. This figure, taken
from a study conducted by the Department of Human Resources
Development, includes the costs of lost productivity and crime,
health costs and all the social costs associated with an employment
crisis.
(1625)
One of the social costs associated with the situation the jobless
are in is malnutrition, which can result in chronic illness.
Unemployment can also cause severe stress in some individuals,
as well as mental disorders, alcoholism, suicide, accidents and
heart disease.
These social and health problems associated with unemployment
represent additional costs to the federal government. In the end, the
taxpayers have to foot the bill for this increase in costs. We find
ourselves in a situation where not only citizens are provided with
fewer and fewer services by the government, but they are paying
more and more taxes.
I agree with eliminating the deficit and putting the federal
government's financial house in order. But I disagree with the way
the government is going about it. They are penalizing the
unemployed, welfare recipients, seniors, immigrants and the most
disadvantaged in our society, while at the same time protecting and
favouring the wealthy.
More than five million Canadians are living below the poverty
line, including more than 1.5 million children. I should point out
that 1996 was designated International Anti-Poverty Year by the
United Nations. Yet, poverty is growing in Canada.
The government tells us that fighting poverty, particularly
among children, is one of its priorities. Let us not forget, however,
that the federal government's Canada social transfer cuts have
increased poverty among children and adults alike. This indicates
that the government's choices are not consistent with the objectives
of employment and fairness that it claims to be pursuing.
I also condemn once again the decision to use accumulated
surpluses in the employment insurance fund to reduce the deficit.
The government is reducing its deficit by about $5 billion every
year by dipping into this fund, to which only workers and
employers contribute so they can have a social safety net.
By reducing the accessibility and duration of benefits, the
federal government deprives a considerable number of claimants
from money they have already paid into the fund. This is a
disgrace.
The situation will get worse as of January 1, 1997, with the
implementation of new drastic unemployment insurance measures.
The unemployed and their families will have a rough winter.
The Liberal majority report mentions that the technical
committee on corporate taxation will only submit its report by the
end of 1997. This committee is not at all impartial. Indeed, it is
made up of experts from the private sector whose role is to provide
advice to major corporations on how to pay the smallest amount of
tax possible. Some of these members are clearly in a conflict of
interest.
The government has shown that it has a soft spot for major
corporations. These are almost unaffected by cuts made to improve
the state of public finances. By contrast, the federal government
cuts into social programs and targets workers' rights. The only
protection for wage earners is their right to collective bargaining,
7403
particularly under the Canada Labour Code. However, this right has
been violated by the government on a number of occasions.
In the dispute opposing Canadian International and the Canadian
Auto Workers union, the CAW, the government once again sided
with the employer. The labour minister unduly interfered in the
union's internal affairs. It bypassed the action of CAW's
democratically elected leaders by exerting unwarranted pressure
and threatening to invoke some obscure section of the Canada
Labour Code to force them to hold a vote on major wage
concessions.
(1630)
A duly signed collective agreement is in effect between the
parties. For political reasons, and to favour Canadian International,
a western company whose head office is in Calgary, the
government resorted to political interference and forced the union
to hold a vote. I hope this government will have the courage to
demand from Canadian International officials a restructuring plan
that will protect the jobs of its 16,000 employees.
I want to salute the courage of CAW's leaders, who stood up to
the company and to the government. I also condemn the unjust
attacks in this House by the leader and the reform members against
this union, and particularly against its president, Buzz Hargrove,
who is defending the legitimate interests of those of his members
employed by Canadian International. These employees have
already taken several pay cuts to keep this airline afloat.
As for the overhaul of the taxation system for corporations and
for individuals, the government does not seem to be in any hurry. It
does, however, seem to be in quite a rush to reduce UI benefits and
transfer payments to the provinces for health, higher education and
social assistance.
The federal government must clean up its own act and reduce its
own spending. There are still too many examples of taxpayers'
money being wasted or used inefficiently. This is why, year after
year, the auditor general criticizes billions in unnecessary
spending, and tax loopholes.
For over three years now, the Bloc Quebecois has been
condemning family trusts and tax havens. It has been calling for an
overhaul of the Canadian corporate taxation system. Federal tax
revenue from corporate taxation has dropped considerably in the
last 30 years, going from 23 per cent in 1961 to 9 per cent in 1995.
In addition, Canada is one of the G-7 countries where
corporations pay the least tax. Its taxes are also well below the
average for OECD countries. The same also holds for Quebec. The
tax rate on profits is lower than elsewhere. The impact of federal
cutbacks on Quebec is substantial. These cuts are reflected in a
major shortfall in revenue for this province, estimated at $16.3
billion for the period from 1982-83 to 1995-96.
Quebec will suffer cuts totalling $636 million in 1996-97 and
$1.2 billion in 1997-98. If the federal government had not
offloaded its deficit since the early 1980s, Quebec would now have
a balanced budget.
These federal cuts dramatically reduce the resources available to
the Quebec government to pay for the social programs its
population needs. I want to take this opportunity to condemn the
attitude of a government that has laid off 45,000 employees in the
federal public service. And for many years, it has refused to
increase the salaries of its remaining employees.
I hope that the upcoming negotiations with the Public Service
Alliance of Canada will lead the government to grant reasonable
salary increases. In March 1997, the Public Service Alliance of
Canada's 135,000 members will start their negotiations with
Treasury Board. For six years, salaries have been frozen, there have
been cuts in service and a huge reduction in the number of
employees. They are asking for wage increases, the introduction of
wage equity, reinstatement of the guidelines on workforce
adjustment, employee training, and so forth.
I would also like to say a few words about the incredible salaries
of business leaders, salaries we can only dream of.
(1635)
The president of a large company earns more than the President
of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. They make
at least $300,000 or $400,000 a year, in addition to all their other
advantages. And these advantages are often considerable: stock
options, production bonuses and premiums, social benefits, and so
forth.
I would like to give a few examples of well-heeled executives,
and that is an understatement. The president of the National Bank,
Mr. Bérard, takes home an annual salary of $1.4 million, while his
counterpart at the CIBC had a salary of $1.83 million in 1995.
Laurent Beaudoin, the president of Bombardier, earned a total of
$19.1 million, one of the highest compensation packages in the
country. This $19.1 million includes a salary of $900,000, a bonus
of $525,000 and $17.5 million in profits on options. The former
president of Bombardier, Raymond Boyer, received an annual
salary of $7 million, including $5.9 million in profits on options.
Frank Stronach, founding president of Magna International,
made $47.2 million in 1995, including option profits worth $32.3
million. Gérald Pencer of Cott Corporation received $13 million,
including option profits worth $12.5 million. David Walsh of
Bre-X Minerals Ltd. got $10 million, all in stock options.
7404
There are more heads of companies who earned very attractive
salaries, often more than $1 million per year. These include
William Doyle and Charles Childers of Potash Sales Ltd.; Pudy
Crawford at Imasco; George Petty, Repap Enterprises Inc.; James
Dougham of Stone Consolidated Corporation; Larry Solari of
Domtar, and so forth.
According to a study of 268 corporations whose shares are
traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, the presidents and CEOs
received an average salary of $776,000 last year. This is an increase
of 32 per cent over 1993 and 12.6 per cent over 1994.
These incredible salaries are huge, compared with the earnings
of those who work for the minimum wage, which varies between
$5 and $7 per hour, depending on the province. These differences
are out of all proportion.
The extremely high salaries of heads of companies are also a
strange contrast with the social conditions of the unemployed and
welfare recipients. While the first group lives in luxury, the second
is working very hard just trying to find ways to survive each day.
This government's first priority should be to shrink the huge
abyss separating the richest and the poorest. This concern must
always be taken into account when difficult choices are made about
reducing the deficit. The government must have the courage to ask
the upper strata of society to make a little effort to help reduce the
debt. This in turn would mean that fewer Canadians and Quebecers
would be living in abject poverty.
On December 1, I held a brunch with the theme of social
solidarity in my riding of Bourassa. More than 300 persons
attended. They came from very poor backgrounds, community
organizations, the Montreal North AQDR, business and unions.
The subject was sharing the wealth and protecting workers and
social benefits.
We had distinguished speakers. Clément Godbout, the president
of the FTQ, spoke of workers' rights, as did Monique Simard, and
Jean Campeau, a former Quebec minister of finance. I discussed
the issue of social solidarity and the solidarity of the people of
Quebec.
(1640)
I invited the federal government to use this solidarity to revive
the economy and especially to create jobs. The speakers also
criticized the huge profits of Canadian banks: over $6 billion for
the six main banks.
On the other hand, cuts are being made to welfare,
unemployment insurance, the system of subsidies, and so on.
Things are tough. On the eve of Christmas, many people will be
unable to buy gifts and to partake in the festivities.
In closing, I would first like to wish Merry Christmas to all my
constituents in Montreal North and to the people, immigrants,
seniors, young people and those hardest hit especially.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
my colleague across the way began his speech he said he endorses
the dissenting report of the Bloc Quebecois in the report of the
finance committee. In looking at this report, while the Bloc
Quebecois endorses the move to eliminate the deficit and to
rationalize the federal government's public finances, it disapproves
of the government's way of reaching the ends.
I looked at the report to see how the Bloc would eliminate the
deficit. One of the recommendations is to increase the transfers to
the provinces, which actually increases the deficit. The Bloc wants
to reduce individual taxes which would increase the deficit. It is to
stop using the notional surplus in the UI fund, some $5 billion, to
apply against the deficit. This again is an increase in the deficit.
Finally, there was a recommendation to start fighting child poverty
which is to spend money through various programs. All of those
increase the deficit.
On the other side, there were two items. The first one was to
increase corporate taxes by some $3 billion, but it goes on to state
that the $3 billion should be spent on job creation initiatives. The
final item is basically cutting government spending.
If the corporate tax increase is not available to reduce the deficit
and all the other items in fact increase the deficit, I wonder if the
member would care to outline for the House exactly what he is
going to cut to cover the $15 billion-plus increase in the deficit that
his party is proposing.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I support the minority report
tabled by the Bloc Quebecois and every measure contained in it.
The hon. member wants to know where the money required to
finance federal spending will come from. I am telling you where to
cut: in tax shelters. We have condemned such shelters. Family
trusts are a disgrace and should be eliminated as soon as possible.
Also, all the unnecessary expenditures identified by the auditor
general in his report must be cut. More cuts are required in defence.
The cold war has been over for quite some time. A more equitable
tax system must be developed and we do not think the government
should use the $5 billion UI fund surplus to finance its deficit. That
money is not theirs to begin with. It belongs to those who have
contributed to the unemployment insurance fund, that is to say
employers and employees, and only to them.
7405
For these reasons, once again, I commend our finance critic for
presenting such a fine report.
(1645)
[English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St.
Boniface.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this prebudget
debate. The government has done a good job of getting our finances
back on track. The deficit has been reduced from $42 billion to $24
billion in 1996-97, and it is a projected $17 billion in 1997-98.
These numbers are as a result of a concerted effort implemented
over a gradual period but it must be acknowledged that many
Canadians have sacrificed to get there. Before I get into just who
they are, I would like to also point out that there are parties present
in the House today who would have moved faster and cut deeper,
given the chance.
I look at the campaign that we all waged some three years ago
and both the Progressive Conservative Party and the Reform Party
pledged to eliminate the deficit inside the first term. I recall during
a budget debate more recently when the leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party specifically demanded that we cut deeper and
faster, again repeating the expressed position that we should
eliminate the deficit inside our first term in office. This course of
action would have left devastation throughout the regions most
affected by the reduction of government services such as the
Atlantic region.
Now that we have made some progress, real progress in the area
of deficit reduction, we need to start focusing on the future instead
of focusing on the problems of the past. We also have to recognize
that some problems have been neglected as we have pursued deficit
reduction. We have to start working for those people, poor children
and Canadians with disabilities to name just two groups.
I recently hosted a public policy forum in my riding of
Fredericton-York-Sunbury to deal specifically with the budget.
The discussion included questions around the deficit, the role of the
private and public sectors with respect to economic growth and the
harmonized sales tax.
The majority of individuals at the forum expressed the view that
the country's social safety net cannot stand another round of cuts,
that the government has cut those kinds of expenditures as much as
it can. They proposed that we must now look at high end tax reform
as there is a sense that many large corporations and Canadians at
higher income levels are not paying their fair share.
Discussions around the role of the public and private sectors in
the economy focused on whose role it is to create jobs and how to
do it. Forum members suggested that the government does have a
role to play in intervening in the economy to protect disadvantaged
Canadians and disadvantaged regions, to show leadership in
dealing with global adjustment, school to work transition and
lifelong learning.
Since the traditional safety net perhaps is not as comprehensive
as it once was, we need to create an environment that will produce
equality of opportunity. We have to start dealing with the problems
of child poverty. We need to address the unique obstacles faced by
persons with disabilities on a daily basis.
The government needs to make sure that the country is working
for everybody. In other words, the role of the state is an active one.
It is to mitigate the inequity of the market for underprivileged
children, seniors, middle aged persons with disabilities. We have
an obligation to intervene on behalf of those less likely to succeed
in a market driven, survival of the fittest world.
This flies in the face of the ideologies of both the Reform Party
and the Progressive Conservative Party which have said that the
government should get out of the face of Canadians, that the market
will correct itself. That will undoubtedly succeed for some, those
who are active participants in and beneficiaries of a purely market
driven system, but I ask: Is the government's job to work for those
individuals or for the individuals for whom the market does not
work? This is a fundamental question, one that these two
opposition parties should stop and ask themselves.
When many of us on this side of the House were agonizing over
the impact of the deficit reduction imperative, lobbying internally
and fighting the good fight, the right wing parties insisted that we
were not cutting quickly or deeply enough. Now that the economy
is getting back on track, they have the unmitigated gall to complain
that we are not spending enough, a position that pushes hypocrisy
to a new level.
I want to reiterate that I believe there is a time for deficit
reduction. After the last election our debt was at an all-time high.
We were spending far more than we were taking in. This needed to
be dealt with so that we could reclaim our sovereignty and stop
looking over our shoulder at those threatening to take over our
finances.
(1650)
As we reclaim our fiscal sovereignty, we can now institute the
programs that help those most in need without having to spend all
our energy focused on interest rates. In other words, we see light at
the end of the tunnel. We must restore the faith that Canadians have
in us that we are going to be dealing with those social imperatives.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention an issue
which I know is very important to you, Canadians with disabilities.
I had the good fortune of recently chairing a task force that looked
at the issue of how the Government of Canada should intervene in
7406
our society to make life fairer and more equal for Canadians with
disabilities.
The government task force produced a report which calls on the
government to consider 52 recommendations which included
dealing with the cost of disability, allowing Canadians with
disabilities to have more access to the workplace, and tax measures
that would underwrite the cost of disabilities to a large extent by
the government. Basically, it was to see to it that Canadians with
disabilities have the same shot at the quality of life Canada is
prosperous enough to offer to all.
I welcome the opportunity to speak to an issue I know is
important to all of us. I urge the government to take very seriously
the recommendations of our task force report. I also suggest that
we take every opportunity to use whatever capacity has been
generated by our good management to see that Canadians who have
suffered during this fiscal imperative have their needs attended to.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Saint-Jean-retired Singer employees; the hon. member for
Bourassa-immigration.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to take part in this important pre-budget debate.
[English]
As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance I was very
closely involved in the prebudget consultations. I am proud to be a
member of the government which opened up the budgetary process
to Canadians in an unprecedented fashion. The Minister of Finance
is to be commended for having undertaken this innovative
initiative which has been done since 1993. It was exceptionally
well done again this year.
The finance committee was split into two groups. The western
wing which covered the western provinces was headed by the able
parliamentarian from Essex-Windsor, the vice chair of the
committee. The eastern wing was headed by the chair of the
committee, the member for Willowdale.
We heard from over 300 associations and individuals and
received numerous representations from people from all walks of
life. Therein lies the strength. We heard from people not only from
every geographical region but virtually from every single segment
of society. They told us what they thought ought to be in the next
budget.
Hearings were held in Ottawa and across the country. By holding
hearings locally we were able to make the consultative process that
much more accessible. In addition, the finance committee agreed to
split in two, as I indicated. This was extremely useful because we
were able to spend a full week on the road to hear Canadians, quite
apart from the many meetings that we had here in Ottawa.
One consistent theme to the testimony was the support of
Canadians for the government to finish the job that had been
started. Canadians know we must continue to meet and surpass our
deficit targets then move forward to begin to pay down the debt.
[Translation]
The committee is in favour of adopting the objective proposed
by the Minister of Finance to bring the deficit back to $9 billion, or
1 per cent of GDP by 1998-99.
[English]
To date as we all know, the government has successfully met and
exceeded its deficit targets.
(1655 )
We recognize that these have been difficult times for all
Canadians. However it is imperative that we work toward a more
affordable and efficient government and an era of sustainable
government programs. It is critical that our deficit targets be met so
that we can start working on the debt.
During the consultations Canadians gave us guidance, a
framework from which to work and to build for the future.
Canadians made their priorities clear. They want us to begin
addressing problems that have been neglected in the past in order to
build on our future.
I will focus my discussion on a number of areas of priority that
were mentioned by Canadians. I would suggest that the opposition
parties would do well to listen to what is being said because they
might glean some valuable insights that could help them make
some constructive suggestions to the government as opposed to
continually whining, berating and denigrating the excellent work of
the Minister of Finance and the government in this area.
Priority areas of concern are those issues which came up time
and time again during the consultative process. Those are the areas
that we need to build upon for the future. The committee believes
that action needs to be taken in future budgets. However, actions
taken must be within the context of our ongoing commitment to
meeting and surpassing our deficit targets, dealing with the issue of
our enormous debt, the restoration of our fiscal health and I
reiterate, finishing the job we started.
[Translation]
The committee recommends that Revenue Canada determine the
changes to be made to the earned income supplement, to make it
easier to adjust to changes in the employment situation of parents,
and to provide assistance when needed.
7407
[English]
In 1989 the House of Commons unanimously approved a motion
seeking to eliminate poverty among Canadian children by the year
2000. The committee very strongly believes that assisting children
in poverty must be the main priority of government. We need to
find a way to speed up the way in which resources get to those that
need them.
A good example is the working income supplement. Currently
this benefit is based on the previous year's income. As a result it is
not responsive to changing circumstances, not as much as they
ought to be, and we need to rectify this situation.
[Translation]
The committee congratulates the federal task force on people
with disabilities for its excellent work and recommends the
inclusion, in the next budget, of measures that will take into
account the additional costs incurred by people with disabilities.
[English]
I had an opportunity to meet with my hon. colleague the member
for Fredericton-York-Sunbury concerning the task force report.
I must commend him and his colleagues for their excellent
thorough report. What I took away from that meeting above all else
is that Canadians living with a disability almost always have
additional costs. Within federal jurisdiction we should take action
in the area of tax policy to deal with this situation. In addition, any
actions in the area of tax policy should be in support of the social
policy objectives of inclusion, independence and productivity.
[Translation]
The committee recommends a significant increase in the support
provided to literacy organizations under the National Literacy
Secretariat, which currently stands at $22.3 million per year.
[English]
During the consultations we heard from witnesses that the
changing economy is demanding ever higher levels of literacy from
all working Canadians. Our future will require workers, managers
and executives with higher skills that are required today and
constant upgrading I might add. Literacy is an essential tool in such
a knowledge based economy and more so than ever before. Our
challenge is to provide literacy and learning for all because without
these tools workers and employers will fall behind their
competitors. We believe that this problem can be addressed
through partnerships with every sector of society, co-ordinated
through the efforts of the National Literacy Secretariat.
Subsequent to the release of the prebudget report, I have
received a congratulatory letter concerning literacy from Frontier
College which reads in part: ``This is great news. This is the
knowledge and information age and every Canadian must be able
to read and write well in order to be part of it-.The finance
committee gave us the assurance that we will have the resources to
continue this fight''.
There are a number of other such letters from members of other
communities who felt that this prebudget report was of first quality
and addressed the needs of Canadians. I would be delighted to
share those with all of my colleagues.
(1700)
[Translation]
Tuition fees are increasing everywhere in the country. The
committee made three recommendations.
[English]
These recommendations dealt with carrying forward tuition fees
as deductions against future income, doubling the $500 exemption
for scholarship, fellowship and bursary income, and special
opportunity grants being provided for students with parental
responsibilities. These recommendations recognize that an
investment in education is an investment in our future. Research
and development was recognized as key to Canada's ability to
compete in the global economy.
[Translation]
The committee recommends that priority be given to increasing
the funding of granting councils such as the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council, and the Medical Research Council.
[English]
The committee recognized the important work and the unique
opportunities provided by the Networks of Centres of Excellence
program. It recommended the renewal of the program for a third
term.
Recommendations were made on the implementation of a
second, more modest national infrastructure program. The
committee recognized the great success of the first infrastructure
program. Support was given for the second program which is well
directed and available to traditional infrastructure projects such as
waste treatment, water supply, transportation, et cetera, as well as
to health care and educational institutions. Support for health care
and educational institutions represents a long term contribution to
Canada's overall level of productivity and our long term prospects
for high level, high knowledge jobs.
We recognize the importance of charities and the voluntary
sector. The committee had a number of recommendations
concerning endowments, bequests, corporate donations, stretch
proposals, withholding taxes, community economic development,
program related investment and taxpayer awareness.
7408
[Translation]
To conclude on this issue, the committee believes that its
proposals to increase tax incentives for charitable donations will
help correct the imbalance resulting from the reduction of direct
subsidies, and it recommends that these proposals be implemented.
[English]
We recognize the important role played by charities in our
communities. We recognize the need to help them find sources of
additional resources in a fiscally responsible manner and the role
the government can play. I received a letter from an organization
called Heritage Canada. It congratulates the committee for its
recommendations in the area of charities: ``Recommendations in
the area of charitable giving are similarly welcome. Greater
incentives to encourage more in the way of personal and corporate
giving could clearly have a beneficial impact on the heritage
field''.
At a town hall meeting in my riding I had the opportunity to meet
with members of my community, my advisory committee. Their
recommendations were not unlike others. Constituents are
supportive of our fiscal goals and deficit reduction targets. They
want us to invest strategically in the future, in our young people
and in certain research that could be value added. They want to
make sure that universities and community colleges are not
neglected. They want increased R and D funding that will create
better jobs and a better quality of life for all Canadians. They urged
us not to forget small and medium size business and they wanted to
be sure that we considered another modest infrastructure program.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to participate in this prebudget debate with two
objects in mind, first to outline an alternative federal budget which
would give Canada a fresh start for the 21st century, and second to
define two distinctively different approaches which members of
this House can take to the prebudget debate and the budget debate
next spring. One approach is essentially negative and reactionary.
The other approach is positive and constructive.
The people of Canada long for a federal budget that delivers high
growth rates, many more jobs, higher incomes and increased
personal security. Canadians want a federal budget that vastly
accelerates job creation. Under this government we have 1.5
million unemployed, a youth unemployment rate of over 17 per
cent, two million to three million underemployed people and one
out of four workers afraid for the future of their jobs.
(1705)
Canadians want a federal budget that strengthens social security
because under both Liberal and Tory administrations, federal
support of health, education and old age security has deteriorated in
absolute terms.
Under the current administration, for example, federal health
care spending has been reduced by over $3 billion and reform of
the Canada pension plan languished while government members
preoccupied themselves with revamping the MP pension plan.
Canadians want a federal budget that reduces federal debt and
increases personal incomes. Why? Under Liberal and Tory
administration the federal debt has risen to over $600 billion while
the disposable income of the average Canadian family has declined
by $3,000 over the last three years.
High taxes kill jobs. Tax relief for consumers and private sector
job creators creates jobs. Thus, Canada needs a federal budget that
clearly establishes the link between job creation and tax relief and
that makes tax relief, not further tax increases, a national priority.
Canadians need a federal budget that aims at federal surpluses,
not further deficits. Why? Surpluses make possible reinvestment in
those social programs like health care that have been cripples by
cuts, and only with federal surpluses can one start making progress
on debt retirement.
Because the federal budget that the Canadian people need is so
much different from the budgets that have been produced thus far
by the government, Reformers produced an alternative budget plan
in our fresh start platform.
That fresh start budget calls for five actions. Number one,
balance the federal budget by 1999, a faster timetable than that
pursued by the government.
Number two, aim for surpluses after 1999, with the size of those
surpluses increasing each year.
Number three, from those surpluses use $5 billion to $10 billion
as initial down payment on the federal debt, with some fixed
proportion of future surpluses being devoted to debt retirement.
Number four, increase federal transfers to the provinces for
health and education by $4 billion per year.
Number five, provide up to $15 billion in broad based tax relief
through seven specific tax relief measures, all targeted to increase
consumer spending, raise the disposable income of families and
stimulate job creation by private sector job creators.
That is the kind of federal budget Canada needs. It is the budget
described not in the government's prebudget document but in
Reform's fresh start platform.
This prebudget debate and the budget debate next spring will be
a prelude to the 1997 federal election debate. There are two
distinctively different approaches which members on both sides of
the House can take.
7409
On the one hand, there is the negative and reactionary approach
to ideas for improving Canada's budgetary situation, an approach
which has unfortunately been taken so far by the Minister of
Finance.
For example, on page 18 of our fresh start platform Reform
presented a proposal for increasing, not decreasing, federal funding
for health care and education by $4 billion a year and presented a
budgetary strategy for doing that.
How has the government reacted to this proposal? The finance
minister stood in this House and charged the Reform Party with
wanting to eliminate health care. In other words, the response of
the government and the finance minister to one of our principle
budgetary proposals was reactionary, 100 per cent negative, and in
this case 100 per cent false.
On page 19 of our fresh start platform the Reform Party drew the
attention of Canadians to the critical state of the Canada pension
plan and put forward a four point plan to rescue the Canada pension
plan from 30 years of Liberal and Tory mismanagement.
That rescue plan for CPP calls for guaranteeing that every citizen
who is a senior receives every penny he or she is entitled to under
CPP.
(1710 )
It proposes to extend the principle of RRSPs, personalized tax
sheltered retirement income savings accounts, to lower income
workers. It proposes to reduce poverty among elderly widows and
widowers by allowing funds from a deceased person's RRSP to be
transferred to the surviving spouse tax free.
Yet on November 18 the finance minister replied to a question
from the hon. member for Beaver River, a member who has public
credibility on the subject of pension reform because she opted out
of the obscene MP pension plan. In his reply the minister made the
astounding statement that Reform stood for abolishing the Canada
pension plan. Again, that is a reactionary statement which is
completely negative and 100 per cent false.
On pages 7 to 11 of our fresh start program Reform puts forward
a budgetary plan containing the most comprehensive proposals for
tax relief and job creation through tax relief ever presented in this
Chamber. Six of our seven specific tax relief measures, over 90 per
cent of the $15 billion in tax relief offered by Reform's program,
are aimed directly at lower income and middle income Canadians.
Reform's proposals to raise the personal and spousal income tax
exemptions provide tax relief to every Canadian, especially lower
and middle income Canadians. More than 1.2 million low income
Canadians would be removed from the tax rolls altogether.
Under Reform's tax relief measures an average family earning
$30,000 per year would have its federal taxes cut by 89 per cent.
Under Reform's plan a single mother with one child and an
allowable child care expense of $4,000 per year would have her
federal taxes cut by 100 per cent.
Yet what is the reaction of the Prime Minister, the finance
minister, the Liberal government to these proposals? In Toronto the
Prime Minister declared that there would be no national tax relief
for Canadians under his administration. The Liberal government
completely opposes faster deficit reduction so that tax relief and
debt retirement can come about more quickly. The government is
against increasing the personal exemption for every federal income
taxpayer, as Reform proposes. The government is against
increasing the spousal exemption and changing the child care tax
deduction, as Reform proposes. In other words, it is against
providing broad based tax relief to families and against making the
tax system neutral with respect to the form of child care chosen.
The government is opposed to substantive cuts to payroll taxes
and capital gains taxes, as Reform proposes, tax cuts designed to
put more dollars into the hands of private sector job creators.
The government wants to retain the Tory 3 per cent and 5 per
cent surtaxes, so bitterly criticized by Liberal MPs when they were
in opposition, rather than remove them, as Reform proposes.
On November 18 in the House the finance minister even went so
far as to describe the Reform Party's tax relief package as a tax cut
for the rich. That can be found on page 6366 of Hansard. Again, a
reactionary and negative statement, and one that is 100 per cent at
variance with the facts.
What we have here is an approach to budgetary proposals from
the government which is completely reactionary and negative. I
frankly fear where this approach is going to lead. It is my
experience that once a debate on any subject becomes completely
negative and reactionary, and particularly when that approach is
taken by people in positions of responsibility and authority, it
simply breeds more of the same.
I do not know why the Prime Minister and the finance minister
especially are so adamantly opposed to the consideration of a
budgetary plan to deliver tax relief to Canadians. I do not care to
speculate on their personal motivation, but what I can report on is
what an increasing number of Canadian taxpayers are saying. It is
their deep suspicion that well to do, tax sheltered, prime ministers
and finance ministers simply cannot personally identify with the
tax burden now carried by the hard pressed Canadian taxpayers.
7410
(1715 )
If all they see from the Prime Minister and the finance minister
is negative reactions to tax relief, particularly negative reaction to
tax relief for low and middle income Canadians, they will react in
kind.
Therefore, it would not surprise me at all if those taxpayers,
through their various associations and interest groups which are
mushrooming all over the country, were to in their anger and
frustration, produce a pamphlet, a newspaper ad or a TV
commercial with the following headline: ``Well-to-do, tax
sheltered Liberal leaders indifferent to tax burden of working
Canadians''. If and when that happens, the Prime Minister and the
finance minister will react in anger and frustration, as the finance
minister has already in this House, and the whole subject of tax
relief and alternative budgetary plans to deliver tax relief will be
lost in a welter of negative reactionary recriminations.
Is there an alternative approach to the prebudget and budget
debate which is more positive and constructive, one which would
inspire public interest and hope for the future rather than anger and
recriminations? I believe there is. That approach is for each major
party to this debate, in particular the Liberal government and the
Reform Party, to put forward their alternatives plans and proposals
in as positive and constructive a light as possible, and let the public
decide which course of action represents the best budgetary plan
for Canadian citizens and taxpayers.
This is the approach that Reformers prefer to take to the
prebudget debate, to the budget debate and to the federal election
campaign itself.
In taking this approach, Reform will propose that this country
aim for a trim $94 billion a year federal government, one that
balances its budget sooner rather than later, one that focuses on 10
major areas of national and international responsibility and
decentralizes virtually everything else to provincial and local
governments.
We would propose a $94 billion a year federal government which
focuses its social spending on three major areas: federal support of
health, education and old age security, and which reduces its
spending on virtually everything else in order to sustain and
guarantee its commitments in those three areas.
In contrast, working off the prebudget documents provided by
the government, the government is on course to present Canadians
with a $109 billion a year federal government. Under the
government's plan, which is really an extension of the status quo,
the federal government would attempt to continue to provide
certain programs and services from regional development grants to
the continuation of the CBC as a public corporation, to a plethora
of social expenditures which Reform would either eliminate,
privatize or delegate to lower levels of government.
The big difference between these two alternative budgetary
approaches is about $15 billion a year. The question for the
Canadian people is which course of action is best for them and their
children. Will that $15 billion per year be more productive in terms
of job creation and social security if it is collected by the Liberal
tax man and spent by Ottawa or would that $15 billion be more
productive in the hands of Canadian consumers and private sector
job creators through tax relief?
This is the great issue ultimately to be decided in the prebudget
debate, the budget debate next spring and to be conclusively
decided in the next federal election.
I want to conclude by appealing to members on both sides of the
House. The prebudget debate, the budget debate and the federal
election debate can be negative and reactionary. We are already
seeing examples of where that can lead and all it does is divert
media and public attention from the real issues and the decisions
that have to be made.
On the other hand, we can approach this debate positively and
constructively. Let the Liberals put forward their budgetary plans
for a $109 billion a year federal government with no tax relief and
defend that as best it can. Let Reformers put forward its plans for a
$94 billion a year federal government plus $15 billion in tax relief
and argue as strenuously as we can for the benefits of that
approach.
Let us take these alternative proposals before the great tribunal
of the Canadian people and then, appealing to the good judgment
and better instincts of our fellow citizens, let Canadians make the
decision as to which approach will provide a fresh start for the
Canada of the 21st century.
(1720 )
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think all
members of the House are pleased that the leader of the third party
has joined in the debate, a debate which is very important. As he
has quite correctly pointed out, it involves an incredible number of
choices that as legislators, as representatives of the people, we have
to make on behalf of Canadians from every region of the country.
It is constructive that Reform members have made the effort to
put before Canadians an alternative budget, an alternative strategy,
that they have thought it out, that they have put numbers to it, that
they are offering that type of alternative. Just as our debate on the
prebudget report is the subject of extensive debate throughout the
country, I welcome that he has put forward their alternative budget
as a serious element of debate.
I commend the third party for doing this. It is a departure from
the traditional role that opposition parties have played.
Traditionally opposition parties have simply criticized. They have
nit-picked, they have gone after the chinks that they saw or thought
that Canadians might perceive to exist in the other party's platform.
The Reform Party has dared to be creative. I commend it for the
7411
approach that it has taken. I know it has done that with a great deal
of sincerity and a great deal of thought.
We have had on the finance committee through the excellent
leadership of the Reform Party and its members very constructive
debates from coast to coast throughout this country on many of the
very important issues we face. I think members from all parties
have been influenced by this exchange of philosophies and
exchange of means of getting to a new end. All of us realize that we
have to go beyond where we are today.
The Reform Party did a marvellous job over the past three years
in pointing out the incredible problems that we face in Canada
because for the 20 previous years governments of both stripes spent
way beyond the means of Canadians and put us behind the eight
ball. We are so far in the hole that our biggest expenditure today is
$50 billion on interest, which is two and a half times what we spend
on our next biggest expenditure, seniors' pensions.
I do not denigrate the approach which Reformers have taken but
I do put forward with a certain amount of enthusiasm the approach
taken by the Minister of Finance under the leadership of the Prime
Minister. There are not too many people who five years ago would
have thought that it was going to be the Liberal Party that had to
come to grips with the deficit and the debt.
We took an approach which has reduced the deficit from 6 per
cent of GDP when we took office down to 5 per cent, 4 per cent, 3
per cent and it will be below 3 per cent of our gross domestic
product and heading for zero, be it in the year 1998-99 or the year
that the leader of the third party would like to see it hit zero,
1999-2000.
We are not going to be far off from what the leader wants in
terms of that objective if we continue to surpass the deficit
objectives the way we have. We agree probably with the Reform
Party that government does not have a role of intervening in every
aspect of Canadian life even though we might like to or feel that we
have an obligation to help. We can no longer afford this. This has
been demonstrated by the fact that incredible cuts have had to be
made in budgets. There is a difference between our parties and the
approach that we have taken.
(1725)
First, our cuts have been gradual, not the draconian cuts that
were called for by the other party. This has allowed provincial and
municipal governments to adjust. It has enabled Canadians to
adjust over a period of time to the tough, harsh realities. This is not
a disagreement on what had to be done, but it is the timing and
giving Canadians the opportunity to adapt.
Second, I think our vision of what the country is about is slightly
different, perhaps vastly different. For example, none of our
budgets cut equalization payments which we feel are so critical to
maintaining that confederation, that community of provinces, that
community of neighbours, a country which is sharing and cares
about every region.
This has been built on our history. It has been built on the fact
that at the time of Confederation, Nova Scotia was the richest
province. Before the big oil discoveries in the 1940s, Alberta was
really a have not province.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The comments are
very apropos, I guess, but they are really not giving the member for
Calgary Southwest time to respond.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I was watching the time. I
was going to warn the hon. member for Willowdale in another
minute or so that he was going to perhaps put himself in that
position and I am sure that he did not want to do so. I expect he will
conclude his remarks shortly.
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly in your hands. Please,
just tell me when my time has expired.
The very fundamental difference between the Liberal Party and
the Reform Party is that we believe equalization is fundamental to
the maintenance of the partnership that exists among all provinces,
the federal government and Canadians no matter where they live.
We also have a fundamental disagreement on how we should
treat health care. Part of the Reform platform is that it will allow
provinces to opt out of the Canada Health Act, that private billing
can be done and a two-tier medical system. Now, all of a sudden it
said that it is going to pour $4 billion a year more into medical care.
This will be done through increasing transfers to the provinces.
However, there will be no strings attached. How does Reform
intend to do it?
We have fundamental differences and but we are fighting toward
a lot of the common goals.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, the
chairman of the finance committee, for his generous comments.
Perhaps the Christmas spirit has permeated this place, and we
reciprocate.
However, let me respond to three of the points he made. He
mentioned that one difference between the government and Reform
is the pace at which we would balance the budget. The government
has proposed to take the gradual approach. What he did not
mention was the price that is paid for going too slow. Part of the
price has been that the government has accumulated over $100
billion in debt because it has gone slow on deficit reduction. That is
the other side of the story.
The interest charges on that debt have resulted in the government
having less money to spend on social services. That is another part
of the price. And the biggest part of the price of going slow on
deficit reduction is not being able to get quickly to a surplus
position. Therefore, the government cannot offer substantive debt
retirement, it cannot offer substantive social reinvestment and it
cannot offer tax relief. We say the price the government paid for
gradualism is too high. It would have been better to have gone
7412
faster, to follow the timetable followed by the majority of the
provinces.
With respect to equalization, let me say that we support
equalization, but we support a true and focused equalization. Right
now under equalization, three provinces are carrying seven. We
believe we ought to strive more to a situation where there will be
four or five carrying six and five rather than the current situation,
and target equalization even more steeply to the most
disadvantaged provinces.
The third point is on health care. The Reform position, as I
argued earlier, is to increase the funding for health care. We are
able to do that because we have a plan that gets to surpluses faster
than what the government is doing. We would argue that is a more
sound approach to preserving health care than the approach that the
government is taking. It is the government itself, not Reform, that
has reduced federal transfers for social and health programs by
over $7 billion.
My last point would be to respond to the member's question. He
asked how we can hold the provinces to spending transfers that the
federal government may say are targeted to health care, education
or something else when there are no strings attached to those
transfers. There is one simple answer to that.
If both levels of government listen to the public they will find the
public has a set of social spending priorities. If both levels of
government listen to the public that is where they will get their
direction as to how social dollars ought to be spent and they will
both hear the same message because they are talking to the same
taxpayers.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
7412
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-236, an act to prevent the importation of
radioactive waste into Canada, be now read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that you will find consent for the following. I move:
That at the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-236 this day, the question be
deemed put, a recorded division be deemed requested and that the said vote be
deemed deferred until Thursday, December 12, 1996 at the end of the time provided
for Government Orders.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the
opportunity to conclude this debate in the House of Commons on
the proposed legislation, Bill C-236.
Throughout the debate we have heard many arguments for and
against this bill. The members opposite repeatedly stressed that
they want to prevent Canada from becoming the world's dumping
ground for radioactive waste. The image of a dumping ground is
misleading. Today radioactive waste in Canada is managed in an
environmentally reasonable way. All forms of radioactive waste
management and disposal are strictly regulated by the Atomic
Energy Control Board, the independent federal nuclear regulator.
As the House is aware, the Government of Canada has recently
introduced modern and comprehensive legislation, the Canadian
nuclear safety control act. Bill C-23 updates the Atomic Energy
Control Act. During the debates the Government of Canada
presented its reasons for not supporting Bill C-236 and the three
main reasons can be summarized as follows.
First, this bill is simply not needed. The regulatory system in
Canada already strictly controls the management of radioactive
waste, including imported waste specifically. Canada has the
knowledge base, the expertise, the infrastructure and the regulatory
systems to ensure that radioactive wastes are treated in such a way
that they pose no undue risk to human health or the environment.
In Canada an independent federal agency, the AECB, strictly
regulates the nuclear industry. This bill adds nothing to Canada's
current regulatory system. It adds nothing to the regulations under
the Atomic Energy Control Act, nor to those under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act.
(1735)
Compliance with these regulations is mandatory for all licensed
applicants to the AECB whether they be individuals, companies or
groups, including aboriginal groups. There are no exceptions.
The current concept for the disposal of nuclear fuel waste in
Canada is intended for handling waste from domestic CANDU
reactors. There are no plans to import nuclear fuel waste from other
countries.
In Canada, the owners and the producers of low level radioactive
waste are planning for the disposal of their own waste. Under the
radioactive waste policy framework, waste producers and owners
7413
are responsible for funding, organizing, managing and operating
disposal and other facilities for these wastes.
Uranium mine and mill tailings will be decomissioned at the
mine sites.
Second, the bill is a threat to Canadian companies exporting
medical equipment containing radioactive substances or the
substances themselves.
Let me offer two examples to highlight the government's
concerns. Nordion International Inc. is a worldwide leader in the
production of medical radio isotopes. In 1995 its total revenue was
$191 million. About 98 per cent of its sales come from exports and
it sells to more than 70 countries. Should the bill pass, the company
expects to lose half of its annual revenues.
This is because its clients around the world in developed as well
as developing countries require sales contracts to include a take
back clause for the spent radioactive sources. These spent materials
are considered radioactive waste.
Nordion is quite willing to include such a clause since Canada
can indeed effectively deal with the disposal of such waste. Take
back provisions and practices are highly recommended by
international organizations such as the International Atomic
Energy Agency since it ensures that the wastes are managed by the
most capable authorities under effective regulatory regimes.
Theratronics International Ltd. is a worldwide leader in cancer
therapy machines. It would also be hurt by this bill. In fact,
Theratronics executives say that the legislation would probably put
the company out of business since the repatriation of radioactive
sources for disposal is an integral element in its contract and is
often a condition for new sales.
The company feels that it has an obligation to offer disposal
services such as services for a good way to keep track of spent
radioactive sources. This tracking is essential to avoid the kind of
tragic radiation accident that occurred a few years ago in Brazil
where several people died after being exposed to radioactive
materials that had been carelessly abandoned.
If we are not prepared to take back the spent radioactive
substances resulting from the use of medical equipment abroad,
then Canada may have to stop exporting to countries that cannot
deal with the waste.
This would deprive the people in those countries of access to
modern medical devices. The result could be needless illness and
death in client countries, the disappearance of these successful
Canadian high tech companies and significant job losses.
Third, the bill would impair our co-operation on radioactive
waste management initiatives with other G-7 nations, especially
the United States. It would also hurt our reputation with developing
countries.
Again, let me be more specific. The law in both Canada and the
United States covers on-site storage of radioactive waste at
hospitals. Under some circumstances it may be more practical,
effective, efficient and environmentally sound to use the disposal
or storage facilities across the border, but this co-operation has to
work both ways.
Developing countries, many African nations for example, have
recognized that they do not have the expertise, the infrastructure or
regulatory authority to safely handle these wastes and have banned
their import. They are well aware that they will have to export such
waste if they are to avail themselves of modern medical devices
that contain radioactive material. This is not the case for Canada,
which has leading expertise in this area.
(1740)
If passed, this legislation would send a signal to developing
countries that we are indifferent to their medical needs. As a
developed nation, Canada is an active and effective participant in
international fora to develop conventions, codes and guides to
ensure that all countries adopt proper radioactive waste
management practices.
Up to now Canada's views have commanded respect in the
international community. Our opinions are actively sought because
we have the expertise, the infrastructure and the regulatory
authority to deal with radioactive waste safely. This legislation
would show the G-7 countries that Canada is no longer prepared to
effectively participate in international fora.
I will address the specific issue of nuclear fuel waste. Canada has
developed something called the deep geological concept, a
proposed method for disposing of nuclear fuel waste generated in
this country by burying it deep within the stable granitic rock of the
Canadian Shield. In the international scientific community there is
general agreement that the deep geological method is the best form
of disposal for nuclear fuel waste.
I re-emphasize that Bill C-236 offers no advantages and entails
many harmful consequences related to the import of radioactive
waste. This bill would produce no benefit whatsoever for
Canadians and would add nothing to Canada's current regulatory
system. On the contrary, it would inhibit environmentally
responsible practices both here and abroad and would result in
significant job losses in the nuclear medical equipment industry in
this country. I strongly urge members of the House to vote against
this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity today to express my views on Bill C-236, standing
in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley-East, which
would prevent the importation of radioactive waste into Canada.
7414
The hon. member is to be commended on his initiative, and I
want to say that I support his proposal, because this is a very
serious matter, involving future generations for which we are
responsible.
Much has already been said by my colleagues who support this
bill and who spoke earlier in this debate. After the events of
Chernobyl, none of us can afford to ignore the terrible impact such
dangerous materials have had on the local population. Ukraine,
with thousands of people dead, people who are sick and children
who have become invalids, knows the consequences.
We have no right to put humans at risk nor, for that matter, the
animal and vegetable species of this planet. We must not expose
our country to potential disaster for financial considerations.
That is why legislation is needed to ensure that commercial
interests do not look to the market in radioactive waste as a golden
opportunity to make a quick buck, at the expense of the health and
safety of the public.
Let me explain. Certain groups see attempts being made by
countries to get rid of their own radioactive waste as an opportunity
to make a huge profit. We must have the courage to speak out,
again and again, because the huge amounts of money they can
charge for burying radioactive waste are the only reason why they
are prepared to ignore the very real risks involved.
It is surprising that despite the potential risk, there is no
legislation to control the importation of radioactive waste. Because
of our vast uninhabited areas, Canada is the ideal destination for
industrialized countries that are incapable of dealing with the
disposal of their radioactive waste.
I cannot imagine my riding, Abitibi, most of which is covered by
the Canadian shield, being selected for this purpose. I might as well
say right away that the people of Abitibi, like Canadians generally,
do not want radioactive waste in their backyard, especially if it
comes from a foreign country.
(1745)
The people in my riding held a major debate some ten years ago,
when there was a possibility of excess PCB material being stored in
our region. I expect that the debate would be stormy if the subject
were nuclear waste.
It is, of course, our responsibility to get rid of our own nuclear
waste, but other countries must make the same commitment. We
have no responsibility in the problems currently faced by the
United States, for example. The United States is no doubt a country
of excess, in economic and other terms, but surely in terms of its
radioactive waste as well.
For example, the Hanford site, 300 kilometres south of the
British Columbia border is a huge radioactive waste disposal site.
To give you an idea of the size of it, it is some 26 times the size of a
football field and a metre thick. You can imagine the cost.
The American government estimates the cost to be
approximately $57 billion, only to convert the site. As I mentioned
earlier, you can imagine that certain groups see this as an
opportunity to make huge profits by importing waste and burying it
here. They figure the profits will be good. The cost of cleaning up
all of the States is estimated at $230 billion. With a net profit of 1
per cent, these companies could make a tidy sum eliminating these
products, but at what risk and to whose advantage?
Are we prepared to become the nuclear graveyard of the U.S. or
any other country in exchange for financial compensation? I think
the people of Canada would say no.
Why do countries trying to get rid of their waste by selling it not
keep that money and invest it in research to find a solution to the
problem they have created for themselves? Because, however
advanced the technology may be today, it cannot be denied that
there are still risks involved.
I digress for a moment to say that Canada is not necessarily
better than any other country, as it is not considering the use of
other technologies to eliminate large amounts of nuclear waste.
For example, the Tokamak nuclear fusion project in Varennes
offers unique high technology facility for research on clean energy,
because unlike fission, fusion produces energy without radioactive
waste. If it could be commercially developed, this process would
allow atomic energy to be produced without any waste.
The federal government refused to finance half of the $14
million project by investing $7 million into it, arguing that it could
not afford to spend that kind of money, when it has spent $23
million on the flag project. The way of the future may be to manage
our own nuclear waste, but it would certainly be brighter if very
little or no waste was produced.
I would like to remind the federal government that Canada is
party to the convention signed in Switzerland on March 22, 1989,
that came into force on May 5, 1992. The terms of this agreement
were clear. They provided among other things that no country will
import dangerous waste that poses a threat to the environment.
Everyone will readily agree that there is a very serious threat to the
environment involved. This is an indisputable risk, given that
nuclear material can have effects that last for thousands of years.
However, under the convention, the export of waste is allowed if
the exporting country does not have the necessary facilities to
dispose of the waste, and if the importing country can recycle and
manage that waste. One can see the danger for companies trying to
7415
prove that they can manage and bury their hazardous waste, in
order to make a profit.
The fact is that we have not found a solution to stock our own
waste. We have been searching for a solution for 10 years and we
have invested several millions of dollars without being sure of
finding a solution. The Canadian shield may be a solution to deeply
bury our own radioactive waste, but that solution cannot apply to
all the countries in the world.
(1750)
Daily newscasts remind us that the issue of atomic waste must be
taken very seriously. We must not confuse the recycling of
plutonium from nuclear warheads, as part of the disarmament
process in the United States and in Russia, with other requests.
Canada can indeed do its share to promote nuclear disarmament in
the world, but some would probably take this opportunity to get rid
of other dangerous radioactive material in their country.
As member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I
discussed Bill C-23, which seeks to replace the old Atomic Energy
Control Act. Bill C-23 will still allow the commission to import
radioactive material, but does not specify the nature of this
material. The bill of my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser
Valley East, Bill C-236, is intended as a complement to this to
prevent any legal possibility of importing radioactive waste.
In closing, I should like to return to the speech made by my
Liberal colleague, who said this was not necessarily the right time
to introduce this bill. On the contrary, I believe that, given the
present turn of events, this is the ideal time to introduce a bill on
this matter, so as to protect Canadians and Quebecers.
She also said that the public is sure that current waste processing
operations are safe. This is not true. At the present time, regardless
of the studies, there is no certainty that this is a risk-free
undertaking, even if the Canadian shield, a very good location, is
used.
She also said that there were no plans for importing waste at this
time, while in the same speech she referred to Nordion, which was
taking back the waste from its sales. I also believe that the purpose
of a law is prevention, and there must be prevention before we have
to face the consequences.
You will conclude that the Bloc Quebecois and myself are in
agreement with legislation in this area. If the Liberal government
thinks this is not totally justified, it will have the option of tabling a
bill which might not be totally airtight, perhaps, but it absolutely
must see that a bill on the importation of radioactive waste is
necessary. And we shall be voting in favour of the bill.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
speak today on Bill C-236. It is very timely to talk about setting
ground rules for the transport of nuclear waste. It is something that
has been in the news the last couple of nights. I was rather shocked
a few minutes ago to hear the parliamentary secretary for natural
resources say that there are no plans for the movement of any
nuclear waste between countries, that there are no plans anywhere.
Whatever researcher wrote that speech obviously must have
done it prior to April because the Prime Minister agreed openly and
publicly to accept Russian nuclear waste at the Russian conference.
He said Canada would do its part to take nuclear waste. I am not
talking about medical waste. I am talking about war grade
plutonium.
Just two days ago one of the ministers in Mr. Clinton's cabinet
noted that Canada had agreed to take U.S. nuclear waste and that a
test project would be undertaken in the next few months. It is kind
of scary that the parliamentary secretary for natural resources
would say that the government has no plans. The Prime Minister
announced the plans and other ministers have confirmed those
plans. To say it is untimely to talk about this and that something
like this is not necessary is totally and absolutely incorrect.
Members are getting used to having different things said at
different times and the interpretations are left for the public which
will see what the truth really is.
For decades there have been problems with the waste from the
the 413 commercial nuclear reactors that now exist in the world.
Not only is it a problem in Canada, it is a problem in many
countries. I would like to relate to the House an experience in the
last month when we were in the Scandinavian countries looking at
the problem of Russian nuclear waste.
(1755 )
In Murmansk there are 80 submarines containing nuclear waste
which it would be so dangerous to move that they would need a
cement ship built around them. They would then have to be
transferred in a special rail car with a special rail line built to
transport them.
The question is how that nuclear waste can be transported to
Canada. Two icebreakers are 3,000 feet under the ocean leaking
nuclear waste. That needs to be cleaned up. Eighteen nuclear power
plants are as bad or worse than Chernobyl. The world has a serious
nuclear waste problem and we need to look at what Canada's role
should be.
It is very fitting that we talk about the transport of nuclear waste.
How is the nuclear waste to be moved from one point to another?
How is the nuclear waste from the U.S. to be moved to Canada?
How is it going to be moved from places like Murmansk? Do
Canadians want to be the nuclear dumping ground for the world?
What are nuclear wastes like? I am not chemist or physicist and I
do not know the details about this, but I am told that a grapefruit
sized ball of plutonium conceivably would destroy a city the size
of Toronto. We are then told that the intensity can be downgraded
7416
so it can be transported safely. Let us have the details concerning
that transportation.
The next item we need to have some details on is terrorism. How
is the transfer of this plutonium, of this nuclear waste, of these
spent rods, from Russia to Canada to be secured? How can this
plutonium be guarded so that it is not open to terrorists to get their
hands on it? If they are that dangerous, Canadians at least need to
have that item discussed.
A serious study was done, the Bellona report, which resulted in
the top Russian nuclear scientist committing suicide and the second
in command nuclear scientist in Russia now being held in prison
without a trial because he released some information on the
dangers of the nuclear waste.
One does not fool around with this stuff. It is not something
about which you make an ad hoc deal with the Americans or the
Russians around tea some place. This is the sort of thing that should
be openly discussed with Canadians, that should be openly debated
in the House of Commons and the decisions are made after that
debate.
For the parliamentary secretary to say that we have no plans for
moving nuclear waste is wrong. The Prime Minister signed a deal
in April in Moscow saying we would do our part and take war grade
nuclear wastes.
One can argue that is our part to the international community but
to say that we do not have any plans, there are plans. There are
plans in Russia and in the U.S. Those are clear, open and we know
about them.
There are more questions to be asked. If we can get it here
without terrorists getting their hands on it, if we can transport it
safely without it being dangerous to the population, then we have to
find out how much of it can be burned. Only about one-third of that
waste can be burned. The two-thirds that are left have to be stored.
That means transporting nuclear waste here, of which only
one-third can be burned and the other two-thirds will have to be
stored. How are we going to store them? How much is it going to
cost? How are we going to deal with the problem? As far as I know,
there is no answer to those questions.
(1800)
Mr. Strahl: We would have to store it for 2,800 years.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): The half life is 2,800 years. Where are
we going to store these nuclear wastes for 2,800 years and who is
going to pay the bill?
In Russia the spent rods are stored in a gully. They have been
dumped there and they are leaking. In Canada we store the rods in
an air conditioned, liquid filled cement vat and the cost is
phenomenal. In Russia they turned off the air conditioning because
they could not afford the power so there was no air conditioning for
the stored rods. Is there a time bomb there? You had better believe
there is a time bomb there and it is one we have to deal with.
It can be argued that accepting nuclear waste creates a lot of
jobs. If that is the case then we have to weigh the jobs versus the
costs and the benefits versus the dangers. The point I am making
here is the fact that we must have an open debate on this subject. I
believe that this bill is saying that before we agree to transport any
nuclear waste, we must know the facts and they must be clear.
It does concern me as a Canadian that the government does not
have a plan, that this is going to be done ad hoc. It will be sprung on
us and there will be only two days of debate or a take note debate
some night and at the end of it we will not get to vote and we will
be stuck with tons of nuclear waste.
To say that we have legislation and that this bill is redundant is
totally untrue. We need legislation and a long term plan. Obviously
if we are talking about 2,800 years, that is a pretty long term plan.
To simply say that this bill is not timely or that it is not important
to the Canadian public is really misrepresenting the entire issue of
nuclear waste. I know Canadians across the country are going to
start asking these questions. They are going to expect answers to
the many questions members are raising during the discussion.
In conclusion, I am saying that Canadians need information, an
open debate, open discussion, open presentation to the House of
Commons. It affects every one of us. Before any further planning is
done in this regard, we need to deal with it here.
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to clarify Canada's approach to the
safety of radioactive waste management.
I just want to mention I believe that the hon. member for Red
Deer referred to plutonium in his remarks. In looking back at the
remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East when he spoke
on the bill, he said: ``From the outset I want to make it clear that
this bill would not ban the importation of plutonium from the U.S.
and Russian warheads''. He went on to say: ``That is not waste. We
can still do that and Canadians are willing to consider that option
because they feel it is part of what we can do. If we can get rid of
the number of nuclear weapons around the world, we certainly are
prepared to do our part''.
Before I get into a discussion on the Canadian approach to the
safety of radioactive waste management, I also want to draw the
attention of the House to one of the unintended but important
negative aspects of Bill C-236. I am pleased that the parliamentary
secretary raised this in her remarks because two of the companies
7417
she mentioned are in my riding, MDS Nordion and Theratronics.
They literally could be put out of business if the bill becomes law.
Fifty years ago the company we now know as MDS Nordion
began operations with three employees in a temporary government
building beside the supreme court, just a few hundred yards away
from this building. Today in its segment of the health care industry
it is recognized as a world leader in the development, production
and marketing of radioisotope products and technology.
(1805)
The radioisotopes it produces and distributes are used in nuclear
medicine to diagnose and treat disease. Every year roughly 20
million diagnostic imaging tests are carried out in hospitals around
the globe using Nordion's radioisotopes. Industrial processes too,
such as quality assurance and non-destructive testing, rely on
radioisotopes supplied by the company.
MDS Nordion is also the world leader in the supply of radiation
processing equipment and cobalt 60 used to sterilize medical and
surgical supplies and a wide range of consumer products from
bandages to contact lens solutions to baby powder. This same
technology can be used to eliminate salmonella bacteria in poultry
and E. coli, a deadly bacteria sometimes found in red meat,
particularly hamburger.
MDS Nordion is a major economic contributor to Canada's
economy. It employs more than 600 well educated and highly
skilled men and women in Kanata, Vancouver, Laval and overseas.
Ninety-five per cent of the products it produces at its main
production facility in Kanata are exported to more than 70
countries.
Theratronics employs some 240 people in Kanata. It is
recognized internationally as the leader in the manufacture of
cobalt teletherapy units and cobalt teletherapy treatment planning
systems. It has one of the largest installed bases of cobalt units and
treatment planning systems in the world. As a supplier of cobalt
sources for these units, Theratronics has a moral obligation to offer
disposal services.
Many countries do not have the infrastructure to properly
dispose of radioactive material. This is because the quantity of the
material generated does not warrant a full program. Developing
countries often do not have the financial resources to commit to the
disposal of radioactive material or do not have the required
expertise. Smaller countries with large populations do not have the
land or geography required to set up a radioactive material
repository.
As with MDS Nordion, the radioactive material which is being
imported for disposal by Theratronics originated in Canada and
was created through a nuclear process at the Chalk River
laboratories. Cobalt 60 is totally Canadian or being replaced by
Canadian made sources.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that the control of nuclear
energy falls under federal jurisdiction. To prevent undue risks to
human health and the environment, any practice involving
radioactive waste management would be strictly regulated by the
Atomic Energy Control Board, the AECB, and the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency.
The Government of Canada is well aware that the nuclear
regulatory body must be competent and empowered by appropriate
legislation if it is to ensure that operations in the nuclear industry
are conducted safely. The government has introduced modern and
comprehensive legislation, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Control
Act. This act updates the Atomic Energy Control Act and is
currently before the House. I remind the House of this fact in view
of statements made during the last two House debates.
During the last two debates members on the other side of the
House argued that Canada should not even think of accepting
radioactive waste from other countries since it cannot properly
manage its own radioactive waste. To support this premise they
referred to the May 1995 report of the Auditor General of Canada
on federal radioactive waste management. Clearly these hon.
members are not aware of the expertise acquired by Canadians over
the years. They risk alarming the Canadian public unnecessarily.
The main message of the auditor general's 1995 report was not
that Canada cannot properly manage its radioactive waste, but
rather that it has not kept pace with some other countries, namely
Finland, France and Sweden, with regard to some aspects of
disposal plans.
Federal officials closely follow developments in other countries
and they know about the processes driving the scheduling of
radioactive waste disposal around the world. In fact, countries
around the world have already expended considerable effort to
come to an agreement on the transboundary movement of
hazardous and radioactive waste and to establish appropriate
principles for the import and export of these materials.
In Canada steady progress is being made in the field of
radioactive waste disposal. For example, on July 10, 1996 the
Minister of Natural Resources announced a radioactive waste
policy framework that will guide Canada's approach to radioactive
waste disposal into the next century.
The framework establishes a comprehensive and integrated
approach to long term management and disposal of radioactive
wastes. The government developed the framework in consultation
with waste producers and owners. The policy framework
recognizes the federal government's responsibility for developing
policy, regulating the industry and ensuring that waste producers
and owners comply with legal requirements and meet their funding
and operational responsibilities.
7418
(1810 )
Under the policy framework, the polluter pays. In accordance
with this principle, waste producers and owners are responsible for
funding, organizing, managing and operating disposal and other
facilities for their waste. The policy framework emphasizes the
Government of Canada's commitment to sustainable development.
I assure the House that the first priority of the Government of
Canada is the health and safety of Canadians. The AECB, through
various processes, including inspection and ongoing assessments,
reviews, and licence renewal, works to satisfy itself that the
operations of its licensees are safe.
The bill we are discussing today does nothing to contribute to
safety. It adds nothing of value to regulations under the Atomic
Energy Control Act nor to those under the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act. Existing regulations are strictly enforced.
National and international organizations continue to develop safe
practices for the management of radioactive waste including its
import and export. The Government of Canada will continue to
ensure that any projects or policies that involve the management of
radioactive waste do not pose any undue risks to health, safety,
security or the environment.
Canada clearly has the ability to properly manage the waste we
generate domestically. Banning the import of radioactive waste on
the specious grounds that we cannot even manage our own supply
is simply not warranted.
I believe votes in this House should be based on credible
information. There is no real doubt that Canada has the knowledge
base, the expertise, the infrastructure and the regulatory system to
ensure that radioactive waste, including imported waste, is treated
in such a way that it poses no undue risk to human health or the
environment. I urge all members of Parliament to reject this bill.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-236 which was
introduced to the House by my colleague from Fraser Valley East.
Bill C-236 has a very simple bottom line. It would ban the
importation of high level radioactive waste into Canada.
I will speak as a citizen of the province of Saskatchewan which
has a nuclear industry. In fact one of Saskatchewan's major
industries is the uranium mining industry. It has generated a lot of
income. I am not an alarmist who gets fearful. My knees do not
begin to shake when I hear about nuclear energy. When electricity
was invented and was being developed, it had a dangerous
component and a beneficial component. The automobile can be
very useful; it can get us to Ottawa, it can get us around our ridings
but it also has a potential for danger.
The problem with the nuclear industry is the waste material
associated with it. Some may want to pretend it is not a serious
matter. Others may want to be alarmists and suggest that the whole
industry should be immediately shut down. Both responses are very
irresponsible.
It would be wrong to shut down electricity producing plants,
whether for hydro or nuclear electricity, just because a person had
been electrocuted. It would be wrong to ban automobiles because
someone had been killed in a car accident. Those would be rather
extreme reactions to very real problems.
In the agricultural sector which I am involved in, there is waste.
The trick is learning how to deal with that waste. In Canada we
have high level radioactive waste and we do not know how to deal
with it. We are developing the technology but we are not there yet.
My colleagues have outlined a number of these problems.
If we have problems here at home, why are we even considering
the importation of high level radioactive waste into Canada? We
should be developing the technology to handle and control
radioactive waste. Once we have the technology down, once we
know how to handle our own problems then perhaps rather than
importing radioactive waste from outside Canada we should be
selling that technology to other nations around the world so that
they can effectively deal with their high level radioactive waste.
It is common sense. Reformers always talk common sense. I
know, Mr. Speaker, you have been persuaded and I appreciate this
very brief opportunity to make a very cogent point.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This being
the third hour of debate on this bill, could I ask the permission of
the House for 30 seconds or so just to wrap up this discussion on
my bill?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Does the House give its
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I hear nos. It being 6.15
p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, the question on the
motion is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed
demanded and deferred until Thursday, December 12, 1996 at the
expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
_____________________________________________
7418
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
7419
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I
want to speak about the Singer affair.
Over a period of some time, we have asked three different
ministers a dozen questions in all concerning Singer.
Unfortunately, we are still getting vague answers. It is clear from
the minister's latest answers that the door to any out of court
settlement is being slammed shut. I find this completely
disgraceful.
Of course, we could have asked that this matter be raised during
proceedings on the adjournment motion each time, but you know
that an MP's duties are already sufficiently thankless, difficult and
numerous. We do not always have the time, but since we have been
stepping up our questions over the last few weeks, we felt it very
appropriate today to table a request for a reply from the
government. I am pleased that the House is able to grant me four
minutes so that I can at least explain the problem.
Today, I want to tell you about a terrible injustice. Between 1942
and 1967, the federal government was trustee of a retirement fund
for Singer employees, who, at the time, had great confidence in the
federal government. They told themselves that, if the government
was looking after it, there was no problem.
Unfortunately, several decades later, there is an enormous
problem. From 1942 to 1967, surpluses accumulated in the fund.
Instead of observing the terms of the contract it had signed at the
time with Singer employees to the effect that these dividends could
be paid out at the end to employees, the federal government
allowed Singer to stop paying premiums.
Instead of paying its annual share for the employees' pension
plan, the company, seeing that there was a surplus, said: ``This
year, we will pay only part''. If the surplus was greater, it said: ``We
will not pay at all''.
Employees continued to pay their fair share, but Singer did not,
with the result that, at the end of 1967, the accumulated dividends
should have been $450,000. It does not take long to figure out that,
if the amount is doubled every eight years, it would be close to $6
million today.
Therefore, if the federal government had kept its part of the
bargain, these retired employees, whose average age is now 80,
would be receiving $6 million. Unfortunately, the employees and
ex-workers perhaps placed a little too much trust in the federal
government, because we have asked these questions of three
ministers, and three ministers have shut the door in our face.
These employees won their first suit, because there are a number
of potential suits. I was telling you that, from 1942 to 1967, the
Canada Pension Plan was involved, and then, from 1967 to 1986,
the Quebec Pension Plan. They have just won their case against the
Quebec Pension Plan and many other cases are pending. One of
them is the case involving the federal government, where we will
have to get involved in lengthy legal proceedings if the minister
shuts the door in our face tomorrow and the day after, the last days
before the House rises. There is a statute of limitation, and
employees will have to go to court.
(1820)
People in their eighties have a rather short life expectancy.
Although the minister has said some nice things, and told us he will
act with all due diligence, being forced into a lengthy lawsuit at this
time does not leave these employees very hopeful.
I have some typical examples. My own father worked for Singer
for almost 45 years. Do you know what he now gets from the
Canada Pension Plan, the federal plan? My father gets $12 a month,
after 45 years of contributions. It is a complete travesty. These
retired employees are getting $20 a month on average.
They are victims of the federal government and of Montreal
Trust, because, beginning in 1967, Montreal Trust also held the
money in trust. When their spokesman, Mr. Châteauneuf, to whom
I give my regards by the way, lodged his claim, the court agreed to
freeze the Montreal Trust fund with approximately $2 million in it.
Despite all that, Singer's counsel took their fees out of the
Montreal Trust fund. Montreal Trust was guilty too. Singer, which
had changed its name to TSCO in the United States, got away with
approximately $10 million. The workers are up against employers
who have exploited them all their lives, while these same workers
have worked all their lives to build up a pension fund. Now they are
staring at nothing.
In conclusion, I tell you that time is of the essence. This case
must be resolved. Singer has been granted a $30 million tariff
exemption. Now it is the employees' turn. We are asking the
department to resolve this matter before the House rises.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
respond on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources
Development to my hon. colleague's question.
Based on the advice we have received we believe that the
Government of Canada has fulfilled all its contractual and legal
obligations concerning the contract between it and Singer.
However, the points of law raised by the former employees are
serious and complex, and existing precedents do not provide a
definitive answer to the issues raised.
The Minister of Human Resources Development had to refuse
the offer to settle out of court made by the lawyer representing the
7420
former Singer employees. The legal issues raised by the employees
are, briefly stated, simply too serious and complex.
The minister must ensure that the plan is administered in
compliance with the Annuities Act and that the rights of all citizens
are respected. The department has nevertheless shown compassion
by co-operating fully with the receiver, that is the liquidator,
appointed in 1995 by the Régis des rentes du Québec.
Consequently, HRDC employees have done a considerable
amount of work without charging liquidator's fees to help divide
surpluses held by a private trustee by providing detailed
information about each annuitant to the actuaries hired by the
receiver.
We should also remember that the Government of Canada has
always borne all the administrative costs incurred under the
Annuities Act, which today amount to approximately $3 million
per year.
The government finds the situation regrettable. Let us remember,
however, that the Government of Canada has not abandoned its
seniors. Through the combination of old age security benefits and
the guaranteed income supplement, the Government of Canada
offers low income seniors a monthly income up to $875.16.
We want to repeat that these former Singer employees, if they
are to go to court, the Government of Canada will try to ensure that
any costs that they may incur are kept to a minimum and that the
case progresses as quickly as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
December 5, I put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration about the $975 head tax immigrants must pay when
they apply for permanent residence in Canada.
Since it was introduced by the federal government in February
1995, this tax has been vigorously and repeatedly condemned in
this House by the Bloc Quebecois. It is a particularly odious, unfair
and discriminatory tax, especially when imposed on refugees.
This tax has met with almost unanimous opposition from
agencies involved in assisting and defending immigrants and
refugees, human rights organizations, labour unions, the Bloc
Quebecois and now the Liberal Party of Canada.
At the last convention of the Liberal Party held in Ottawa from
October 23 to October 27, a resolution was passed demanding that
the tax be either reduced or abolished altogether. The resolution
indicated that these expenses were an obstacle to large families
intending to immigrate to Canada and a heavy burden on those who
were trying to become part of the Canadian economy. This
document went on to say that the admission fee should not be
payable until after the arrival of the new immigrant. The minister
should therefore act on his party's resolution immediately.
On November 3, in Vancouver, I met Maria Barahona and her
five children, who had sought refuge in Trinity United-St. Mark's
Anglican church to avoid deportation. This family has lived in the
basement of this church for a year, since December 6, 1995,
exactly.
They are living in difficult conditions, despite generous support
from the church ministers, administrators and congregation as well
as from labour unions and community organizations, but not,
however, from the Liberal member for Vancouver Centre.
Maria Barahona is 34 years old and comes from El Salvador. She
applied for refugee status in 1991. Her application was turned
down by the IRB. She and one of her children suffer from asthma.
Children are unable to attend school.
I was deeply touched by this tragic situation. I ask, in fact I beg
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to stay the
enforcement of the deportation order and to grant this family a
ministerial permit, followed by permanent residence in Canada.
I hope that the Christmas spirit will prompt the minister to
render a favourable decision in this case. I also wish to raise the
problem of Zairian nationals in Canada, who are currently being
returned to their country of origin.
As everyone knows, the situation in Zaire is very precarious. It is
therefore dangerous to deport these people to Kinshasa. Would it
not be more appropriate to stay the removal orders against Zairian
nationals in Canada, given the involvement of this government in
the African Great Lakes region?
Why is it that, while it is considering taking part in an
international humanitarian operation in that region, the federal
government continues to deport people to Zaire? There is a glaring
inconsistency that will have to be corrected to preserve the
credibility of this country on the international scene.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to conclude by wishing a Merry
Christmas and a Happy New Year to my family and to my staff,
who are sitting in the public gallery.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
respond on behalf of the minister of immigration to my friend, the
hon. member for Bourassa.
It surprises me that the hon. member for Bourassa seems to be
concerned about the unity of the Liberal Party, given the present
condition of his own party. Perhaps he and his colleagues should
get their own house in order before they start criticizing others.
7421
It is true that the Liberal Party's membership has asked the
government to examine the right of landing fee, and that is exactly
what we are going to do. We will take the recommendation from
the party very seriously.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already said
that she will look at the question in depth. Such a review will need
to take into consideration several factors, including the views of the
party, the wishes of the Canadian people and the fiscal restraints
facing the government.
When the Government of Canada introduced the right of landing
fee it created a loan option for immigrants and refugees to help get
the financial assistance they need to help pay the fee. Not all
immigrants have immediate resources necessary to pay costs
associated with becoming a permanent resident. The government
knows that and that is why we developed a loan program in the first
place. The loan is available to newcomers who can show that they
need it and have the potential to repay it.
The loan option helps to maintain a balance between Canada's
humanitarian commitments and the government's response to
program review. It helps us to ensure that no one will be denied
permanent residence just because they did not have enough money
in the bank.
We have a good system in place which helps us to meet our
immigration needs and our humanitarian commitments. We are
constantly striving to make the system even better. If it means
re-examining our policies, we would not hesitate to do that, which
is exactly what the government is going to do.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): A motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.)