CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 24, 1996
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1886
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 1887
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1887
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1887
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1888
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1889
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1889
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1890
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1890
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1891
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1891
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1891
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1892
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1893
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1893
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1893
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1894
Bill C-272. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1898
Bill C-273. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1898
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 1900
Bill C-31. Motion for second reading 1900
Bill C-219. Motion for second reading 1914
(Bill withdrawn, and subject matter thereof referred toa committee.)
1921
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE
1883
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 24, 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
Vancouver East.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is National Volunteer Week, an opportunity for us to thank those
Canadians who devote their time and energy to helping individuals
and causes and to improving the quality of life in our communities.
[Translation]
As a volunteer for many years, I know the dedication necessary
to get involved in important causes to improve our society.
[English]
In my riding of Vancouver East life would be much worse
without the help of our volunteers.
Volunteerism is a tradition as old as Canada itself and is quite
unique to Canadians. Active, caring citizens have always played a
critical role in our society. In celebrating National Volunteer Week
we are recognizing the vital contribution of today's volunteers. At
the same time, in highlighting their example, we are helping to
nurture volunteers for the future.
[Translation]
I urge my colleagues and all Canadians to join me in thanking all
the volunteers in Canada. They are undoubtedly our greatest asset.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, voters need
accurate information to make wise decisions at election time. With
one vote they are asked to choose their member of Parliament,
select the government for the term, indirectly choose the Prime
Minister and give their approval to a complete all or nothing list of
agenda items.
During an election campaign it is not acceptable to say that the
GST will be axed with pledges to resign if it is not, to write in small
print that it will be harmonized, but to keep it and hide it once the
election has been won. It is not acceptable to promise more free
votes if all this means is that the status quo of free votes on private
members' bills will be maintained. It is not acceptable to say that
MPs will be given more authority to represent their constituents if
it means nothing and that MPs will still be whipped into
submission by threats and actions of expulsion.
I cannot understand why the Liberal Party, running on words of
rebuilding the trust of Canadians, would so blatantly ignore its
campaign commitments now that it has gained power.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it would appear that the federal Liberals are planning to
turn the future of farm financing back to the banks. Liberals in the
Senate, particularly those on the banking committee, have released
a report calling for the shutdown of the Farm Credit Corporation.
While there has been warranted criticism of the FCC, which has
yet to be properly addressed, there is no question about the need for
an understanding and supportive farm lender. The banks have
demonstrated that they would rather make outrageous levels of
profit than provide service. They cannot be trusted to be the sole
lender in the farm community, especially with respect to the needs
of the primary producer.
The Liberals are using the back door, through the Senate, to get
this issue into public debate and to continue their undermining of
our agricultural support institutions. In response, the Liberals
should be told that there is a role for a public sector lender with a
1884
farm background and that there should be no support for the
shutdown of the Farm Credit Corporation.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, as this is
National Volunteer Week, I rise today to thank all the volunteers in
my riding of Saint John, which has been ranked third nationally for
volunteerism.
In particular, I want to congratulate an outstanding volunteer,
Mr. Bert Cosman, who resides in the greater Saint John area. Mr.
Cosman recently returned from working overseas for CESO, the
Canadian volunteer advisers to business. CESO volunteer advisers
are retired, professionally skilled men and women who share their
experience with businesses and organizations in developing
nations.
Bert went to Romania to assist a government owned company
which manufactures high voltage equipment such as power
transformers as well as electric and diesel locomotives. He
interviewed all management and trade union representatives. He
then prepared a report which recommended the centralization of
market planning and sales and improvements in areas such as
customer service.
I congratulate Mr. Cosman for his dedication and commitment to
making this world a better place in which to live.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the St.
James Church men's club is one of the volunteer organizations in
the Peterborough riding which is providing an early morning
breakfast program for students. They feed between 50 and 75
students every morning of the school year. They do this at minimal
cost.
They believe, and I agree with them, that their program goes way
beyond simply providing a good breakfast for the children who
attend. The children find themselves in a happy, welcoming
environment. They get a good meal to start the day but they also get
to start their day in an upbeat, friendly atmosphere.
I thank all the volunteers across Canada who, like the St. James
group, are giving our children a head start.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when the federal election campaign kicked off on April 25, 1896,
Wilfrid Laurier, the Liberal member for Québec-Est, was Leader
of the Opposition. He said at the time that Canada could
accommodate more than one race; he was referring to French and
English Canadians. Today, he would probably say more than one
people.
However, Laurier also added: ``But there must be only one
nation''.
From Saint-Lin-des-Laurentides to Arthabasca, from
Cap-aux-Meules and Halifax to Vancouver and Victoria, let us
follow, in the coming weeks, Wilfrid Laurier's election campaign.
The people of Brome-Missisquoi would now say to the then
member of Québec-Est: ``Good luck, Wilfrid Laurier''.
* * *
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a recent
report by the Société de développement économique de
Drummondville shows that, in 1995, our region broke industrial
investment records, with the creation of 43 businesses for a total of
13,000 jobs.
These figures clearly highlight the entrepreneurial spirit of the
industrial community in Drummond and result from the various
local stakeholders' successful partnership to promote economic
development.
I wish to point out that our region boasts the highest rate of
entrepreneurship in Quebec, with 51 manufacturing businesses per
10,000 people, compared to 17 for all of Quebec. With a rate that is
three times the provincial average, our region is more than ever
Quebec's industrial heartland.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week in Quebec, we are celebrating volunteer week under the
theme ``Volunteer work; it concerns you''.
Tens of thousands of volunteers regularly dispense to those
around them the friendship, care, understanding, respect and
human touch we all need so much. In today's world, can you think
of a better way to express love than through the daily actions of
these volunteers?
It is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to
acknowledge the dedication of our great many volunteers in the
riding of Saint-Denis, who, like those of PEYO, la Maisonnette des
enfants, la Maison des grands-parents and Moisson Montréal,
through their patience and generosity, reflect the common values
which are at the heart of Canada's identity.
1885
(1405)
[English]
The greatest gift one can give is oneself. Through volunteerism
these people do that everyday. They deserve our gratitude and our
continued support.
* * *
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Early
release, Mr. Speaker, early release. Go out and kill 11 children,
admit to it, and apply for early release under section 745 of the
Criminal Code. No problem.
If the self-proclaimed beast of British Columbia or any others of
his ilk ever get early release under section 745, then all Canadians
will lay the blame at the feet of the Prime Minister, the justice
minister and this Liberal government.
The member for Saskatoon-Dundurn who was the chairman of
the justice committee and the member for Prince
Albert-Churchill, who is the parliamentary secretary to the justice
minister and who has Clifford Olson living in his riding, had better
be prepared to answer to their constituents if Olson is released and
goes on to commit another violent crime.
A final note. If Clifford Olson is released early, he will have
served 1.36 years for each murder.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week is
National Volunteer Week, which celebrates the work of millions of
Canadians and Quebecers who volunteer their time, energy and
talents to help others. These volunteers, 55 per cent of whom are
women, express their love and generosity through a wide range of
actions.
I want to praise the thousands of volunteers in my riding of
Bourassa who generously help enhance their fellow citizens'
quality of life. I am proud to represent a riding where dozens of
community organizations are active. I would like to draw special
attention to the work the Centre d'action bénévole de
Montréal-Nord has been doing for several years now.
I encourage all Canadians and Quebecers to keep acting with
solidarity, generosity and dedication toward the most
disadvantaged members of our society.
[English]
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, courage is
expressed in many ways. Sometimes it is the heroic effort of a
Canadian peacekeeper or the selfless act of a firefighter who saves
a child from a burning building. However it is expressed
perseverance and strength always shine through in the drive to
overcome nearly insurmountable odds.
Today I wish to acknowledge the courage of one individual, a
young woman, Christine Ichim, who is from my riding of
Kitchener, has taken upon herself the challenge of roller blading
across Canada in an effort to raise awareness and research funding
for the deadly disease of leukemia.
Her case is not unique in that thousands of Canadians and their
families suffer as a result of this terrible cancer. With her mother
falling ill with leukemia, Christine has made it her personal
mission to find a cure to this disease, first by establishing a centre
devoted to its study and more recently by organizing her personal
challenge to skate across the country to raise funds for continued
research.
It is for this reason I feel it is appropriate we acknowledge her
courage to fight rather than despair. I salute Christine Ichim and
ask that my colleagues share with me in wishing her all the success
deserving of such a worthy cause.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to express my dismay at the recent increase in the price
of gasoline.
I do not remember reading about a crisis in any of the countries
belonging to OPEC. I have not heard about a shortage in oil or
petroleum and we all know there was no gas excise tax increase in
the last budget. Therefore I am at a loss as to how to explain to my
Scarborough Centre constituents why the price of gasoline keeps
going up and up. They are fed up as I am with the greed of the large
oil companies.
Could it be that the only reason the prices are increasing is that
these oil giants are in collusion with each other? We have been told
to reduce the deficit, to reduce our spending, not to raise taxes, to
stabilize our monetary policies and we have done so and have acted
in good faith. We are now asking these large oil and gas companies
also to act as good corporate citizens and stop their gouging.
Canadians should not have to put up with gas price hikes every
time the weather gets warm or every time a long weekend comes
around. The time has come to let these oil giants know that enough
1886
is enough. Canadians want to know what justifies these gas price
increases.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
no one in Canada tolerates the random acts of terrorism committed
by Hamas in Israel. The violence in Lebanon has also shocked and
saddened all of us. However the prolonged state of siege that the
Palestinians are enduring in the West Bank and Gaza is causing
unbelievable hardship to the residents, particularly the women and
children who are desperate for food and medical supplies.
With their border crossings closed, an already fragile economy is
enduring 90 per cent unemployment. The movement of goods has
shut down. While people are hungry, tonnes of fruit and vegetables
are rotting in the fields. Schools have closed down, turning
thousands of children loose in the streets. Universities have also
been shut down. Many cases of maternal and infant deaths have
been recorded as access to hospitals is restricted. All Palestinians
are being punished for the insane acts of a few.
(1410)
Is it not time for Israelis who have known hunger, torture and
fear to lift the regulations to keep hundreds of thousands of men,
women and children in the worst conditions imaginable? How can
peace be achieved when such suffering is allowed to continue?
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, again this spring we are watching anxiously as Manitoba
residents battle flood waters. Certain parts of the province have
been declared disaster areas as people try to salvage what they can
of their personal belongings and livelihood.
We have all seen the images of flood waters rising to the roofs of
houses and barns. Our hearts go out to these people who have
bravely faced these disastrous conditions. We cannot help but
admire those who are reluctant to leave their homes and are
determined to get back as soon as possible to start rebuilding.
I hope that all three levels of government will be able to work
co-operatively to give all possible assistance to these besieged
families. I know all members of the House would like to join in
offering our support for all those affected by the Manitoba floods.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's important announcement made by the
Minister of Finance regarding the harmonization of the GST was
well received in Quebec.
The Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance of the PQ
government said: ``This is very good. It sets a VAT all around us.
Ours has the advantage of being the lowest one, thus putting us in a
competitive position. This is good for trade and it harmonizes the
economic space''.
With this reaction, the PQ government proved wrong the
gloomsters who keep saying that no agreement is possible between
the governments of Quebec and Canada. Now that these people
have been proven wrong, let us hope that the Bloc Quebecois will
take note and will stop obstructing any attempt to bring the two
governments closer to each other.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to commemorate the 81st
anniversary of the Armenian genocide of 1915.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of
Parliament who participated in yesterday's debate in the House and
to congratulate them on passing the historic motion which reads:
That this House recognize on the occasion of the 81st anniversary of the
Armenian tragedy which claimed some 1.5 million lives that took place on April
24, 1915, and in recognition of other crimes against humanity, the week of April
20 to 27 of each year as the week of remembrance of the inhumanity of people
towards one another.
Canadians thank their MPs for this motion. It is a giant step
forward toward recognition that the use of genocide and violence as
instruments of national policy by any nation or any group at any
time is a crime against humanity and must be condemned.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is an interview for a grant, I mean a loan. No, I mean a contribution
or whatever it is called.
Knock, knock.
Come on in.
Yes I'd like some money.
Well first you have to qualify.
What do I have to do?
Do you know a Liberal?
Yes.
Have you paid your share to a Liberal's campaign?
Yes.
1887
Do you live in the region?
No, do I have to?
Has your business been successful?
No.
Will you employ more people?
Not necessarily.
Will you pay the money back?
No. It's a grant isn't it?
Are there similar businesses in your area?
Yes, but they won't get a regional development grant.
Well sir, it looks as though you qualify. As soon as we borrow the
money from Japan, Germany or the U.S.A., we'll write you a
cheque. And don't worry about any pay back-our children will
look after it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to pay
special tribute to the first francophone to be promoted to the rank of
lieutenant-general in the Canadian Armed Forces, Jean Victor
Allard.
Mr. Allard had a brilliant career. In 1964, he was promoted to the
highest rank in the Canadian military forces. It was the first time
that a French speaking person was appointed to that strategic
position.
(1415)
In 1965, he was appointed commander of the new mobile force,
in Saint-Hubert. In 1966, he was promoted to the rank of general
and appointed chief of the defence staff. It is under his supervision
that the Canadian forces were integrated. In the late sixties, Jean
Victor Allard left the military and proudly represented the
Government of Quebec in New York City.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I offer my sincere condolences
to the family of Mr. Allard, and I salute the great soldier that he
was.
_____________________________________________
1887
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government was elected on the strength of a solemn
commitment to abolish the GST. The Prime Minister said during
the electoral campaign, ``We are going to scrap the GST''. The
Deputy Prime Minister said, ``If the GST is not abolished, I will
resign''. On May 2, 1994, the Prime Minister again said, ``We hate
this tax and we will get rid of it''.
The Liberals made a number of solemn promises to eliminate the
GST. Yesterday, however, not only did the Minister of Finance
announce that the GST was being kept, he went on to say that we
were going to pay $1 billion to extend it to the Maritimes.
How does the Prime Minister justify such a spectacular
about-face?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, we can see what is going on in the Government of
Quebec, where the mother house is making major changes to the
Parti Quebecois program as it stood at election time. I just make
this comment in passing.
I would simply like to read what is in the red book, the document
our election campaign was based on. Here is what appears on page
22 of the English and on page 20 of the French:
A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates the
equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small business, minimizes
disruption to small business, and promotes federal provincial fiscal
co-operation and harmonization.
This is exactly what we have begun to do. We have succeeded in
doing it with three Atlantic provinces and are negotiating with the
others. Quebec was even ahead of the others. It understood the
advantage of harmonization. We will finish the job with Quebec
and we hope the other provinces will understand that a unified sales
tax system in Canada is much simpler for everyone and much more
effective.
We made it clear in the red book that we could not abolish a tax
without equivalent revenues, because the priority of all
governments at the moment, in Ottawa, Quebec City, Toronto or
elsewhere, is to eliminate deficits, which have been a source of
economic problems throughout Canada, in Quebec, Ontario and the
Maritimes.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada is becoming a specialist in
post-election program changes. The changes should have been
made before.
As the Minister of Finance acknowledged yesterday, it was a
mistake to promise to eliminate the GST and not do so. Is the
government not making a second and very serious political mistake
by developing another harmonization model, different from the one
already in place with Quebec, which had the advantage of not
costing Canadian taxpayers a thing.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, now the Bloc Quebecois is asking us to be inflexible, to
give the exact same thing to everyone. Because it is complex, we
are looking with the provinces for a solution that is acceptable and
fair to everyone.
I hear the leader of the Bloc Quebecois saying we are changing
our program; we are not changing our program. I just read our
program. But we will see on Monday whether the leader of the Parti
Quebecois in Quebec City has changed the Parti's program on Bill
101.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, is the Prime Minister in such a tight spot in this House that
he has to try to draw attention away from commitments he made
and did not keep? It was right there on the TV screen yesterday: the
Prime Minister in shirt sleeves before Liberal supporters making
commitments to scrap the GST. What about the Deputy Prime
1888
Minister who was going to resign if the GST were not eliminated.
Where is she now?
How can the Prime Minister explain to Quebecers that, really,
they have not been taken in again by the federal government, when,
despite their good faith and their being the first to harmonize their
sales tax with the federal tax, they did not get the compensation the
Maritimers got.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will not read what I read earlier again; it is in the red
book. It was very clear, and we are keeping the promise we made in
the red book.
The Bloc Quebecois told Quebecers to vote for the real power.
They are in opposition and they will be there for a long time to
come. Their cousins in Quebec City are today changing, for
political gain, the political program Mr. Parizeau used to get
himself elected.
They are the last people to talk to me about not keeping my
word. I have it in writing, and I-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: I would remind hon. members please to not use
any props in the House of Commons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
documents submitted this morning to the commission of inquiry
indicate that the chief of defence staff, Jean Boyle, had indeed
received a memo addressed directly to him suggesting that the
information to be handed over on Somalia be modified, contrary to
what he told the military police last December, when the current
minister was in office.
Since this memo was directly addressed to Mr. Boyle, how can
the minister justify that it was not handed over to the commission
of inquiry at the very beginning and that, in order to obtain it, it was
necessary to mobilize the entire army in an unprecedented search?
How does the minister explain that?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first
like to say that I share the sentiments expressed by the hon.
member for Shefford on the death of former General Jean Victor
Allard. He was a man of great distinction who served Canada well.
He was the first French-Canadian chief of defence in our history.
He was a great man.
[English]
Concerning the question of the hon. member for Charlesbourg,
he knows I have been giving the same answer to that question for
two weeks. I have answered the question for two weeks because
that is what Canadians expect to hear.
They expect to hear that the commission that was established by
this government, an impartial setting, will look at all of the
allegations which have come forward.
The hon. member should have paid attention to the comments
made by the counsel for the commission this morning who at the
hearings warned Canadians not to be misled by partial evidence,
not to jump to conclusions, but to allow the commission to come to
its deliberations and answers in the fullness of time.
(1425)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on a
number of occasions the minister has replied that we must wait, but
now we have the proof that the chief of defence staff did not carry
out his duties.
With this new cover-up, which severely undermines the chief of
defence staff's credibility and by extension that of the entire armed
forces, what more is the minister waiting for to suspend him
temporarily from his duties, so that we can get to the bottom of this
business once and for all?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for
the process of justice to take its course. The process of justice
established by the creation of the commission will allow all of the
allegations and all of the questions to be answered over the next
few weeks. It will allow those people who have been accused in a
public forum, in the House of Commons, to have an opportunity to
state their case. That is the way we do justice in Canada and I
believe all Canadians support that.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Liberal
MPs across the country promised Canadians that they would scrap,
kill and abolish the GST, just as they said.
They have delivered, a billion dollar bribe to hide the GST and
hide their broken promises. The Prime Minister has gone back on
his solemn word to Canadians and the finance minister simply said
yesterday: ``We made a mistake in the last election campaign''.
The Prime Minister can wave the red book all he wants, but the
question to be answered is this. Will he apologize to Canadians for
breaking his number one promise of the 1993 election?
1889
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1990 during the byelection in the riding of the hon.
member, in order to get her elected, her leader of the day who
is in the House today, called for the election of a Reform Party
candidate who would rip the GST right out if it was imposed
against the will of the people.
In 1991 it was not the same. If Reformers were to form the
government they could not repeal it. They would have to wait until
they had a balanced budget. In 1992 he said something else and in
1994 in a report tabled in the House of Commons the members of
the Reform Party complimented the Minister of Finance for the
harmonization of the tax with the provincial governments.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
elected four months after the Tory government in the spring of
1989 and the GST had not even been talked about then. Nice try.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Grey: Get the facts right and get the time right.
This government has shown its contempt for the Canadian
people. It has shown complete disregard for the promises it made in
the last election. It has destroyed whatever credibility the red book
might have left. It just goes to show that the Liberals will say
anything, do anything and believe anything to get elected.
The Prime Minister supported the GST when he ran for the
Liberal leadership. He opposed it in the last election and then he
supported it again now that he got Canadians' votes.
They can wave the red book all they like but can Canadians trust
anything in the red book?
The Speaker: The red book is being used on both sides as a
prop. I would ask please, do not use props in the House of
Commons.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 75 per cent of the red book commitments have been
passed by this government. The member even has a copy of the red
book in her hand. We are still waiting for the alternative budget that
they were supposed to prepare for the last budget.
I remember the leader of the third party telling Canadians:
``Ladies and gentlemen, we will have a budget to tell the Minister
of Finance what to do''. We are still waiting. The budget has been
voted on and we are waiting. Where are the people who made these
commitments? They do not have to deliver. They just gave us a
plan that they would never have to implement. There is no danger if
they do not even have the guts to table a plan they will never have a
chance to implement.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, nobody
in western Canada can do a two step that fancy. This red book
means nothing, absolutely nothing. It is a prop. It is a sham.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1430 )
Some hon. members: Sit down.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development referred
to a problem in letting the UI fund surplus continue to accumulate.
There is, in fact, a surplus of $5 billion this year, with another $5.3
billion predicted for next year, while at the same time the minister
is making a gift of some $500 million to big business.
At a time when the Minister of Human Resources Development
is in the process of cutting back unemployment insurance benefits
by billions of dollars, thus creating poverty in the regions, why
does he not withdraw this bill and use the available funds to help
the needy unemployed in Quebec, in Acadia, in New Brunswick,
and everywhere in Canada?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is aware,
he could not have asked the same question last year, for the UI fund
had no surplus at that time. In fact, there was a deficit.
Obviously, changes in situations such as what has happened with
the unemployment insurance fund must be taken into account. At
the moment, however, what needs to be kept in mind is that the
amendments made to the bill before the House at this time will
result in improvements to situations that have been recognized as a
result of presentations made by those interested in making fair
changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The opposition's
assistance in this would have been appreciated.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I could have asked the question last year because indeed
there was a surplus, and I am sure I would have got the same reply.
We have finally got the minister's message. He is cutting $45
million from manpower training courses in Quebec, while the UI
fund accumulates billions in surplus funds.
When the minister says he is pulling out of manpower training
and leaving it to the provinces, that means he is no longer putting
any funds into it, but he will continue to impose his centralizing
views on us, and to duplicate programs already in place in Quebec.
1890
Is that what federal withdrawal is all about: continuing
involvement in manpower, but cutting off funding to the
provinces?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, we have been asked many times
to withdraw from manpower training in a number of provinces,
including Quebec. We have made the commitment, reiterated by
the Prime Minister and confirmed in the throne speech, to
withdraw from manpower training, not only in Quebec but
throughout the country. Thanks to this decision, the Government of
Canada is, in fact, pulling out of training. We have promised to do
so within three years, and I hope to be able to do so earlier than
that.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think
the House is embarrassed by the wrong thing. It is upset about a
book on the floor but not by the deception that it represents.
(1435 )
The Liberals promised that they would kill, scrap and abolish the
GST. What they have delivered, however, is a billion dollar bribe
and a blended sales tax. Actually the BS tax is a good name for it
because that is exactly what Liberal candidates were spreading on
the campaign trail during the last election.
Since the government readily admits that it broke its promise on
the GST, will the Prime Minister keep at least one election promise
and ask the Deputy Prime Minister to resign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I read earlier in French what is written on page 22. Hon.
members are not setting a very good example by throwing books on
the floor when there are kids in the House of Commons. They are
trying to look at their Parliament and they see that behaviour from
members.
I can start to read this but it would take a long time. On page 111
of the red book we called for the cancellation of the helicopter
program. Done. We called for cuts to national defence. Done. We
called for cuts in the professional service budget. Done. We called
for cuts in grants to business. Done. I can read more. The youth
service corps. Done. Literacy, done.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The House is rather spirited today. The wording
of the questions and preambles is getting very close to being
unparliamentary.
Members know the rules of the House. They can quote from a
document but the document should not be flailed about in any way.
I would appeal to members, both in the questions and the answers,
to put them succinctly so that we can get on with question period.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during
the last election campaign the Prime Minister boasted about his
decades of experience in the House of Commons. Now he is telling
Canadians that he did not know what he was doing.
The Prime Minister is saying he did not know what he was doing
when he said that he would kill, scrap and abolish the GST. For
crying out loud, the man was the finance minister. That is nothing
but garbage, just like the red book.
Since it is clear that he played Canadians for fools in the last
election, since it is clear that the Liberals knew they could not keep
their commitments, and since it is clear that the Deputy Prime
Minister pledged to resign if that commitment was not met and yet
she still sits here, why should Canadians believe anything this
Prime Minister and this government says?
(1440 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to pick up on an odious reference from the member's
preamble to his other question, the use of the word ``bribe'' in
reference to one section of the country.
Yesterday the premier of Alberta said he felt Alberta is entitled
to a reduction in the federal sales tax rate as it applies to his
province. That is a point of view that may well be expressed in
honest debate. No one in that government has referred to bribes or
other odious terms used.
I quote the Minister of Finance for Alberta: ``We are Canadians
from one end of the country to the other. The fact is that Canadians
living in Alberta will probably pay more to Confederation during
this time and certainly during the 1970s than Canadians living in
say Saskatchewan or in Newfoundland. I do not believe this
government'', the Conservative Government of Alberta,``is a
believer in cheque book federalism. Canada is much more than
that''.
I certainly hope there is never a merger between the Reform
Party and the Tories. If that were the case, there would be a
fundamental lack of decency in the Reform Party that would
disappear from the right wing of the spectrum.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Yesterday Louise Harel, Quebec's minister of employment and
solidarity, was quoted as saying the following: ``While Quebec is
1891
focussing considerable efforts on getting employment back on its
feet, in partnership with all those involved within the province,
Ottawa is headed in the opposite direction, without any
co-operation with the Quebec authorities''.
While everyone in Quebec is pooling forces in an attempt to
solve the unemployment problem, how can the Minister of Human
Resources Development justify the federal government's unilateral
action, which creates divisions?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are committed to holding
discussions with our Quebec colleagues, in order to find ways of
meeting our commitments concerning withdrawal from manpower
training.
As for all of the other issues relating to active measures and what
is reflected in part II of the employment insurance bill now before
Parliament, we have every intention of entering into negotiations
with the province of Quebec, and all of the provinces in this
country, for it is the intention of the Government of Canada to show
good faith in this entire matter, once again demonstrating that, with
flexibility and good intentions, we can prove the federation is
working very well.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, where manpower is concerned, the time for talking is
over. We have been hearing for five years now that the
governments are going to talk together about it, yet every time
there is a meeting, you do not attend. Do something.
Does the minister confirm that what Louise Harel, the minister,
says is true: by his involvement in manpower training, he is
perpetuating overlap, creating five new programs which duplicate
provincial programs already in place, in Quebec in particular?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that what
we are doing at this time is adding to duplication and overlap.
What we believe is that there is a desire country-wide to find
new ways of getting federation to work. This includes anything
related to job creation, trade training, active measures in the private
sector. We hope to be able to find solutions to these knotty
problems, for they have been discussed long enough, as the hon.
member has said.
I do, however, find it somewhat surprising that, when we are
attempting to withdraw from manpower training, the hon. member
appears to think we are heading in the wrong direction. I thought
that was the direction the consensus in Quebec wanted us to take.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what we have seen here today in the House is the Prime Minister of
Canada who made a cold, calculated promise to Canadian
taxpayers, Canadian citizens, to kill the GST with absolutely no
intention of keeping that promise.
(1445 )
He then turned around and blamed his advisors for it. He booted
out anyone who got in his way and then he forced his own finance
minister to accept the blame for his broken promises.
Why does the Prime Minister, not the finance minister or his
advisors, not have the courage and the honesty to stand up in the
House-
The Speaker: I am sure the House will agree that neither the
courage nor the honesty of any of our hon. members is in question
in the House.
I ask the hon. member to please rephrase his question and go
directly to the question now.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, why in order to
win the 1993 election did the Prime Minister mislead Canadians
from coast to coast?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not too offended because I had the prudence to put all
that in writing. From page 22:
In the first session of a new Parliament, a Liberal government will give the
all-party finance committee of the House of Commons a 12-month mandate to
consult fully with Canadians and provincial governments and to report on ways
to achieve tax fairness, simplicity and harmonization. In particular, the
committee will be mandated to report on all options for alternatives to the
current GST. A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that
generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small businesses,
minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal
co-operation and harmonization.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the Prime Minister, instead of referring to the red book,
should look at the fourth edition of the blue book, Reform's way of
running the country.
The Prime Minister knew before the election that the GST was
not going to go, yet he pawned it off on regular Canadians who
were thinking there was going to be a break in this country, and it
was a bold faced lie.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member for Fraser Valley West to
please withdraw the last statement.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I cannot do that
in all good conscience.
1892
(1450 )
The Speaker: We will take a couple of minutes to quiet down. I
will return to this at the end of question period. The hon. member
for Saint-Jean.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
An event dubbed ``Extreme Fighting'' is scheduled to be held on
the Kahnawake reserve this Friday. I think the atmosphere at these
events is not unlike that now prevailing in this House.
In the last few days, promoters have been advertising this event,
which is due to be broadcast on Pay-TV throughout the U.S. At first
sight, this type of combat violates provisions in the Criminal Code.
Since the setting up of equipment to allow satellite broadcasting
of ``Extreme Fighting'' in the U.S. must be authorized by Industry
Canada, can the Minister of Industry tell us if he has received an
application in this case? If not, can he assure us that any potential
broadcaster will not use a general authorization from his
department to transmit an illegal event?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the setting up of equipment per
se is not illegal. If there is an illegal act it will be dealt with by the
authorities in Quebec.
There have been meetings between Grand Chief Norton and the
Quebec government. They set out rules of combat: no biting, no
scratching and no time outs, which I found was a preference by the
Mohawks in the province of Quebec for the next referendum rules.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
notify the Minister of Industry that, this morning, the Quebec
government advised one of his departmental officials, the one in
charge of telecommunications, that this event was illegal.
My question is very simple. Since this event is illegal, can the
minister promise not to authorize the setting up of technical
equipment so that the event scheduled to be held on Friday in
Quebec can be broadcast all over the U.S.?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from the
meetings that there has been no definitive finding of illegality. If
there is, it is up to the authorities in Quebec to stop the illegal
action. It is clearly within their jurisdiction. If they do not want to
exercise it that is their problem. It is their decision whether the
event is illegal or legal.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
the end of World War II a grateful British government sent
certificates of appreciation to 6,000 Canadian volunteers whose
service as radar technicians had been vital to the air defence of
England. Unfortunately those certificates were never distributed
and all but one were destroyed.
Will the minister of defence now, finally after 50 years,
authorize the production of replica certificates so these Canadian
radar technician veterans can finally be thanked?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a
misunderstanding that has gone on for 50 years and has continued
until recent days. I think all Canadians recognize the great
contribution made by the radar technicians in the second world war
when attached to the Royal Air Force.
Certainly if the British government is willing to recognize
replicas of the original certificates, we will have a Government of
Canada representative present those certificates to the survivors or
to their families.
I hope this action will meet with the approval of the survivors
and their families.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today we have witnessed the outrage many members of
the House feel about the government's attempt to reinterpret and
hide its broken promise on the GST. It is the same outrage felt by
millions of Canadians who took that promise at face value.
What the government has done reinforces the public perception
that promises made in election campaigns are utterly worthless and
that politicians, even prime ministers, cannot be trusted.
(1455 )
In reinforcing that perception, the government has undermined
the integrity of every member of the House, regardless of their
party.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the damage the GST shell
game has done to the integrity of politics in Canada, and what, if
anything, does he propose to do to repair the damage he has done?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will set the record straight. For many days we have read
the
1893
commitment on page 22. It is very clear. If we were only to defend
it, that would be something people might say is a bit political.
There was a committee of the House, all members were there
and for a year they looked into the problem. The Reform Party
tabled a minority report and talked about a solution: ``It is simply
unacceptable that Canada remains the only country in the world
with ten different sales tax regimes. We commend the government
on its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces''.
These are the words of the leader of the Reform Party. If he
wants to show integrity, he should repeat that in the House and
compliment the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister evades the issue of integrity. If he
wants me to repeat something in the House, I will repeat something
he said in 1991 when he was in opposition.
He was asked by a fellow Liberal what assurance he could give
the people of Canada that the Liberal Party will have a value
system that people can trust. The Prime Minister said: ``Trust will
come when we say we will get rid of the GST. We will have an
alternative, but we will not try to buy votes. People want an honest
government. They do not want a repetition of what this
government'', the Mulroney government, ``has done to this nation,
making promises and breaking them all the time''.
How does the Prime Minister reconcile what he said in 1991
with what he has done this week with the GST? Will he admit the
integrity of his government is in danger of sinking to the level of
the Mulroney administration?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not afraid of that at all. We have it in writing on page
22. If we were not to implement page 22, he would be complaining
to the House. However, he found our solution was so good that he
commended us and said we were on the right track. He is in
agreement with us that page 22 was the right approach and he
confirmed that when members of his own party in committee said
we were doing the right thing.
The position of the Reform Party and the position of the Liberal
Party, on page 22 in writing, is exactly the same. That is why
people have confidence in the government today.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we heard how businesses and consumers in
three Atlantic provinces will benefit from harmonizing the
provincial and federal sales taxes. Businesses and consumer groups
have endorsed this plan. My province, Ontario, did not sign an
agreement with the federal government.
Can the minister tell the House why Ontario should join the
process and harmonize its provincial sales tax with the federal sales
tax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted to answer this question, especially coming from the
chairperson of the economic policy committee of our caucus.
There is no doubt that Ontario as a major exporter and as a major
manufacturer would benefit enormously from sales tax
harmonization. It means increased competitiveness. It means lower
costs. It means less administration for both business and for
government.
For the people of Ontario it would mean lower prices, as the
embedded retail sales taxes within prices under the Ontario system
at the present time would disappear. The fact is that sales tax
harmonization would benefit Canada, and Ontario, the heartland of
Confederation, would benefit enormously.
(1500)
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister said yesterday that the harmonization
of the sales tax programs would be good for business. The
provinces have already said that the harmonization plans will cost
them revenues because today's corporations pay provincial sales
tax but under the new harmonized system they will not.
I assume the Minister of Finance has reviewed this carefully.
Can he tell the House and the people of Canada how much of the
tax burden is being transferred from the corporations to the
ordinary taxpaying consumer?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is very clear that over a four year period, and indeed that is the
basis of the transition agreement with Atlantic Canada, the
increased economic activity that would be generated, the number
of jobs that would be generated as a result of getting away from the
tremendous burden that retail sales tax places upon the provinces,
would benefit consumers.
Also, the fact is that the rate will be lower in Atlantic Canada. It
would be lower in other parts of Canada. Consumer prices will be
lower. This is a win-win situation for business, for employers and
for consumers.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of His Excellency Dioncounda Traore,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mali.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1894
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, during the course of question
period today, we had very strong exchanges on both sides which for
the most part is to be expected in a question period. However there
are circumstances where the wording of questions, the words that
were used, are not acceptable to the House.
It is not so much any more a question of what was said or what
was not said. In this sense at least, the fact is your Speaker has
found some of the language which was used in question period to
be unparliamentary.
I address myself of course directly to the member for Fraser
Valley West. My dear colleague, I well understand in the course of
heated debate and exchanges that sometimes words are used which
upon reflection, if we had a chance, we would probably withdraw.
I asked you, my colleague, directly during the question period
and I put off until now hoping that we could clarify this. The words
you used in my view, and I speak with the full authority this House
has given me, were the words ``bold faced lie''. I believe those are
the words that were precisely used. I asked the hon. member for
Fraser Valley West if he would withdraw. At the time the hon.
member declined from withdrawing and I said that I would put the
matter over until after question period.
(1505)
I hope the member has reflected a bit on the words that were
used. I would once again ask the hon. member for Fraser Valley
West to withdraw those words. I put it to you squarely my dear
colleague. Will you withdraw the words you used during question
period?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I mean no
disrespect to the Chair. May I supplant them with the words
``deliberately misled''?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member puts a question to the Chair and
it deserves an answer. The answer is quite simple my dear
colleague. I have asked you not to rephrase the question. I have
asked you to please withdraw those words. That is what I would ask
you to do now.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): I am sorry, Mr.
Speaker. I decline to do so.
The Speaker: Colleagues, as your Speaker, I want you to know
that I take no pleasure, none whatsoever, in naming anyone in our
midst.
My dear colleague from Fraser Valley West, Mr. White, I have to
name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair. Pursuant to
the order granted to me by Standing Order 11, I order you to
withdraw from the House for the remainder of this day's sitting. I
would ask that you do so now.
[Editor's Note: And Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) having
withdrawn:]
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is my
first opportunity to rise on a question of privilege regarding a grave
matter which was brought to my attention on Tuesday, April 23,
1996.
Events have led me to believe there has been a deliberate attempt
by the office of the government House leader to deny me an answer
to my questions on the Order Paper. I refer to questions Nos. 25 and
26. Comments made by an official from the office of the
government House leader were quoted in the Ottawa Sun on April
22: ``He is outrageously seeking information and a lot of it. The
government is not going to divert personnel to answer the
questions''.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this constitutes a contempt of Parliament.
I refer you to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 97:
While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to
answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no
circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made
where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member-
(1510 )
Questions Nos. 25 and 26 on the Order Paper to which I refer
were first submitted as a single question on December 1, 1994 and
have been on the Order Paper ever since. While the government
failed to answer within the prescribed 45 day period, I was patient.
On June 21, 1995 I raised a point of order asking that the
question be answered. The parliamentary secretary to the House
leader replied that he was sorry it had taken so long and that the
government had been assiduous in attending to its duties. He
alluded to the fact that I could expect a response soon thereafter.
I waited until October 26, 1995, four months later, to raise a
second point of order and again ask the parliamentary secretary
when I could expect an answer. The parliamentary secretary replied
that he would get me an answer and that it was nearing completion,
but that I should be patient.
When Parliament resumed, I resubmitted the question as it is
part of my parliamentary duties. However it would now seem that
the government has no intention, and never had any intention, of
answering the question. This obstruction of my parliamentary
duties was confirmed in a Toronto Sun article published Sunday,
April 21, 1996.
1895
Erskine May's 21st edition clearly describes contempt as
follows: ``Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either
House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which
obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the
discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or
indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even
though there is no precedent for the offence''.
I requested the information in accordance with Standing Order
39(1) which states:
Questions may be placed on the Order Paper seeking information from
ministers of the crown relating to public affairs; and from other members,
relating to any bill, motion or other public matter connected with the business of
the House, in which such members may be concerned;
This request of mine was submitted under the rules of the House
and is considered a proceeding of Parliament for the purpose of
privilege.
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 70,
defines a proceeding of Parliament as follows: ``Since two of
Parliament's constituent elements, the House of Commons and the
Senate, were established for the enactment of laws, those events
necessarily incidental to the enactment of laws are part of the
proceedings in Parliament. However Parliament has also always
been a forum to receive petitions, and the crown's satisfying the
grievances of members before granting supply eventually led to
straightforward requests for information''.
Therefore the events necessarily incidental to petitions,
questions and notices of motions in Parliament in the 17th century
and today are all events which are part of the proceedings in
Parliament.
Moreover, a report of the Select Committee on the Official
Secrets Act in 1939 stated that a proceeding in Parliament covers
both the asking of a question and the giving written notice of such a
question.
As an opposition member it is my duty to scrutinize the
government and to ensure that it is spending the taxpayers' money
wisely. The Order Paper is one method of seeking information from
the government. The Order Paper questions are allowed under the
rules of this House and as I have pointed out are a part of the
proceedings of Parliament.
I am an elected member of this House performing my duties in
accordance with the rules established by this House, and an official
in the office of the government House leader is attempting to
impede directly or indirectly in a proceeding in Parliament.
There was a case in 1973 when the member for
Northumberland-Durham received a letter from the solicitor
general stating that the RCMP did not make it a practice of opening
mail. Subsequent questions in the House by that same member on
November 9, 1977 to the then solicitor general regarding mail
openings by the RCMP provided a sufficient and direct relationship
with the proceedings in Parliament for the purpose of privilege.
Later, remarks before a royal commission were made by the former
commissioner of the RCMP stating that the practice was very often
that ministers' letters were not exactly drafted on precise
statements of fact. The sum of this evidence permitted the Speaker
in 1978 to find a prima facie case of contempt where the RCMP
were alleged to have deliberately misled a minister of the crown
and the member for Northumberland-Durham, resulting in an
attempt to obstruct the House by offering misleading information.
(1515)
Whereas the case of the member for Northumberland-Durham
dealt with a matter of an official deliberately misleading a member,
what I bring to your attention is a case where an official in the
minister's office is deliberately trying to interfere with me as a
member of Parliament by deliberately not being forthright with
resources, causing information to be withheld.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, in the case of the citation
from Beauchesne, the Speaker once ruled that there could be a
question of privilege where there is a deliberate attempt to deny
answers to an hon. member.
I take issue with the comments of the official in the media in
regard to my request. That official is quoted as saying that a request
for information from a parliamentarian is outrageous. Such
arrogance and insolence by an official in the face of Parliament is
contemptuous. Is this how ministers' staff view requests for
information from opposition members? Here we have a staff
person making judgments on a request from Parliament, virtually
thumbing his nose at this House.
Mr. Speaker, I refer you to citation 59 of Beauchesne's sixth
edition, which reads:
Traditionally, articles in the press reflecting badly on the character of the
House have been treated as contempts. Two members of the staff of the House
have been dismissed for writing such articles, and in 1873 the House judged an
article written by a Member to be a ``scandalous, false and malicious libel upon
the honour, integrity and character of this House, and of certain Members
thereof, and a high contempt of the privileges and constitutional authority of
this House.''
Surely an official referring to a request from Parliament as
``outrageous'' reflects on the dignity of Parliament and of
parliamentarians.
In conclusion, I want to address the issue of ministerial
responsibility, which you may be tempted to factor into your
decision. I draw to your attention once again the Speaker's ruling
of November 9, 1978, which appears at page 966 of Hansard,
where the Speaker said:
I do not think that there is procedural significance to the doctrine of ministerial
responsibility, it appears that we are now embarking on a different course in having the
1896
House, through a question of privilege, reach around the minister and examine
directly the conduct of an official-it seems to me [it] is not [a] procedural matter.
The Speaker did not consider that there was a prima facie
question of privilege in 1979. There is no procedural significance
in this case either, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that you consider my
points accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you review this matter. Should you find
that there is a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to
move the appropriate motion.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has been trying very hard to answer the
questions on the Order Paper of the member. The questions are on
the record but I would like to remind the member of the nature of
those questions.
In question No. 25, the member is asking:
For each department, agency and Crown Corporation, how many employees,
including parliamentary agents, Governor-in-Council appointees, armed forces
personnel and RCMP personnel receive a living allowance for a second
residence and/or a transportation allowance from their residence to their place
of work where the distance exceeds 40km?
Question No. 26 asks:
What is the rank, position or title of each recipient of second residence
allowance and/or transportation allowance from residence to place of work and,
what is the cost for individual recipients and method of taxation of these
benefits?
Ever since the hon. member asked those two questions, the
government has tried to answer in the best way it can. However,
those two questions require much work and personnel have to be
taken away from their regular duties in order to answer them. We
have tried. As a matter of fact, the hon. member mentioned it
himself when asked about the questions in October and the then
parliamentary secretary to the House leader said that the
government was working on them, to be patient and he would get
the answers.
The House prorogued. Now the hon. member has asked the
questions again. I repeat that, yes, if he is patient he will get his
answers. They are very complex answers.
However, there is no question of privilege. The government
wants to answer every question.
(1520 )
However, I understand that the nature of the questions requires a
lot of work. If the member wants a good answer he should allow the
government to provide it in due course.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to add briefly to the points raised by the
deputy House leader for the government.
First, the hon. member in his speech to the House reflected on
the parallel which he drew between his case and that of the hon.
member for Northumberland-Durham some time ago. He also
alleged that the wilfully giving of false information, which was the
issue at the time, is synonymous with what is occurring today and
that there is a deliberate attempt to deny information to him. He
also stated that the request had been cited as ``outrageous''. He
drew on citation 59 of Beauchesne.
First, written questions are similar in the standing orders to oral
questions in the House of Commons. They are under the same
section of the standing orders. Standing Order 39 refers to
questions as questions from members. In other words, Mr. Speaker,
these are private members' questions and they are to be treated as
such. A request by a private member does not constitute an order of
the House.
Second, I do not know if the evaluation made by someone that
the question was so vast in scope that it was outrageous, is fair or
not. The fact that the work required to answer the question may be
very large may be one thing but that in no way suggests that the
question should not be put. However, it does suggest that a lot of
work may be required in order to put the answer together.
The deputy House leader has indicated the size of this project.
When we are talking about a couple of hundred thousand civil
servants, measuring all of the things that the member has asked for
is indeed a very significant task and perhaps the word outrageous
was the appropriate word.
However, there is not a deliberate attempt to deny or wilfully
give false information. The case brought by the hon. member in
relation to citation 59 of Beauchesne reflects those things that have
to do with ``reflecting badly on the character of the House''.
If I understand it correctly, no one said that such a request made
by the House itself would have been outrageous nor was any
comment made disparaging it. In the case of the issue in question, I
believe there was a parallel some years ago, known as the Doyle
case, which was judged as being a contempt and insult to the House
as an institution.
Nothing is parallel in the discussion today. We have a private
member's request which is perhaps a legitimate request.
Nevertheless, it is one that is so wide in scope that it will cost not
only tens of thousands of dollars to accumulate the answer.
However, I am sure that when the information is available it will be
responded to. It is not a wilful attempt to deceive the House in any
way but a request that is so vast in scope that it will be difficult for
anyone to achieve the desired result, notwithstanding the best
efforts of everyone in government.
The Speaker: Colleagues, with regard to the question of
privilege, it would seem to me, at least at first glance, that neither
privilege nor contempt are in question here.
1897
However, after having listened to the dissertation of the hon.
member for St. Albert and after hearing the contributions made
by the secretary of state and the government whip, I would like
to review all of the papers. If it is necessary I will return to the
House with a decision on this matter.
I am sure that all hon. members will appreciate that sometimes
the scope of a question is such that it could take a little bit longer to
answer. On the other hand, an attempt should be made by the
government to answer these questions as quickly as possible.
(1525 )
I will take hon. members' advice and I will study it. If necessary,
I will get back to the House and give a definitive answer on the
question of privilege.
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Through a Page I sent
you a notice that I wished to raise a question of privilege arising
from today's question period. I also gave notice to the hon. member
who was involved in the question of privilege.
The Speaker: That is correct. I confirm that I did receive a note
from the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park on a question of
privilege which arose out of the question period. I am prepared to
listen to the question of privilege of the hon. member.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise pursuant to Standing Order 48(1). I am using the authority of
Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition,
citations 114 following. My question of privilege refers to the book
throwing incident during question period by the hon. member for
Beaver River.
Why do I raise this? Because this is a deliberate contempt of
Parliament. Viewers were watching this on television.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Flis: Members of the Reform Party are laughing. This is the
party that promised to bring decorum into the House of Commons.
This is how they are doing it. They are ridiculing the orders of this
House. They are ridiculing the authority of Beauchesne.
Hundreds of students were sitting in the gallery today watching
question period. Hopefully, some of them will be sitting in these
seats. We cannot allow the kind of behaviour displayed by the hon.
member for Beaver River.
As members of Parliament we have to control our tempers. I
know that debates get heated. But the next book could be thrown at
you, Mr. Speaker. The next book could be thrown at someone on
this side of the House.
Some hon. members: Oh. Oh.
Mr. Flis: The Reform Party which promised to bring decorum to
this place should listen to my motion: I give notice that whereas the
hon. member for Beaver River did show contempt of Parliament
with her misbehaviour during question period April 24, 1996, by
throwing a book onto the floor of the House of Commons, I move:
That the hon. member for Beaver River appear at the Bar to purge the contempt
and promise better conduct in the future.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I guess
he is throwing the book at me.
The member talked about the fact that members need to control
ourselves. Yes we do. This is a very emotional debate. The member
talked about purging contempt of Parliament. I hardly think that
throwing me, one single member of Parliament, out of the House is
going to do anything to purge contempt in this place.
I think this is a point of debate. In terms of decorum I have just
celebrated my seventh anniversary in this place. I have talked about
decorum in the House of Commons. No, I do not think it is cute or
theatrical to do stunts.
The Prime Minister waves the red book around constantly. When
I bring it forward or even show it, all of a sudden I am using a prop.
But he can wave it and flail it around and it is acceptable because
he is the Prime Minister. I do not think that is acceptable.
My frustration today about the red book was watching the Prime
Minister wave it around. Then I got into trouble when I even lifted
it up to read from it or make reference to it. My frustration stems
from the fact that I sat in opposition with these people when this
debate was raging and saw the emotion attached to it from their
side when the rat pack went hysterical over it. I am now sitting on
this side of the House watching these people defending it
amazingly.
(1530)
I appreciate the member's bringing this to the concern of
Parliament. I certainly do not want to challenge the Chair or any
member in the House, but I firmly believe because of what we have
seen happen over the GST yesterday and today that the red book
truly belongs on the floor.
The Speaker: With regard to the point raised by the hon.
member for Parkdale-High Park, the Chair agrees there was
disorder caused in the House. The Chair agrees there was a breach
of decorum.
I hate to use the word punish, but in order to rectify the situation,
members will remember your Speaker passed on from the
questioner and hopefully that would have rectified the situation.
1898
I have pointed on numerous occasions to the use of props. It
is true the red book has been quoted extensively by members on
both sides. In the rules of the House if a member is quoting from
a book, I permit them to read. Whenever it is being used as a prop
by flailing it around or throwing it, God forbid, I step in.
In the heat of debate, because emotions are running high, we
should get our emotions under control. As such, I urge members on
both sides that when quoting from a book, quote from the book, but
you need not hold it aloft, whether it be the red book or the blue
book, it does not matter.
There was a breach of decorum. As your Speaker I did intervene.
I would like to let the matter rest there, encouraging you always to
keep your emotions under control because we are being watched by
30 million of our fellow citizens and we would hope to set a very
good example.
_____________________________________________
1898
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and to section 121 of the
Canada Labour Code, Part I, which deals with annual reports, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the
22nd annual report of the Canada Labour Relations Board.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed referred
to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
* * *
[
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 16 petitions.
* * *
(1535)
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, the first report of the
Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-272, an act to amend the Criminal Code (no parole
when imprisoned for life).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends certain provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada relating to prison sentences of life
imprisonment. In effect this bill would eliminate any provision for
early release or parole eligibility of any criminal serving a life
sentence.
This private member's reflects the view that justice will be
served when murderers sentenced to life imprisonment serve their
full court ordered life sentence. For families of victims a true life
sentence is an issue of closure. It is also a matter of fairness.
My bill sends a clear message to child killers like Clifford Olson.
If an individual takes the life of another, that offender will spend
the rest of his natural life locked away: no parole; life means life.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violent
crimes).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill can properly be characterized as
two violent strikes legislation. For anyone who is convicted for the
second time of a violent offence, that criminal shall be sentenced to
life imprisonment.
For those who wish to rape, maim, conspire, corrupt and commit
all manner of violent acts, this private member's initiative is bad
news to them.
For victims and their families this bill represents a return to the
principles of fundamental justice. It means those who repeatedly
hurt and prey on the young, innocent the law-abiding will spend the
rest of their natural lives in prison.
Let there be no mistake about the intent of this bill: two violent
strikes and the criminal is out for life.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
1899
[Translation]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must inform the House that we
have been unable to reach an agreement under Standing Order
78(1) or 78(2) regarding consideration at committee stage of Bill
C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada.
Therefore, I give notice that, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I
will be moving at the next sitting of the House a motion on time
allocation to allot a specified number of days or hours to the
consideration of this stage and to the decisions required to dispose
of it.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was my
understanding that when the minister made the motion for closure
of debate on Bill C-12-
(1540 )
An hon. member: It was a notice of motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Minister of Human
Resources Development, under the provisions of Standing Order
78(3), gave notice of his intention to propose at the next sitting of
the House a motion.
* * *
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36, I present two petitions duly certified by the clerk of
petitions.
The first one is unfortunately redundant. It deals with budgetary
matters, but I will table it anyway and count on it for next year.
The petitioners beg Parliament that there be no further increases
in the tax on gasoline. These are signatures primarily from the
community of Frontier in my riding.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals
with the Canadian Wheat Board.
The petitioners respectfully call on Parliament to maintain the
single desk selling monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board and
request that steps be taken to expand the powers of the Canadian
Wheat Board so that more grains and oilseeds will be placed under
the monopoly control of the wheat board.
This is also signed by residents of my constituency.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of constituents of Wild Rose, from the communities of
Hussar, Standard, Rockyford, Gleichen and Cluny, I am pleased to
present this petition today. The petitioners are asking Parliament
not to increase the federal excise tax on gasoline at any time, as
they recognize it can be done any day.
I am pleased to offer that on their behalf.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by
people from Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.
The undersigned residents of Canada draw to 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 immediately that
Canada is indivisible, and 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, and through the
amending formula as stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present a similar petition from constituents of
Nanaimo-Cowichan and from constituents from all parts of
Canada asking that Parliament declare and confirm immediately
that Canada is indivisible and that the boundaries of Canada, its
provinces and territories may be modified only by a free vote of all
Canadian citizens and/or the amending formula as stipulated in the
Canadian Constitution.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour of presenting a petition concerning the sad fate of a
constituent of mine, Tran Trieu Quan, who has been imprisoned in
Vietnam for over two years now.
Mr. Tran's fate generates a great deal of sympathy in the Quebec
City region, and also throughout the province. The 5,200
petitioners are asking Parliament to ensure the safety and release of
Mr. Tran at the earliest opportunity.
[English]
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, the petitioners call on Parliament to
refrain from implementing a tax on health and dental benefits and
to put on hold any future consideration of such a tax until a
1900
complete review of the tax system and how it impacts on the health
of Canadians has been undertaken.
(1545 )
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition that has been
signed by 2,000 constituents of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
The petitioners call on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code
of Canada to ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of
driving while impaired or causing death or injury while impaired
reflects the severity of that crime.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 15 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 15-Mr. Grubel:
How does the Minister of Human Resources Development explain the
increases in the value of fraudulent claims between 1993/94 and 1994/95 for old
age security, from $256,140 to $1,076,882, and CPP, from $244,571 to
$554,947, as reported in the Public Accounts of Canada, Volume ll, Part ll for
these two years?
Mr. Robert Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Human Resources Development, Lib): The figures quoted
from public accounts represent the value of overpayments
established during the reporting year related to suspected offenses.
The reported increases from 1993/94 to 1994/95 for both old age
security and the Canada pension plan are due to the following
factors:
Increased awareness of the potential for fraud and its subsequent
detection by regional and headquarters program integrity
officers-there were 11 more cases of suspected fraud found in
each program in 1994/95 than had been found in 1993/94, a total of
22 more cases than were found the previous year; detection of some
older cases, which tend to have higher values because benefits have
been in pay for an extended period; detailed review of benefit files
in preparation for the conversion to income security program, ISP,
redesign system, which revealed eight cases of suspected fraud
with an associated value of $154,000; enhanced reassessment
activities related to CPP disability which resulted in an increase in
the number of cases detected in which fraud was suspected.
To maintain the integrity of the OAS and CPP programs, many
methods are used for the detection of abuse: quarterly fraud
profiles, random and directed samples, disability reassessment,
third party complaints, computer matching with Revenue Canada
and with the unemployment insurance program, and the vigilance
of income security programs staff. Increases in the value of
overpayments related to suspected offenses reflect enhanced
detection, not necessarily an increase in the overall incidence of
fraud.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question as enumerated
by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): 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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to inform
the House that a message has been received from the Senate
informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-2, an act to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (sexual orientation), to
which the concurrence of this House is desired.
_____________________________________________
1900
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on March 6, 1996, be read the second time and
referred to committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague, the Minister of
Finance, stated when he delivered the 1996 budget, Canadians do
not want rhetoric from their government. They want action. They
want progress. And that is what this government intends to deliver
in introducing the budget implementation bill.
The 1996 budget is the third milepost on this Liberal
government's journey to securing fiscal stability, and a vibrant,
dynamic and competitive economy. The legislation we are
proposing today is in the spirit and tradition of any Liberal
government. It is in keeping with our ongoing commitment to
ensure that the most
1901
vulnerable and those in the greatest need will continue to benefit
from fair, sustainable and secure social programs in the next
century.
Our programs which were built by previous Liberal governments
have established us as one of the most envied nations in the world.
Clearly, one of our highest priorities must be to preserve Canada's
network of social programs.
Over the last two and a half years, Canadians have turned to
governments to provide and economic and social environment that
encourages the economic growth needed to create new jobs. The
legislation we are introducing points to this government's
commitment to meet this demand.
Through this bill, we will double our youth programs, expand
our international trade and boost Canada's innovative capacity by
in investing in new technologies.
[English]
We are determined to restore fiscal health to this country to
balance the books. This year's budget consolidates and extends the
actions resulting from the 1994 and 1995 budgets. Once this
legislation is passed, these budgets will work together to help
Canadians secure their future in a number of key areas.
(1550 )
To secure our financial future, we will meet or exceed our fiscal
goals year by year by sustaining reductions in program spending.
The 1996 budget reaffirms the government's fiscal responsibility to
Canadians. To get government right, we are taking further action to
define a more appropriate and effective role for the federal
government.
To secure social programs for the next century, we are acting to
restore confidence in providing a secure, stable and growing
system for medicare, post-secondary education and social
assistance. To invest in the future, we are reallocating money to
new investments in priority initiatives to support youth, technology
and international trade, areas critical to future jobs and growth.
I do not intend to speak today about all the amendments we are
proposing. Rather I would like to give the House a general sense of
what we are setting out to accomplish in the budget legislation.
[Translation]
I will begin by outlining how our plans will secure a solid
financial future for all Canadians.
Our two previous budgets set in motion actions to ensure that the
deficit targets for 1995-96 and 1996-97-down to three per cent of
the GDP-will be achieved. The 1996 budget secures the
government's deficit target of two per cent of the GDP in 1997-98.
This means the deficit will have fallen from $42 billion, or 5,9 per
cent of the GDP, in 1993-94 to $17 billion in 1997-98.
To achieve this, the government is continuing to place priority on
expenditure reductions. There are no tax rate increases in this
budget, not personal, not corporate, not excise. In fact, there have
been no personal tax rate increases in any of our three budgets.
Through the continuing program review, the 1996 budget
contains $1.9 billion in additional spending cuts for 1998-99. This
will help sustain the reduction in program spending-that is, all
budgetary spending except interest on the public debt. Program
spending will decline, from $120 billion in 1993-94 to $105.5
billion in 1998-99.
[English]
With this proposed legislation, we are also encouraging young
Canadians to continue their education and develop their skills by
reallocating from within the tax system an additional $165 million
over three years. We will create new employment opportunities for
youth by reallocating $315 million of budget savings over three
years. We are doubling funds for the 1996-97 student summer
employment placements to $120 million.
The budget also increases the investment in technology and
innovation through a number of actions over the next three years
funded by reallocations of $270 million from budget savings. For
example, the SchoolNet program will expand, connecting every
school and library in the country to the information highway by
1998. With the help of 2,000 computer students, 50,000 small
businesses will be connected to the Internet and their owners
trained for full access to the information highway.
(1555 )
Finally, a technical committee will carry out a comprehensive
business taxation review with three goals: promoting jobs and
growth; simplifying the system; and enhancing fairness.
[Translation]
That brings me to the tax system and our proposals to ensure that
it is not only as fair and effective as possible, but also supports jobs
and growth. We are reallocating revenues to priority economic and
social intiatives such as improved tax assistance for students,
charitable donations and care of the handicapped.
To encourage renewable energy investments, we will change the
tax rules to create a level playing field. Proposed changes will
improve tax rules to finance some renewable energy and
conservation projects, including extending flow-through share
provisions.
1902
[English]
The budget also includes more measures to get government
right, to help shape a focused more affordable government that
effectively advances the key priorities of a productive job creating
economy in a modern Canadian federation.
Under program review, departments were asked to examine their
programs and services to determine how best to provide Canadians
with smaller, more effective and affordable government. Canadians
have sent us a clear message. We must meet the challenges of
globalization, financial pressures, new information technologies
and demographic shifts. Canadians seek affordable services and
programs delivered in the most effective and efficient manner
possible.
We are also acting to ensure that social programs are affordable
and will be there for Canadians in the future. We will restore
stability and subsequent growth to transfers to the provinces with a
sustainable system of long term funding under the Canada health
and social transfer.
The federal government will legislate a new five year Canada
health and social transfer funding arrangement beginning in
1998-99. For the first two years federal support, that is tax transfers
plus cash, will be maintained at $25.1 billion. Over the following
three years transfers of both cash and tax points will grow at an
increasing pace related to the economy to approximately $27.4
billion. Also, to increase protection to provinces, a new legislated
cash floor will guarantee that the cash portion of the transfer will
not fall below $11 billion in all years.
[Translation]
When I tabled the main estimates on March 7, I announced
measures we would take to ``get government right.'' These are
rooted in four objectives; to redefine the government's roles and
responsibilities; to redirect its resources to the highest national
priorities; to provide Canadians with more modern, accessible and
responsive service delivery; and finally to achieve affordable
government.
To support these objectives, we carried out a fundamental review
of all our programs and services. I might add that, not since the
second world war has a government engaged in such a far-reaching
review.
(1600)
During this program review, we have examined all major federal
programs and activities to reassess what we do, how we do it and,
how we can to it better. Our aims is to deliver services that are
relevant, responsive, accessible and affordable. We are now putting
into place the results of this review.
Based on these results, most departments will have their budgets
cut by at least an additional 3.5 per cent in 1998-99; some will be
cut much more. Changes are occuring not just in direct service
delivery areas but also in our internal processes and systems.
Together, these and other measures will reshape and redirect the
structure of government to bring quality services to Canadians in a
fiscally responsible manner.
[English]
As we continue on this path of reform and change we must pay
equal attention to the federal public service which, as the
administrative arm of government, delivers in large measure our
programs and services to Canadians. The public service supports us
and helps us deliver our commitments to the people of Canada. We
recognize that changes are also required to transform the public
service into a modern and dynamic institution. The changes we are
proposing in this bill will put in place some of the building blocks
to do just this.
The legislative measures we are proposing to get government
right are based on three key themes: alternative service delivery;
compensation and collective bargaining; and pension reform.
I will begin with the alternate delivery of services and programs.
By this I mean creating service entities, special operating agencies
and other organizational mechanisms to deliver services. One
example is NavCan which delivers the air traffic control system.
In the budget the Minister of Finance announced our intention to
move in similar directions by creating a single food inspection
service, a parks agency and a national revenue commission. We
will undertake other such arrangements case by case as we continue
to examine the best ways to deliver services to Canadians.
When we create these organizations, public service employees
working in these areas will of course be affected. We must ensure
that these employees are treated fairly and reasonably. That is why
we met with the public service unions earlier this year to discuss
the subject. I am pleased to say that we reached an agreement with
most of the unions on the transfer arrangements for employees who
move to alternative service delivery organizations.
The amendments we are introducing today will allow us to put in
place fair arrangements for all employees affected by such
transfers. They will also allow us to implement enhanced
arrangements that some unions successfully negotiated on behalf
of their members. This government is committed to working with
public service unions and believes that the negotiated agreement is
always the preferred option.
We are also proposing other legislative amendments to various
statutes that will allow us to put in place these arrangements. For
example, we are proposing changes to both the Canada Labour
Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act to introduce
successor rights. These rights continue to cover union representa-
1903
tion and the collective agreement until the term of the agreement
expires, when employees move from public service employment to
other federal employers.
Also we are introducing changes that will ease the transition to
and the operation of alternative service delivery organizations. We
want to make sure that these organizations have the tools they need
to operate effectively from the outset.
(1605)
An example is our proposal to amend the Financial
Administration Act to allow us to use multiyear appropriations. If
approved, we could use this authority with the three new agencies
where flexibility is warranted and appropriate. Implementing this
flexibility would need parliamentary approval through either an
appropriation act or specific legislation.
I should add that this is an enabling clause only and Parliament
will retain the right to determine when and if multiyear
appropriations are suitable to these or any other future
organizations.
[Translation]
Let us now turn to compensation and collective bargaining in the
public service. The Public Sector Compensation Act, which was
first introduced in 1991, restrained collective bargaining. Public
service wages have been frozen for five of the six years that this
legislation has been in effect.
I was pleased to announce that the Public Sector Compensation
Act will expire as planned in February 1997. Public service
employees have contributed significantly to fiscal restraint, and
now, we can return to collective bargaining for public service
employees.
Salaries for MPs and senators will remain frozen at the 1992
levels until at least January 1998 when the law will be ressessed as
prescribed by Parliament.
However, we are also proposing to suspend the binding
arbitration process to resolve collective bargaining disputes for
three years. We cannot run the risk of allowing independent
arbitrators-who are not accountable to Parliament-to award
compensation increases that the fiscal framework could not
accommodate.
Binding arbitration will continue for employees of the House of
Commons, the Senate, Library of Parliament and the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service. This is because their respective
legislation prohibits strikes and requires the use of binding
arbitration. In these case, however, arbitrators will be required to
take into account wage settlements that have been reached for
comparable occupational groups within the public service, where
Treasury Board is the employer.
We are also seeking authority to amend the Public Sector
Compensation Act to reinstate increments and performance pay
which were suspended when the government introduced the wage
freeze.
This bill would also provide authority for a 2.2 per cent wage
increase for non-commissioned members of the Canadians Forces.
This measure will correct the disparity in wages, that existed before
the wage freeze between members of the armed forces and public
service employees.
[English]
Our final theme centres on pension reforms. These reforms are
intended to provide individuals and groups of employees with
greater pension portability that meet the standards of the Pension
Benefits Standards Act. Specifically we propose to revise the
Public Service Superannuation Act to protect employee pension
accruals and make them portable. This portability will be enhanced
by the two year vesting and lock-in provisions.
I indicated that I would not discuss every legislative proposal but
for the most part they are all related to one of the three themes I
have described. I would just like to draw the attention of the House
to other measures.
(1610 )
We intend to modify the Financial Administration Act to make
changes to public service group insurance plans, for example, the
health care plan. Another proposal will deal with the needs of our
student employment programs by amending the Public Service
Staff Relations Act.
Together these changes, particularly in the areas of alternative
service delivery, compensation and collective bargaining and
pension reforms, will let the government do its business using a
modernized legislative and policy framework.
[Translation]
In conclusion, we believe that the measures we are introducing
today are fair and reasonable to Canadians. They will help us
secure the financial future, get government right, secure social
programs for the next century and promote jobs and growth for
Canadians.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
President of the Treasury Board told us a few minutes ago that
Canadians are not interested in flowery rhetoric. And yet, that was
what I seemed to be hearing last March 6 when I listened carefully
to the finance minister's budget speech.
It was a lovely speech, but now we must go over it all again
today, because today is when the real budget measures are being
tabled in this House, in the course of the debate on Bill C-31, while
most of the members of this House are in committee. And I have
the feeling that that is exactly what the government wanted.
1904
It seems to me that this Bill C-31, tabled yesterday at first
reading and submitted to the House today at second reading, is
a tactic by the President of the Treasury Board, who is doing the
dirty work for the Minister of Finance, whose erratic management
has not really succeeded in reducing the deficit to date.
The bill is an example of this government's inability to control
the deficit and the debt through concrete measures and a fiscal
policy that is consistent and fair for all groups in our society.
To put it another way, when we see the measures contemplated in
this bill, the number of acts amended, the number of federal
ministers and federal agencies affected, the staff upheavals, the
planned cuts, this bill starts to look like a fire sale by a government
that has lost control and that is trying with varying degrees of
success to stop the leaks in the fast-sinking Liberal boat.
This Budget Implementation Act, 1996, will enable the Treasury
Board to ensure the transition of human resources in the context of
what is described as the diversification of ways of providing
services. The Financial Administration Act is amended; it will
allow tens of thousands of employees to be laid off, public services
to be transferred in some cases, and measures designed to facilitate
these transfers to be taken.
The Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations
Act are amended so that collective agreements and labour
representation can be maintained when personnel is transferred to
other employers as part of the public service restructuring
described by the President of the Treasury Board.
Public servants who are transferred will lose certain rights. The
changes made to the Public Service Employment Act will allow the
Public Service Commission to delegate powers to non-public
servants, thus eliminating de facto the right to appeal an
appointment.
Transfers to the private sector must of course be made attractive,
which means that benefits enjoyed by public servants must be
reduced.
(1615)
This is all that is being done here. The freeze on the salaries of
non-commissioned members of the Canadian Armed Forces is
ended. Instead of conducting an objective inquiry into the blunders
of the army, particularly in Somalia, the government rewards first
the military responsible, whose salaries will be the first to be
unfrozen.
An amendment to the Public Sector Compensation Act will
make these changes possible. A right for which workers fought
hard is withdrawn for a period of three years. Indeed, an
amendment to the Public Service Staff Relations Act will suspend
compulsory arbitration.
We are told that the Public Service Superannuation Act is also
being amended to facilitate the transfer of individual and collective
pensions, and provide the flexibility required to maintain or
suspend the application of the act to an entity and to its employees.
Transfer and flexibility: these are the key words. The
government is cutting in the rights and pensions of its employees to
better transfer them to the private sector. These transfers will affect
thousands of public servants. According to the bill, collective
transferability will be made possible thanks to amendments aimed
at facilitating the conclusion of agreements between the
government and eligible employers.
The government could not make it more clear that it intends to
transfer a number of its responsibilities to the private sector. We are
told about transitional protection, but what are the guarantees for
the employees affected? The bill is silent on this and no transfer
procedure is specified.
This bill also confers upon the Minister of Transport the power
to dispose of railway cars belonging to CN which are used to move
grain.
To show you the extent of the sales that will be coming, the bill
states: ``It would also provide for an increase in the maximum rates
for movement of grain after at least 10,000 of the railway cars or
rights with respect to at least 10,000 of the railway cars are
disposed of''.
All of this goes to show, without a doubt, that the government is
selling out our heritage, the train-which was the first link between
the various regions of our country-our assets and the government
employees' expertise built up over the past decades. These massive
sell-outs will only pay the grocery bill. The government's fire sale
will not, in the end, reduce the deficit by any significant amount.
Another blow, this time not against its employees but against all
workers. After having laid its hands on the $5 billion surplus in the
UI fund, the government is changing the Unemployment Insurance
Act by setting maximum insurable earnings for 1996 at $750. It
also sets maximum weekly benefits at $413 for recipients who start
receiving benefits in 1996, i.e. new recipients.
Bill C-31 also implements a number of measures with budget
impact. The government is taking advantage of this bill to push a
number of extremely controversial measures through. It is trying to
use a back door approach, to rush through unpopular measures
including some that penalize the unemployed.
The historically maintained tax pact between Ottawa and the
provinces is being shoved aside. The Federal-provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act is amended. The Canada social transfer for
1997-98 through 2002-03, as well as the method for calculating the
amounts to be transferred to the provinces, is defined.
1905
(1620)
All that this fine business reveals is that federal transfers to the
provinces are in free-fall. In the end, all this complex accounting
will simply produce smaller envelopes: $26.9 billion in 1996-97,
$25.1 billion in 1997-98 and each year thereafter until 1999-2000.
For each of fiscal 2000-01 to 2002-03, the calculations used will
merely reduce the Canada social transfer even further.
The transfer to a given province is related to the calculation of a
weighting value that decreases from 1.0 in 1997-98 to .5 in
2002-03. In other words, the amount will be reduced progressively
by 50 per cent over five years.
The Government of Canada is changing the rules for distributing
the Canada social transfer among the provinces. The new rule is
based on the size of the population and no longer on need, as should
be the case for social programs. Quebec, once again, is hardest hit
by the cuts. The Canada social transfer now benefits the wealthiest
provinces: Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, whose
populations are growing the fastest.
By cutting its transfers to reduce the deficit, the federal
government is passing the bill on to the provinces, dumping the
deficit in their lap. There is less and less redistributing in the
federal transfers. The cuts and the new rules for distribution mean
in fact the end of fiscal federalism.
The only measure that is fair for taxpayers in Bill C-31 is the
amendment to the Old Age Security Act, which will change the
pension paid to people with fewer than ten years' residence in
Canada after their 18th birthday. This pension will now be
calculated according to the number of years they have actually
lived in Canada after this birthday. This is only fair to all taxpayers.
The Canada assistance plan, the Radiocommunication Act and
the Student Loans Act are amended, with the last one being
changed to provide stricter terms for the repayment of student
loans.
This all-purpose bill amends various acts and has a single
purpose: to reduce the amounts spent by the federal government to
pay its employees; to cut the number of federal public servants; to
undermine the rights of those who will survive the cuts; to chop
transfer payments to the provinces. National standards remain, but
related funds are falling.
UI benefits are also being cut in order to augment future
surpluses in the UI fund, where the Minister of Finance will take
the amounts needed to hide his mismanagement and his real deficit.
The deficit will also be reduced by selling crown assets, like the
thousands of railroad cars used to transport grain across the
country.
Collective agreements are being tampered with and the rights of
public servants undermined. The right to appeal on appointments
of priorities is being eliminated and, more importantly, binding
arbitration is being suspended for three years to make federal
organizations more attractive to private sector buyers.
All this shows a blatant lack of respect for public servants,
something the President of the Treasury Board did not brag about a
few minutes ago. This bill mixes the sale of railroad cars with the
doctoring of collective agreements so that entire components of the
public service laboriously developed by the country since the
1940s can be sold off.
Above all, this shows the finance minister's inability to carry out
his mandate to balance the federal budget. In fact, clause 64 in this
bill provides for the payment of $961 million to New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland as adjustment assistance for the
purpose of facilitating their participation in an integrated national
sales tax system.
(1625)
The Liberals never keep their election promises, to say the least.
After condemning the Tories so strongly, they are doing the exact
opposite of what they promised.
As members may recall, in 1979-80, after vigorously
condemning the 18 cent increase in the price of a litre of gasoline
called for by the Tories, the Liberals were quick to raise the tax on a
litre of gasoline even higher after returning to power in 1980.
History repeats itself. After slamming the GST during the 1993
fall election campaign, the Liberals are again trying in 1996 to
harmonize the various provincial taxes with billions in hidden
subsidies to the provinces.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): To win votes.
Mr. Bélisle: Exactly.
The Liberal government has negotiated with three of the Atlantic
provinces an agreement combining the provincial sales tax and the
GST into a single national sales tax. The new tax will amount to 15
per cent. Current tax rates in the Atlantic provinces are quite high:
12 per cent in Newfoundland and 11 per cent in Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick.
So, the federal government has forced these provinces to bring
their tax rates down to 8 per cent, and to this end, their service tax
base was broadened. The cost of this whole operation, or $961
billion, will be borne by the federal treasury.
The federal government will also look after collecting the tax.
For this purpose, a national revenue commission will be created to
take over the administration of the unified tax from the Atlantic
provinces by January 1998. This is an attack in due form, aimed at
eventually taking over all tax collection in Canada. The actual
amount of the tax will be hidden in the sales price but will show on
the bill. The government is creating a hidden tax, which will make
1906
it easier to raise it later on. The minister also introduced a stringof technical changes to the GST that only an expert could make
sense of.
Regardless of the actual words used in the Liberal's red book, the
fact remains that a promise was broken. Two Liberal members,
namely the hon. member for York South-Weston and the hon.
member for Broadview-Greenwood have left the Liberal caucus,
and this does them credit. They were strongly supported by their
constituents in making this decision. There are at least a few
members who stand on their own two feet. The same cannot be said
about the Deputy Prime Minister, but at least some still do.
Mr. Loubier: Bloc members do.
Mr. Bélisle: Yes, exactly. The hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is right.
This goes to show the Liberals have reneged on their promises
and the public knows it.
Just one week before the 1993 election, the Deputy Prime
Minister stated on the CBC, and I quote:
[English]
``I have already said personally and very directly that if the GST is
not abolished I will resign''.
[Translation]
The Prime Minister himself said, and I quote:
[English]
``We will scrap the GST''.
[Translation]
In May 1994, he added: ``We hate this tax and we will make it
disappear''.
It is quite something when a Prime Minister says that he hates a
tax. Did the Prime Minister suddenly fall in love with the GST? Or
is he the victim of a love-hate affair? I personally think that the
Prime Minister is a great comedian who uses all means available to
him.
(1630)
There is no harmonization. The provincial sales tax will
disappear. It will become part of the GST. The GST will literally
absorb the provincial tax and its management will be the exclusive
responsibility of the federal government, which will thus increase
its control over indirect taxation in this country.
By including the tax in the price of goods, the government shows
it could not care less about consumers and is making it easier to
increase the tax later on. Several associations, including the
Consumers' Association of Canada and the Association des
manufacturiers du Québec, opposed including the tax in the price
of goods.
The federal government is making all Quebecers and Canadians
pay for the harmonization of sale taxes in the maritime provinces.
Given the amount of money to be paid by the federal government
to these provinces, Quebec will have to contribute close to $250
million but will get nothing in return. The government's goal is still
to integrate the GST to sale taxes everywhere in Canada. If it must
compensate every time an agreement is reached, how much will it
cost in the end?
The government itself says that compensation will also be
necessary in the case of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Prince
Edward Island. Quebec has already harmonized its sales tax and no
adjustment is anticipated in the future. This means that there is no
possibility for compensation in the case of Quebec. Such is the
price that Quebecers must pay when their province co-operates
with the federal government.
Provinces joining the national tax system will lose their
autonomy, because they will no longer have full control over their
taxation rate and their tax base. ``The federal government will
assume responsibility for all aspects of administering the
provincial value added tax''. This is what it says in the
memorandum of agreement on the harmonization of sales taxes, an
indication of the extent to which the provinces that sign will give
up their fiscal autonomy to the federal government.
The Bloc Quebecois is offering the government an opportunity
to kill two birds with one stone. The first step would be to abolish
the GST, to turn the whole field of indirect taxation over to the
provinces and to offset federal losses resulting from the abolition
of the GST with an equivalent reduction in cash transfers to the
provinces. In this manner, the federal government hangs on to its
financial equilibrium, the Government of Quebec controls all
indirect taxation within its borders, and the result is less federal
interference in the health, education and social assistance sectors.
This approach, the one the government is suggesting, is
completely out of date. The savings generated by all the sales and
cuts resulting from bill C-31 will be spent on paying the provinces
to accept a national sales tax.
Financial management under the Liberals is a bottomless pit.
They do not realize the efforts they are asking of everyone: public
servants, taxpayers, the unemployed, seniors, the provinces. They
are asking all these groups to make significant spending cuts, and
then, at the end of the bill, in clause 64, they wipe out, in one fell
swoop, close to a billion dollars in efforts so that they can bring
three provinces on side with their national sales tax.
Why pass this Bill C-31 if, once again, they go back on election
promises and eliminate with one hand all the efforts made by the
other hand. The Bloc Quebecois cannot in all decency support this
bill. This bill the government is rushing through contains major
amendments to at least ten statutes that have a very large impact on
government management. I will summarize them here to show you
the importance of all these legislative amendments that will flow
from Bill C-31.
1907
The following statutes are amended: the Financial
Administration Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the
Public Service Superannuation Act, the Unemployment Insurance
Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Old Age
Security Act, the Canada assistance plan, the Radiocommunication
Act, and the Canada Student Loans Act.
The common denominator in all these amendments is the
withdrawal of the federal government from its responsibilities as
an employer and from its historic commitments to the unemployed,
seniors and the provinces.
(1635)
The Liberal government is abdicating its responsibilities. Bill
C-31 is admission that it is abdicating before the voters send it
packing for good. This morning's La Presse described the plan
proposed yesterday by Ottawa as ``somewhat frantic''.
In closing, I would like to draw the hon. members' attention to
the fact that the Liberals have a worse record than the
Conservatives as far as the Constitution and taxation are
concerned. In the first instance, by reducing Quebec to the
``principal homeland of French language in North America'', and
in the second, far from eliminating the GST as it had shouted from
the rooftops that it was going to do in 1993, by reinforcing it, trying
to bury it in the price.
So what about the transparency this government was promising?
Through this double failure, the Prime Minister and his Minister of
Finance are once again demonstrating their incompetency, which
far exceeds that of their predecessors.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate, it is
my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that
the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as
follows: the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake-Parks Canada.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have spoken on the subject of the budget before and I
was going to cede my place to my colleagues, but a new
development has taken place which has very serious implications
for the budget.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has joined a
chorus of demands by labour and employers that there is a need, if
not an obligation, on the part of the government to lower premiums
on unemployment insurance contributions made to the
unemployment insurance fund.
If these premium rates are lowered, as I think they should be and
I think they will be, then the government's vaunted target of 2 per
cent deficit of GDP in two years' time cannot be met. There is even
doubt that this year's projections can be met. This is a very serious
matter.
According to the budget document, the government will violate
tradition. For reasons I will indicate in a moment, it is almost
illegal. However, I do not know if I can call it illegal. On the one
hand by keeping up the premiums or on the other hand it does the
right thing with respect to premium rates, the government will not
be able to meet its target.
This is a summary of what I would like to include in my speech. I
would like to build to a conclusion and support it with some more
careful analysis and numbers.
Let me first remind people that the unemployment insurance
system is an independently funded account which by law has to
balance over time. I took the trouble of calling the solicitor for the
Department of Human Resources Development to ask what the law
is. He told me that it should be balanced over time. A few years ago
the auditor general required that the government adhere to this
principle.
When the balance accumulates the government is, therefore,
obligated to lower premiums. If the balance becomes negative,
premiums have to be raised.
The government is making the argument that is really
pro-cyclical, that is, it aggravates the business cycle because the
funds accumulated in the UI system are likely to become negative
when there is a recession. If during this recession the premium rate
is raised, it will result in the further withdrawal of purchasing
power. It therefore aggravates the size of the business cycle.
(1640)
Therefore, I agree with the government that we should
accumulate a certain reserve during good times so that the fund
would be able to ride out the next recession without having to raise
premium rates again. However, there ought to be a limit to the
amount which the unemployment insurance system can
accumulate.
Why is this system separate and is there this rule that the
balances must come to zero through time? The reason is quite
obvious. The unemployment insurance premiums have two very
serious characteristics. First, they are regressive. The maximum
contribution that individuals pay to the fund is $1,320 a year. This
$1,320 a year is paid by someone making $30,000, someone
making $100,000 and someone making $1 million. The percentage
which this $1,320 represents of total income is much higher for
lower income earners than for higher income earners. This is
clearly a regressive tax.
The reason why the rule exists that this must not be used to
finance general government expenditures is that general
government expenditures accrue to everyone and they are part of a
system income redistribution, and so on. Therefore, this is not
money that should be used to finance general government pensions
and various other things. Those government functions should be
financed by general taxes in the form of personal income taxes, the
GST and corporate income taxes because all of those benefits are
accruing to all Canadians. All are paying for it and it accrues to all
of them.
1908
The UI contributions, on the other hand, are simply for providing
protection against the risk of becoming unemployed.
The second damaging characteristic of unemployment insurance
revenues is that over one-half of them are paid by employers.
People who go out and think that they can afford someone to work
in their donut shop for $10 an hour will be deterred from doing so
because the government says: ``That is not enough. You have to pay
the 3 per cent to the government in the form of a contribution to
UI''. This is why it is widely known and has been given the name
by the government of a job killing tax.
Any time that the government legislates increases in the cost of
labour which have not been negotiated in the labour market, it
raises the cost of labour and is therefore detrimental to
employment.
It is quite clear that it is not in the interest of society. It is not
legal for the unemployment insurance fund to be in surplus for a
prolonged time or in a surplus that is used to finance general
government expenditures. That is why the representatives of labour
and employers have been coming in droves to the hearings of the
human resources development committee and have been asking for
a reduction in the premium. That is why recently the Minister of
Human Resources Development noted that he too believes the
premiums are to be lowered.
(1645)
Just to give an idea of the magnitude of this effect, the revenue
from insurance premiums in 1995-96 will be $18.5 billion. People
have great difficulty envisioning what $18.5 billion is. Let me
compare this with what is expected to be collected from
corporations. Corporations are expected to pay $14.5 billion. The
UI system is expected to contribute $18.5 billion to total revenue.
On it goes through 1997-98. It is expected that by 1997-98 the
unemployment insurance contributions revenue collected by the
government will be $19.5 billion. That may or may not be a lot; it
all depends on what the obligations of the UI system are.
The budget again has an answer for that. In the year 1995-96, the
$18.5 billion is required to provide unemployment insurance
benefits worth $13.8 billion. The difference between revenue and
expenditure is $4.7 billion. It is in the budget which is being
debated today that over this year and the following two years the
excess of revenue collected from workers and their employers
minus what is being paid back to them through unemployment
insurance benefits will contribute to the nation's surplus $4.7
billion, $4.6 billion and $5.0 billion in each of those years
respectively.
A surplus also existed in 1994-95. At that point it was the highest
it had been in a long time, $5.4 billion. It was used to reduce the
accumulated deficit of the system, but by the beginning of this
year the surplus, the reserve of the system, has begun to grow. It is
estimated that by the end of this year it will be about $4.5 billion,
the following year $9 billion and thereafter $14 billion.
Again, people have very great difficulty relating to these
numbers. The $14 billion at the end of 1997-98 is equivalent to one
full year's outlay in the budget for unemployment insurance
benefits, one full year of reserves, the highest these reserves have
ever been in the history of Canada. I have a graph which shows this.
It was $2.2 billion. The government has predicated the
achievement of its deficit target on the assumption that this
accumulation of surpluses will go to $14 billion. It is not
reasonable. The largest cumulative deficit that ever existed was
$5.8 billion.
These premiums by all standards must be lowered. They cannot
go on like this. It is almost illegal. It is killing jobs and it is unfair.
As some people have said, the money in the UI fund does not
belong to the government for its general programs, it belongs to the
workers. I have made that case and it is fair and justified.
(1650)
A very great problem is developing for the country and for this
government. This is what it will mean two years from now using
the government's figures. If the government did the right thing and
lowered the unemployment insurance premium, there would be no
addition to the system's reserves. In 1997-98 the deficit is
projected to be $17 billion. If the $5 billion generated as a surplus
by the UI fund were not available, the deficit would be $22 billion,
just a little bit less than the preceding year, which is next year.
There would have been no improvement.
The Minister of Finance brags on Wall Street and everywhere
else: ``I have achieved our target. I have broken the back of the
deficit''. The entire government plan and the minister's proud
achievement are predicated on keeping money that does not belong
to the government but belongs to the workers. It is in the books.
The auditor general said so. It makes complete economic sense.
The government is coming close to the mistake it made on the GST.
I cannot believe that a man with the intelligence, background and
integrity of the Minister of Finance and with the huge resources he
has available in terms of this country's best economists would say
in front of investors on Wall Street that he has broken the back of
the deficit, without acknowledging that his prediction is based on
the assumption he will have $5 billion in each of the next two years
coming in as revenue he knows does not belong in that account.
That revenue belongs to the workers.
That revenue should not accrue because by tradition in the way
the UI fund has been set up the premium rates should be lowered.
Again I have a graph. It shows that whenever the cumulative deficit
was large enough the rates would be raised. If there was a surplus,
the rates would be lowered. I have not had time to look at the
speeches made by the Liberals when they were in opposition,
1909
demanding I am certain the lowering of benefits because the money
belonged to the workers. However, here they are using it to achieve
their target.
What are the Liberals going to do? Are they going to shamefully
make that fund grow to $14 billion when the highest ever in the
history of Canada has been $2.2 billion? It certainly is in the
budget. If we do not do it, the target is not going to be met.
(1655)
Where have the media been? Have they not noticed this? Where
are all the incisive analyses that should be going on about this
subject? If they would like some background information, they
could call me.
There is no way in which this government should resist the
supremely justified demands of employers and employees, and
organized labour is adding to the chorus that the Minister of Human
Resources Development do the right thing and lower this
regressive tax which is killing jobs. The government should be
lowering the premium rates which are taxed rates. They are
regressive because they fall so heavily as a percentage of income
on workers in the lower echelons. They are killing jobs and they
add to the cost of employing labour. This is a major scandal. It is a
scandal which I predict will become very similar to that of the GST.
I know the minister in response to questions on this subject will
say that the government has plenty of reserves built into the
system. Let us look at that. He has built into the 1997-98 budget a
$3 billion contingency reserve. Part of that will already have been
eaten up by the money which he has just committed to pay as an
inducement-and some people in the Government of Ontario are
calling it a bribe-
Mr. Silye: Do not use that word. He will get upset.
Mr. Grubel: I only quoted a highly placed employee in the
ministry of finance of the Government of Ontario who called it a
bribe to the governments of the Atlantic provinces. That will
already take a significant proportion of that built-in reserve.
Let us say it will still be worth $2.5 billion. What we are talking
about is $5 billion that is put into the budget as a source of income
which the government has no right to have in there. By definition,
including the contingency reserve, the government will not meet its
target. I ask myself: Why is the contingency reserve there? In case
something bad happens.
We heard many witnesses in the finance committee say that
almost certainly within the next two or three years the United
States economy will slow down significantly. Expansions never
last forever and it has already had an expansion of almost seven
years.
The contingency reserve on spending was put in there because
there might be another upheaval in capital markets outside Canada
like there was in Mexico. The contingency reserve was put in there
because we might find there may be a little disturbance in Canadian
capital markets because of political developments in Quebec.
Put that on top of the dilemma in which the government finds
itself of having used to achieve its targets money that is not meant
for that use. There will be very serious questions raised about the
budget. These are questions which I did not raise before. After all,
it is one thing for special interest groups, for the representatives of
employers and workers, to come before human resources
development and make their case.
(1700)
It is now serious because the Minister of Human Resources
Development has added his very influential voice to all of those
who have said that money should not be used for the purpose for
which it is being used. It reveals that the government has not had
the courage to do on the spending reduction side what is necessary
to save the country from bankruptcy. Please do not shoot the
messenger. Sooner or later the media would have discovered that
anyway.
Interest rates may rise because people will find out that a
minister who comes to Wall Street and says we are right on target,
we will be at 2 per cent per year, will be found either not
competent, that he did not know he could not keep that $5 billion,
or that he may have been misleading them deliberately. I do not
know what the answer is but I would not be surprised if sooner or
later that question came up. How do you think the capital markets
will react?
I do not want to be a doomsayer. For the sake of Canada, for the
sake of the Minister of Finance, for the sake of the government, I
hope everything I said can be in practice truly brushed aside as
ideas and analyses produced by an obsolete academic economist
who does not know what he is talking about and has ventured into
the arena of politics and is out of his depth.
For the sake of Canada I hope I am right, but I have the feeling
that what we have coming is a major problem for the government.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the
comments of my colleague, the hon. member for Capilano-Howe
Sound.
Because I have such respect for him as an economist who has
happened into politics for a time I am saddened he had made some
of the suggestions he has with respect to the government's
budgetary policy as reflected in the budget implementation act,
which we are considering today, Bill C-31.
1910
I digress from my prepared remarks for a moment to respond.
It reminds me a bit of Chicken Little and the old story that the
sky is falling. He is always on his feet, armed with all of his
experience and knowledge, to say in somewhat typical Canadian
terms things will get a whole lot worse.
It is startling that he suggests that once again he is right and
everyone else is wrong. Third parties have looked at the budget and
have commended the minister and the government for the
achievements of it, and yet the hon. member for Capilano-Howe
Sound is saying: ``Everyone is wrong, the analysts the wrong. They
are all wrong. Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute is wrong. I
wish they would call me so I could get them to correct the error of
their ways''.
My biggest regret is with his suggestion that somehow the
government is stealing something from the workers of Canada,
failing to remind the House and anyone listening to his remarks
that when that UI account was in deficit it was Canadian taxpayers
through the consolidated revenue fund who stood ready with funds
to deal with the deficit in the account.
(1705 )
The president of the treasury board's remarks provided a cogent
and compelling explanation of the government's fiscal policies and
the framework for this legislation, the budget implementation act
before us today.
[Translation]
He made it particularly clear why the government is introducing
certain measures in this bill. These measures will help the public
service help us to meet our commitment to Canadians.
I would first like to reiterate some aspects of our financial
situation.
[English]
There is a timely reason for this repetition. Our record of fiscal
responsibility and progress sets the context for one of the key
measures of the bill, the implementation of long term funding for
the Canada health and social transfer.
As the Minister of Finance pointed out in his budget speech in
March, our ongoing spending reductions, real spending reductions,
combined with those in previous budgets will ensure our deficit
targets are secure; that is, 3 per cent of GDP for this fiscal year and
2 per cent next. For the following year, 1998-99, the measures we
have introduced in the last three budgets will deliver an addition
$28.9 billion in savings. Deficit reduction will continue.
The numbers speak for themselves. In 1993-94 federal program
spending stood at $120 billion, almost 17 per cent of GDP. By
1998-99 the money we spend on programs will be down to $105.5
billion, 12 per cent of GDP.
It is important to note that progress on deficit reduction is not
restricted to the federal government. The financial situation of
provincial governments is also undergoing a significant
improvement. In 1992 the combined deficits of Canada's federal
and provincial governments on a national accounts basis reached
7.4 per cent of GDP. This level was double the G-7 average, behind
only Italy in that group of large industrialized countries.
However, this year Canada's total government deficit is expected
to fall below the G-7 average and come in as the second lowest in
the group, behind only the United States. Based on each country's
current plans we should have the lowest next year.
Clearly and fortunately fiscal responsibility has now become a
governing facet of our national political culture. We have stopped
acting like adolescents with credit cards, and this sense of financial
maturity will ensure a more secure and prosperous future for us all.
The hon. member opposite and some of his colleagues may say,
as they always do, it is not good enough and it is not enough. I
suggest we are simply their worse nightmare because we are doing
the job and getting it done, as I have said on other occasions in the
House, fairly, reasonably and without tearing apart the country in
the process. The proof is in the pudding, the high marks this and
previous budgets have been given by all third party commentators.
Through these three budgets we are ensuring the economic
sovereignty of Canada. Foreign borrowings by Canadian business
and governments have been cut from $29 billion in 1993 to $13
billion last year. Our reliance on foreign borrowings will decline
dramatically as governments continue to reduce their deficits.
Obviously we are making real progress, something that drives
the members opposite crazy. The 1996 budget is another
instalment, another significant step in that direction.
As the Minister of Finance put it, and I will repeat it because
members opposite have probably forgotten, this budget is about
consolidating the gains we have made. It is about managing ahead,
continuing to put in place new building blocks for security and
prosperity.
Some of these building blocks are contained in Bill C-31, the
legislation before us. As we move ahead, one of our highest
priorities, one surely shared by the vast majority of Canadians but
not necessarily by all members opposite, is the preservation of the
country's network of social programs. To help achieve that end the
bill before us amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
Act. This amendment will provide secure, stable funding for what
has come to be called the CHST, the Canada health and social
transfer, for an additional five years.
1911
I remind the House, because some here have short memories,
of the background of this transfer program.
(1710)
[Translation]
In its 1995 budget, the government replaced the Canada
assistance plan and established program financing with a new
mechanism: the Canada health and social transfer.
This consolidated transfer represents a new, more flexible and
mature approach to federal-provincial relations. It gives the
provinces more manoeuvring room to design and administer their
own programs while protecting social programs Canadians count
on and support.
[English]
This year the budget calls for an extension of the CHST funding
framework through 2002-2003 and puts in place a formula for
increasing this transfer in the later years of that five year plan.
Under the bill before us total entitlements will be pegged at
$25.1 billion annually for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, equal to the
level already in place for next year.
[Translation]
We are determined to support the provinces' activities in the
areas of health, education and social assistance for those in real
need. Despite sustained reduction in federal program spending, the
total amount paid to the provinces under the transfer will not
decrease during this period.
[English]
In the three fiscal years beginning in April 2000, CHST levels
are projected to rise. By 2002-2003-
An hon. member: Money we do not have.
Mr. Campbell: Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the
hon. member opposite. I will try to ignore the interjections.
By 2003-2003, total CHST entitlements are expected to be $2.3
billion higher than the level set for next year, 1997-98. This
funding arrangement will mark the first growth in transfers to the
provinces for social programs. That is the first additional funding
that can go to medicare, education and welfare since the era of
restraint began in the mid-1980s.
Furthermore, as a result of this funding the cash component of
the CHST will never fall below $11 billion. We expect the cash
transfer to grow by the end of the period to provide additional
assurance to Canadians.
However, this legislation sets a floor, an ironclad guarantee that
cash transfers will be maintained above the $11 billion level. This
proposed legislation also provides a new formula for allocating the
CHST among provinces.
[Translation]
As you no doubt know, changes in the existing transfer system
created increasingly greater disparities in terms of individual
rights. Most often, these disparities resulted from the ceilings
imposed by the previous government on money paid to certain
provinces under the Canada assistance plan.
In my opinion, Canadians agree that the wealthy provinces need
less assistance than those less well off. This concern for the welfare
of our fellow Canadians is part of our unique social contract.
[English]
At the same time, Canadians are firm believers in the importance
of action that is balanced and fair. This legislation puts those values
to work. Under the new allocation formula, which will be phased in
over five years, disparities in per capita funding will be cut in half.
[Translation]
Allow me to point out to the members of this House that
progressive implementation-funding of the transfer over five
years-gives the provinces time to adjust and the assurance of
accuracy in their planning activities.
[English]
Let me now turn to the changes the bill proposes to make to the
Unemployment Insurance Act, changes that will bring insurance
coverage more in line with the average industrial wage for 1996.
Effective January 1 of this year, the maximum insurable earnings
are to be reduced to $750 per week in comparison with the $845
level that would have resulted under current legislation.
Similarly, the maximum weekly benefit drops from $465 a week
to $413. These measures will save $200 million in the second half
of this year and reduce the UI payroll tax burden on working
Canadians.
Some might try to claim these measures are regressive, but this
attack rings hollow, resonating more to political grandstanding
than accurate criticism.Let us remember that the UI program when
considered in its entirety is progressive. Lower income
contributors tend to draw more in benefits than they pay in
premiums, while higher income earners tend to pay much more in
premiums-
(1715)
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I would like to
have a little more order in the House so that at least the Chair can
hear the member.
1912
Mr. Campbell: Madam Speaker, thank you. As well, let me
point out that claimants who qualify for the 60 per cent dependency
rate prior to the coming into force of the new employment
insurance act will not see a loss of that rate for their claims. To
qualify for this rate, claimants must have dependents and show
average earnings of $422.50 per week or less.
Allow me to digress to mention a housekeeping detail with
respect to these measures. They were announced last December
and tabled in Bill C-112. A companion bill, the proposed
employment insurance act, was also introduced. It sets rates for
1997 and beyond.
Since both bills died on the Order Paper we have decided to set
the maximum insurable earnings and benefits for 1996 in this
legislation. As members know, the employment insurance act has
been retabled as Bill C-12. This bill also amends the Old Age
Security Act, the present bill we are discussing, to lengthen the
period of time before newcomers to Canada become entitled to the
full guaranteed income supplement or spouses allowance.
This is simply common sense. Under the current system, some
immigrants obtain full benefits with as a little as one year's
residence in Canada. Restricting this easy access will improve the
fairness of the system and lessen the burden on Canadians.
With the new rules, eligibility will be phased in over 10 years for
those who qualify for benefits through social security agreements
with Canada. As well, sponsored immigrants from countries that
have social security agreements with Canada will not be eligible
for benefits for the period of their sponsorship since most older
immigrants are allowed entry only because they have been
sponsored by a family member.
Those who have already come to Canada will not be penalized.
Individuals now receiving benefits or who landed in Canada before
budget day and become eligible for benefits before January 1,
2001, will not be affected.
In continuing to address the content of the bill, which I hope
members opposite would like to discuss some time during the
course of this debate, let me address a number of measures in this
bill which seek to further the agenda of getting government right,
something they speak about a great deal.
These measures involve redefining and redesigning government
programs and activities in three areas: grain transportation, student
loans and radio spectrum licences. Today, in a time of tighter
resources and taxpayer fatigue, there is no question that
governments cannot act or think as they did in previous times. It
must be recognized that in order to do a better job of meeting key
priorities we should not pursue activities when others can do the
job better.
[Translation]
That is why Bill C-31 will enable the Minister of Transport to
dispose of the publicly-owned freight pool.
The government will consider any serious proposals that those
involved may wish to submit and take into account the interests of
producers, shippers and rail carriers in making a decision.
[English]
We will ensure that the required capacity for grain transportation
is maintained. As well, freight rates can, on average, rise no more
than 75 cents per ton to cover the cost of the acquisition.
We expect that over time the privatization of the grain hopper
cars will make for a more efficient grain handling system with
lower costs for the railways. This in turn will lower freight rates for
grain producers.
Two other clauses in this bill will remove the 10-year ceiling that
was imposed on the repayment schedules of students who
borrowed money under the Canada Student Loans Act. Lenders
will be able to more flexibly match the repayment period to the
financial circumstances of borrowers. While the borrowers must
certainly benefit, I should point out that the government may
actually save money with these new rules since the rate of defaults
will clearly be reduced.
Another measure in this bill will amend the
Radiocommunication Act allowing the Minister of Industry to
auction off valuable radio spectrum licences.
[Translation]
I should point out that competitive bids will not be used
systematically for issuing licences. This is however a very
convenient mechanism that can be used whenever it becomes
impossible to accommodate everyone within the spread of the
spectrum.
(1720 )
[English]
Finally, there is a measure in this that does not flow directly from
the budget but from an announcement recently made by the
Minister of Finance and that is with respect to the GST. Bill C-31
provides for the paying out of approximately $960 million to the
provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and
Labrador as adjustment assistance for initial revenue losses under
the integrated value added tax regime that they have agreed to with
the government, a harmonized tax I should incidentally point out
which the Reform Party supported.
This money will be paid for over a four-year period. It is in
keeping with the firmly established practice of providing assistance
when federal initiatives entail major structural change for the
provinces. Under the adjustment framework this legislation puts in
place, the cost of harmonization will be shared with all provinces
which experience revenue losses in excess of 5 per cent of their
current retail sales tax revenue.
In addition to the three provinces previously mentioned, this
would also include Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and
Saskatchewan when they enter into harmonization.
[Translation]
However, British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario would be
excluded for a very good reason: their revenues would not be cut
back enough to make them eligible to compensation under the
formula.
Quebec of course has already harmonized its sales tax for the
main part. But in light of the remarks made yesterday by the
1913
opposition, I must point out that Quebec would no more be
admissible to adjustment assistance today than it would have been
in 1990, when it signed the memorandum of agreement with
Ottawa, and this, to Quebec's greatest advantage, because
harmonization was profitable to this province.
[English]
Returning to Bill C-31, the government firmly believes that
given the benefits that will flow from harmonization, the total cost
to the federal government is responsible and reasonable.
[Translation]
Under the formula, the federal government and the provinces
will split almost half and half the cost of adjustment assistance over
the four years. That is certainly a given. At the end of these fours
years, the program will end, the provinces having had the time to
adjust.
[English]
As the minister stated, the government has consistently acted on
the principle that people and governments need to be able to plan
and adjust to structural change. Where required the government has
been prepared to provide help to those who face adjustment cost.
For example, as members well know, payments were made to
provinces to address revenue losses they incurred under tax reform
in 1972.
Adjustment assistance was provided in each and every one of our
budgets. For example, last year resources were provided to
facilitate the adjustment flowing from elimination of subsidies
under the Western Grain Transportation Act to the western
provinces. I do not recall members of the Reform Party objecting to
that. We also did the same with Atlantic freight subsidies to Quebec
and the Atlantic provinces, and I do not recall members of the
official opposition objecting to that either.
Today the same precedent is being followed. I emphasize that
this adjustment assistance will not jeopardize the deficit targets.
They are secure.
I have taken up a fair amount of time because I wanted members
to focus on the measures in this bill, not their pet peeves, and I hope
members in responding and continuing the debate will speak to the
bill before us and not something else.
Through the things that I have focused on this afternoon there is
a common thread: fiscal responsibility and getting government
right for Canadians. The actions we are proposing are those which
Canadians are looking for and insisting on from this government.
As their elected representatives we would be remiss if we did not
do our part. With this in mind I have no hesitation in calling on my
colleagues on all sides of the House to join with me in supporting
this important legislation.
[Translation]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, we have been unable to reach an agreement
pursuant to Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to
proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-31, an act to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on
March 6, 1996.
Pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that, at the next
sitting of the House, I will be moving a motion for the purpose of
allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration
and disposal of proceedings at that stage.
(1725)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I was listening earlier to my Liberal colleague talk about
the new GST agreement between the federal government and the
maritime provinces. He forgot to mention that this agreement
requires the federal government to pay close to $1 billion to the
maritime provinces, a political compensation, as this billion dollars
was used to pay off those provinces to accept a proposal that does
not kill the GST.
On the contrary, this proposal maintains the GST but makes the
Minister of Finance look good by allowing him to say he took some
action in this matter. It is Canadians from the other provinces and
Quebecers who will have to pay for this $1 billion in political
compensation. But it is not the only cost; by reducing the combined
sales taxes-the provincial sales tax plus the GST-in the
maritimes from around 19 to 15 per cent, the Minister of Finance
has paved the way for an increase in equalization payments to the
maritimes over the next three or four years. That is what will
happen.
So the price to be paid by Canadians from the other provinces
and by Quebecers is not only $1 billion; it is not true, as the
Minister of Finance claims, that this will end after four years. In
fact, the formula for calculating equalization payments to the
maritimes shows that we will be paying more and more for this bad
agreement that the Minister of Finance signed on our behalf.
[English]
The new deal between the federal government and the maritimes
will cost Quebecers and Canadians outside the maritimes $1
billion. It is a high price for Canadians to pay for a bad deal, a
political deal which maintains the GST. However, it is not the only
1914
price. After four years Canadians will continue to pay
compensation to the maritimes through equalization payments.
When the taxation base is reduced, like the Minister of Finance's
proposal, equalization payments intervene automatically.
[Translation]
Why did the Minister of Finance and the government not do with
the maritimes what they have done with Quebec since 1991, that is
to say, really harmonizing both taxes without it costing a penny to
any Canadian? Why did they approve such an agreement? Why did
they agree to take $1 billion from the pockets of taxpayers in
Quebec and Canada outside the maritimes to pay for this
agreement, which is not even a harmonization agreement, which
does not even keep the original Liberal promise to kill the GST?
Why? My question is directed to my colleague.
[English]
Mr. Campbell: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question.
He is incorrect. I did not fail to mention the matter of the
adjustment announced yesterday. It is within my comments and he
can check the reference in Hansard. To suggest otherwise is
incorrect.
It is not a case of buying harmonization. It is a case of providing
adjustment assistance, as as has been done on a number of
occasions. I mentioned similar situations in the west. I need only
mention the maritime freight rates, which have also benefited
Quebec.
Underlying the suggestion that the taxpayers of one region
should not help another region would clearly undermine a number
of things that benefit Quebec.
With respect to equalization, I look forward to the day, vis-à-vis
Quebec or the maritimes, when we see reduced equalization
payments. One of the things that will be accomplished through this
harmonization-
Mr. Silye: Why not give Quebec a tax cut?
Mr. Campbell: -which is real harmonization, no matter what
the member says it is not something else, will be a more prosperous
maritimes. That I am sure is something that the member opposite
would like to see, as would every one of us.
As for Quebec, it simply would not qualify under this formula,
nor would Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 5.30
p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
1914
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.) moved that Bill C-219, an act to amend
the Canada Labour Code (severance pay), be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour and pleasure to speak
on my private member's Bill C-219.
The purpose of this bill is to remove from Part III of the Canada
Labour Code that portion of section 235 which denies severance
pay to employees who at the time they are terminated from
employment are entitled to a pension under certain pension plans or
legislation. Passage of this bill would end an injustice and would
end the age discrimination which is now enshrined in the Canada
Labour Code.
The Canada Labour Code governs the employment of 700,000
people in federally regulated industries, including transportation,
telecommunications, grain handling and banking.
With the current wave of rationalizations, thousands of these
workers are facing layoffs. Older workers are particularly
vulnerable and workers entitled to a pension, even with reduced
benefits based on early retirement, even reduced CPP benefits, are
not eligible for any severance packages that their younger
co-workers might receive.
Subsection 235.2(b), which this bill would rescind states:
An employer shall be deemed not to have terminated the employment of an
employee where, either immediately on ceasing to be employed by the
employer or before that time, the employee is entitled to a pension, under a
pension plan contributed to by the employer-
In practice this means that if a company is laying off workers, it
is not obliged to pay severance to older workers who are entitled to
early withdrawal of pension benefits, even though they may be
severely penalized for taking benefits before the normal
pensionable age.
My interest in this subject arose from the misfortune of one of
my constituents, Mr. Abe Peters of Swift Current, Saskatchewan, a
28-year employee of the now defunct trucking company,
Motorways Limited. He was laid off along with hundreds of others
on December 3, 1993. He was 58 years old at the time.
Employees were notified that they would receive the
magnificent sum of two days' severance pay for each year of
service. Someone should tell the Ontario public service workers
about life in the real, cold hard world of federally regulated
industries. In Mr. Peters' case, the severance package would have
been $6,872.32.
1915
Unfortunately, a second notice was delivered by way of the
teamster's union to all employees aged 55 or over, advising that
they would not be eligible for even that pittance because they were
entitled to a pension under the Prairie Teamster's pension plan. A
total of 240 employees were excluded from severance pay. The
great majority had never expressed any desire to retire and few, if
any of them, will ever be able to find work at their age within their
field of occupation.
Mr. Peters and others vigorously protested their exclusion, first
to the Great Lakes regional office of Labour Canada. The assigned
inspector ruled that on the basis of subsection 235.2(b), their
complaint against Motorways was unfounded because the hands of
the bureaucrats were tied by the code.
An appeal was then filed on behalf of 133 of the plaintiffs and in
January 1995, more than a year after the layoffs, Jack Chapman,
QC, of Winnipeg was appointed referee. Mr. Chapman's 21-page
judgment rendered on August 31, 1995 hinged on the premise that
laid-off employees need not actively seek or apply for reduced
pension benefits in order to be deemed eligible.
(1735)
He did not explore, and was not asked to rule on, the issue of
whether or not section 235 constitutes age discrimination under the
charter. Mr. Chapman ruled:
There is absolutely no question that the primary legislation of concern to
section 235(1) and (2) of division 11 of part III of the Canada Labour Code.
The scheme of this legislation is to provide for termination pay for employees
who have completed 12 consecutive months of service. The legislation specifies
the amount to be paid on termination.
Subsection 2(b) provides that an employer is not deemed to have terminated
the employment of an employee where the employee is entitled to a pension.
The purpose of the legislation appears to be to prevent an individual from
receiving a double benefit, severance pay and a pension. The text of the
legislation is simply whether the appellants were entitled to receive a pension.
They were. Accordingly I confirm the decisions of the inspector and dismiss the
appeal.
After losing his appeal Mr. Peters took a reduced pension at age
60. He lives on $487 a month and he feels cheated out of the
$6,872.32 that he would have received had he been three years and
some months younger. While it is too late to help him, I propose
that other workers be protected in the future by passing Bill C-219.
Under the Canada Labour Code severance pay is a statutory
right. Pensions on the other hand are a negotiated benefit paid for
by the contributions of employers or workers or both. The two
programs serve different needs and they have absolutely nothing to
do with each other. They should not be traded off one for the other,
nor should the two be considered a double benefit. It is a patently
unfair situation.
Former Motorways employees under age 55 received severance
pay and their accrued pension benefits were protected, while those
55 or over received neither their severance nor their full pension. If
anyone received a double benefit, and I would vigorously argue
that nobody did, it would have been the younger workers who were
able to receive severance pay and have their pensions vested. They
had the option of leaving their pension funds in the plan or rolling
them into RRSPs, a course of action which was not open to anyone
over 55.
Older workers deserve the protection of the Canada Labour
Code. Bill C-219 would replace section 235 with a simple clause
that explains the circumstances deemed to be termination of
employment.
It would also add a clause to section 236 which would explicitly
make it clear that entitlement to a pension cannot be used as an
excuse to deny an employee severance pay.
All over Canada statutes and regulations have been or are being
changed to conform with the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Age discrimination is no longer acceptable. Denial of a
statutory right to someone purely on the basis of pension eligibility
is in my opinion to deny it on the basis of age. Statutory rights are
rights.
There are two issues here. The principal issue is that it is unjust
and makes no sense to deprive an employee of severance pay just
because he or she is entitled to a pension or some small portion of a
pension bought and paid for by contributions unrelated to the
severance package.
The second issue is whether people 55 years of age or older are
of less value or are entitled to less legal protection than people age
54 years and 364 days. These two very important issues deserve to
be fully debated in committee and in this House. I hope that such
debate will ultimately lead to the passage of Bill C-219.
(1740 )
There are no Reform, Liberal, Bloc or NDP fingerprints on Bill
C-219. It is a non-partisan, housekeeping measure to bring the
Canada Labour Code up to date and to protect thousands of older
workers who face layoffs as downsizing continues in the federally
regulated industries.
Therefore at this time I beg the unanimous consent of the House
to make Bill C-219 votable and have it sent to committee at the end
of this debate.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There is not
unanimous consent.
1916
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): If the hon.
member wishes to continue debate he still has time.
Mr. Morrison: I will continue very briefly, in view of the
refusal of some hon. members opposite to even consider having
this bill debated. I did not at this time expect it to pass. I am really
quite astonished that any government calling itself Liberal would
oppose the protection of workers or oppose the effectiveness of the
charter of rights of freedoms.
Hon. members opposite are all fully protected by their gold
plated MP pension plans which ordinary working people governed
by the Canada Labour Code cannot count on. I find this
reprehensible. With that, I will end my remarks.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will attempt to assure the hon.
member that I am not totally opposed to his bill. However, I have
some things I want to say tonight. I congratulate him for bringing
forward this bill.
So that all hon. members are clear on what this legislation
proposes, I will begin by expressing my understanding of this bill.
In essence, the hon. member is asking that the House of Commons
amend the Canada Labour Code to provide employees, who at the
time they are laid off from their job and are entitled to a pension
under a duly registered pension plan, would have the right to
severance pay.
[Translation]
This request seems reasonable enough. However, as with many
other things in life, the member's proposal is not as simple as it
would appear.
[English]
To begin with, passage and implementation of the bill would
alter the legal notion of severance pay by introducing elements of a
deferred wage. It is not advisable to undertake the changes of this
nature without full consultation with those who are affected.
For clarification, the hon. member is asking that the House
replace section 235(2) of the Canada Labour Code with the
following:
For the purposes of this division, except where otherwise provided by
regulation, an employer shall be deemed to have terminated the employment of
a employee, when the employer lays off that employee.
Section 235(2)(b) of the code already contains a similar
provision that considers employees who are entitled to a pension
when they are laid off not to have been terminated.
As well, section 236 of the code deals with the power of the
governor in council to make regulations with regard to severance
pay. The hon. member is requesting that the House amend section
236. Besides replacing a portion of the section, he is asking the
House to add a subsection that would read: ``Notwithstanding
paragraph 1(a), where an employer lays off an employee who
immediately, on being laid off, or before that time is entitled to a
pension under a pension plan, contributed to by the employer that is
registered pursuant to'' and then the section names the various
plans. It concludes with: ``The entitlement to such a pension shall
not be prescribed under paragraph (1)(a) as circumstances in which
the layoff of the employee shall not be deemed to be a termination
of the employee's employment by the employee's employer''.
(1745)
[Translation]
I have explained in detail the amendment proposed by the
member because I think it important that my colleagues in the
House understand fully the consequences.
[English]
The problem is that including this provision in this section does
not make sense. The reason is it would result in confusion as to
whether or not the provision constitutes an exception per se or
whether or not it provides the enabling power to adopt the
regulation to make that exception.
At present under the Canada Labour Code, severance pay is
considered to be compensation for long and loyal service by an
employee. It becomes payable to the employee if termination is
initiated by the employer and is due to reasons other than just
cause.
Furthermore there is nothing in the way this concept is currently
presented in the code that could be construed to mean that
severance pay is tantamount to a deferred wage. In fact, the main
purpose of having a provision requiring an employer to pay
severance to an employee is to ensure that employers share in the
social costs of labour adjustment. There are numerous
circumstances where this provision is of great assistance. It can go
a long way in helping the employer's former employees when it
comes to financially bridging the gap between jobs.
I am not questioning in any way the hon. member's good
intentions in presenting this legislation to the House. I am positive
the hon. member perceives an injustice and believes that elected
officials of the Parliament of Canada should address it. However,
as I have attempted to explain, the matter is more complex than it
might appear on the surface.
Labour standards and labour relations have many facets and
must always be looked at as part of the whole picture. For anyone
who thinks otherwise, I would suggest that they read ``Seeking a
Balance'', the recently published review of part I of the Canada
Labour Code. To illustrate my point I would like to quote from the
report of the task force which carried out the review. Of course part
I of the code is concerned with labour relations. While not specific
1917
to the proposal in the hon. member's bill, the concerns are similar
and most certainly related.
Under the heading ``The Limits of Legislative Reform'' the task
force said: ``Legislation cannot fix every problem. Neither the
Canada Labour Code nor the Canada Labour Relations Board can
solve every labour-management situation. The parties themselves
must do that. The Canada Labour Code leaves the parties,
employers and employees acting through their unions, responsible
for the quality and much of the content of their day to day working
relationships. They can act co-operatively to solve problems or
they can be confrontational. They can ignore their position in the
economy or they can work together to meet their competition and
thrive. They can pay attention to social issues that are important to
workers or they can suffer the long term consequences of avoiding
them''.
In conclusion, the hon. member's bill has merit but the issue
should be looked at in consultation with the affected employer and
employee organizations. It should be examined in a comprehensive
fashion, taking into account the broader issues associated with the
right to severance pay.
The labour program of Human Resources Development Canada
is currently reviewing part III of the Canada Labour Code, the part
that deals with severance pay. I assure the hon. member that the
matter he raises in his bill will be examined along with other issues
concerning termination and entitlement to severance pay.
I thank the hon. member for putting forth this bill, but I must ask
him to be patient. In the light of the current review of the Canada
Labour Code, it is inappropriate at this time to support this bill.
Consequently I urge all hon. members not to support the bill.
(1750)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I find it regrettable to say the least that the government did
not agree to hold a vote, and I want to say that if the government so
wishes, we will be pleased to oblige. Since there is already a
subcommittee on labour, it would be very easy to look at the hon.
member's bill and to give it the attention that it deserves.
Madam Speaker, I do not forget that I must look at you when I
address the Chair, as is our rule.
I want to thank the hon. member and remind him that we have all
met, in our offices, with workers who had been laid off. If we
represent a riding located in a large Canadian city, particularly a
city that has undergone an intense industrialization process, we are
all the more likely to find ourselves in the situation described by
the hon. member and to meet with workers experiencing a loss of
qualification process that is often related to age.
The hon. member clearly showed the existence of a two tier
system which discriminates against those who are losing their
qualifications in the labour market, and also against those who
must pay, since these people are entitled to a public or private
pension.
We are talking here about an amendment to Part III of the Labour
Code. The Canada Labour Code is made up of three parts. The first
one deals with grievances and the whole issue of collective
bargaining and collective agreements. The second part deals with
occupational health and safety. The third part is the equivalent of a
minimum employment standards act and lists, among others, the
obligations relating to severance pay.
The Canada Labour Code is an important tool which concerns
about 15 per cent of the labour force, including all those who work
in banks, interprovincial transportation, hauling, or any of the areas
that come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government.
The third part of the Labour Code is important because it deals
with employees' rights, employers' obligations, hours of work,
minimum wages, equal wages, annual vacations, general holidays,
maternity leave, severance pay, unjust dismissal and the recovery
of unpaid salaries.
The Minister of Labour recently asked a task force chaired by the
Mr. Sim, which produced the Sim report, to determine what
amendments should be made to the Labour Code. It is agreed that,
in its present form, the Labour Code is not adequate to meet the
major challenges of the labour market.
Again, it would have been very appropriate, in my view, to
support the hon. member's bill, since we have reached the point
where the Labour Code must be reviewed.
I find it unfortunate that party politics prevent us from
considering a bill based on its merit. There is no doubt that, beyond
any partisan consideration-you know how much I have disagreed
with what the Reformers have said in the past-the fact remains
that the bill before us today is relevant, in that it will help workers,
and older workers in particular. The government's partisan motives
are unfortunate.
What are we dealing with? We are dealing with the requirement,
under section 236 of the Canada Labour Code, which is quite clear
and specific, to pay an employee whose employment is terminated
severance pay. Provided the employee has completed twelve of
employment with the same business or establishment, the
employer is required to pay the employee either two days wages at
the employee's regular rate of wages for his regular hours of work
in respect of each completed year of employment or five days
wages
1918
at the employee's regular rate of wages for his regular hours of
work.
This is an explicit provision and it is clear that, in a context of
globalization, in which the labour market is changing rapidly and
the use of technology is growing, with machines gradually taking
the place of workers, loss of qualification and thus layoff are not
unusual.
(1755)
Except that, in the case of a layoff, the employer is not required
by law to give severance pay even if the employees being laid off
are entitled to a public or private pension. Given that this provision
applies to pensions under the Pension Benefits Standards Act,
1985, the Old Age Security Act, including the guaranteed income
supplement and spouse's allowance, as well as retirement pensions
under the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan, what
the hon. member is suggesting is that we put an end to an unfair,
discriminatory and all too common practice.
It is important to understand what our colleague went through.
He received a worker with 28 years of service who was laid off by
an established business in his riding, a capital and labour intensive
business. This is not an exceptional situation. Government
members who refused their consent to their colleague should bear
in mind that it could have been their own brother or father.
It could be my father. He has been working in the same textile
factory for 30 years. He is 58 years old and works in a vulnerable
sector. Given the changes the textile sector is experiencing, my
father may well be laid off some day, despite being an honest
worker and valued employee. If our parents, our friends who are a
little older are employed by a company working in any sector
subject to the federal code, they may be laid off and deprived of
severance pay.
I think it is very important to remind the House that severance
pay is earned; it is not a privilege. It is a right linked to seniority, to
services rendered. It is not optional.
Not only must the Labour Code be reviewed and improved as
proposed by the hon. member from the Reform Party, but we as
parliamentarians must reflect on this some day. The Labour Code
must be tightened. What is needed is legislation on plant closings
and layoffs, as there is in Ontario and other provinces across
Canada.
There are some regions in the country where it costs a business
almost nothing to lay off workers. This is what is unacceptable in a
system such as ours.
All this is to tell you that it would have been preferable for the
government not to indulge in party politics, to recognize that we all
have older workers in our ridings, that this provision in the Labour
Code is outdated, that it is a provision that does not respect
workers. Without wishing to offend my friend in the Reform Party,
I would go even further. This is a bill that could have been tabled
by the NDP. It is a bill tabled by an MP who cares about workers,
who respects people who, in the environment of large and small
businesses, are experiencing situations of discrimination.
Once again, I repeat, this is an ideal time to approve this sort of
proposal, because we are going to be making commitments in the
wake of the Sims report. And the parliamentary secretary knows
very well that the labour minister is now conducting consultations,
that he is going to visit five major cities across Canada, and that a
subcommittee on labour has already been created. It would have
been a simple matter for this subcommittee to receive the bill, to
hear witnesses, and to move very, very rapidly to recognize the
relevance of the bill that has been introduced.
With my time running out, and my energy with it, because it is
already 6 o'clock, I ask you again if you would seek the unanimous
consent of this House, in light of the information I have provided,
to have this bill deemed votable and sent to a committee. I ask the
parliamentary secretary, in all humility and kindness, to give his
consent, because it is a bill that will serve workers.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I believe
the question had been put earlier that the bill be made votable. It
was refused and it has been refused again.
Looking at the subject matter, severance pay, and knowing the
bill has some very positive features, maybe it would be permissible
to refer the subject matter to committee. The committee would then
determine if there is an injustice in this regard, which there seems
to be, and could look at it in a positive way. Then the member could
make his presentation to the committee.
I believe the question of making the bill votable has already been
put twice and it has been turned down. I think a more positive
approach might be to refer the subject matter to committee. That
might receive unanimous support.
Mr. Morrison: Madam Speaker, will you rule on the request for
unanimous consent to send the subject matter to committee?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): My
understanding is that the parliamentary secretary made a
suggestion to the hon. member. Therefore there is no formal
proposal before the House.
Resuming debate.
1919
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to follow up on some of the points made by my
colleague, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia.
With Bill C-219 the hon. member is trying to remove a clause in
the Canada Labour Code which clearly discriminates against
employees under federal jurisdiction on the basis of age. What we
are talking about is clearly a matter of fairness.
My colleague has already pointed out that section 235 of the
labour code allows a company to deny a terminated employee the
severance pay which would normally be due him or her if that
employee were not entitled to early withdrawal of a pension plan.
Let me read the exact words as they appear in section 235:
An employer shall be deemed not to have terminated the employment of an
employee where, either immediately on ceasing to be employed by the
employer or before that time, the employee is entitled to a pension under a
pension plan contributed to by the employer.
Section 235 does not say the terminated employee actually has to
apply for the early withdrawal of his pension, he only has to be
entitled to do so. The terminated worker may have every intention
of looking for another job and may not want to take a cut in the
pension which early retirement would entail.
Most pension plans in Canada, 87 per cent, entitle an employee
to early withdrawal of pension benefits at age 55.
(1805 )
In most cases under federal jurisdiction the age 55 is when an
employer is legally entitled to terminate a person while saying:
``Forget the severance pay. Forget the termination pay in lieu of
sufficient notice and forget the gold watch for that matter''.
I have to admit I am feeling a little bit uncomfortable right now,
as 55 is not that far off in my case. I am just getting started in my
view. I am not ready to be put out to pasture and I do not think
many other 55-year-olds are for that matter.
Just because a plan states you can retire if you want to does not
mean you are actually ready to throw in the towel. You might still
have an awful lot to offer. I submit that most people do, even past
65 in many instances. I would guess most members of the House
would agree with me on that issue. Some of us have just figured out
how to get the best seating plan to get the camera angle, and so I
would not want to have an early retirement at this stage.
Any employer in Canada can terminate an employee whenever
he or she feels like it. There is no legislation that guarantees anyone
the right to work. What an employer is required to do is give the
employee a reasonable notice of termination of employment.
Failing that, the employer is required to make a payment equal to
what the employee would have earned had he worked for that
notice period. This is referred to as pay in lieu of notice or
termination pay. The employer is also required to pay any money,
such as vacation pay, owed to the employee at the time of
termination.
The federal jurisdiction of the Government of Canada and the
province of Ontario are the only two jurisdictions in Canada that
have a statutory provision for severance pay in addition to notice of
termination requirements.
Ontario requires that employer, upon termination, give an
employee one regular week's wages for each year of employment
to a maximum of 26 weeks. Some may argue that is pretty
generous. Perhaps that was put in by an NDP government in
Ontario. In theory, if an employee earns wages of $1,000 per week
that employee will be entitled to 26 weeks of severance pay,
$26,000.
The severance pay provisions in a federal jurisdiction are not
quite as rich as that. The employer must pay two days for each year
worked or five days' wages, whichever is larger. The federal
severance provision is less than half of what it is in Ontario.
However, it begs the question who might be affected by this
draconian legislation? There are some 700,000 people in this
category who are affected by the Canada Labour Code. These
people work in the banking industry, telecommunications,
transportation, grain handling, ports and broadcasting. We know
full well that because of our changing environment in terms of how
long people are employed at different jobs this will become a major
factor down the road.
Some of these sectors, like many others in the economy, will be
looking for considerable downsizing over the coming periods. That
is fine. That happens. Companies need the flexibility to increase or
contract a number of employees according to individual situations
or as technology develops.
Private member's Bill C-219, by removing section 235 from the
Canada Labour Code, will ensure all terminated employees in those
sectors are treated equally. Employers will not be able to terminate
older employees just because it is cheaper to do so. Whether a
worker is 55 years old plus a few months or 55 years old minus a
few months will not make a difference.
What we want is equality. The Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms states that every individual is equal before the law and
has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law
without discrimination. This means government rules, regulations
and programs must not discriminate or cause others to discriminate
on the basis of individual characteristics such as age.
Section 235 of the Canada Labour Code is an anomaly which
allows, in fact enforces, companies to discriminate on the basis of
age. Age should be a factor here at all. I am sure members on the
other side of the House will agree that section 235 is completely
unfair. I have difficulty understanding why unanimous consent
would not be given to allow this to be a votable motion. However, I
hope some compromise can be reached such as what has been
1920
suggested. This is an unfair section which needs to be reviewed and
removed from the Canada Labour Code.
(1810)
Any terminated employee entitled to a pension should also be
entitled to receive severance and termination pay just like his or her
younger co-workers or the younger former co-worker, as this case
would suggest.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak in complete and full support of Bill C-219, an act
to amend the Canada Labour Code, severance pay, put forward by
the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.
I applaud the member for bringing this matter forward. As he has
already mentioned, the bill is a direct result of his responding to his
constituents, the purpose of private members' business. This is a
non-partisan hour.
I have presented and debated many private members' bills in the
House of Commons, some successful and others not. It is an
important part of our work as representatives of the people. This
bill is an important step forward in amending the Canada Labour
Code which, at first glance at section 235, is full of age
discrimination.
The Canada Labour Code, which should be leading the way in
terms of work and labour force, is the only piece of legislation in
the country that denies severance or termination pay based on an
employee's eligibility for a pension. This is an inequity that must
be addressed, and Bill C-219 does that.
Company pension plans, RRSPs and the Canada pension plan are
all part of retirement. They are becoming increasingly important in
the tough times ahead. According to Statistics Canada, 65 is the
normal retirement age and 55 is when most people are eligible for
early retirement.
As well, a reduced pension is the norm for early retirement. Even
if an employee is not a member of a company sponsored registered
retirement plan, severance could be denied at age 60 because they
could receive Canada pension.
Some will say section 235 is there to disallow a double benefit,
but comparing severance to pension is like comparing soya beans
and apples. It is not a double benefit in my opinion. Supposedly the
charter of rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom from
discrimination based on age.
As we all know, demographically the population is getting older.
Employers aged 55 and older could be targeted for layoffs to save
companies money.
Bill C-219 comes at an important time. Termination of
employment is now of considerable magnitude, especially when
the economy is not as buoyant as it could be. Basically, an
employer can terminate an employee whenever he or she feels like
it. There is nothing in Canada that guarantees anyone the right to
work.
What an employer is required to do is provide the employee with
a reasonable notice of termination or payment equal to what the
employee would have earned had they worked for the notice
period, referred to as either pay in lieu of notice or termination pay,
and any other money such as vacation pay which is owed to the
employee at the time of termination.
The federal jurisdiction and Ontario are the only two in Canada
that make statutory provisions for severance pay in addition to
notice of termination requirements. Therefore in all other
jurisdictions an employer may terminate an employee's service
forthwith if the employer pays the employee an amount equal to the
wages the employee would have earned in regular work hours for
the period required by the notice provisions.
The purpose of Bill C-219 is to remove from part III of the
Canada Labour Code section 235, which denies severance pay to
employees. Passage of this bill would end an injustice and would
end the age discrimination which is enshrined in the Canada
Labour Code.
(1815)
I have had similar situations with constituents in the past who
offered the examples cited by workers in the riding of Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.
As the hon. member has outlined very clearly, in 1993
Motorways Limited, an interprovincial trucking firm, closed its
Canada-wide operation. Employees under the age of 55 on the
closing date received two days severance pay for each year of
service. However employees who were 55 years of age or over did
not, regardless of their years of service. This to me was a flagrant
injustice to people who had worked hard. Motorways was allowed
to deny its former employees age 55 or older their severance
because part III of the labour code, section 235(b) states:
An employer shall be deemed not to have terminated the employment of an
employee, where, either immediately on ceasing to be employed by the
employer, or before that time, the employee is entitled to a pension under a
pension plan contributed to by the employer-
In practice this means very clearly that if a company is laying off
workers it is not obligated to pay severance to those who are 55
years of age or older because those employees are entitled to early
withdrawal of pension benefits even though they could be severely
penalized for taking benefits before age 65.
1921
The employees of Motorways filed appeals under the Canada
Labour Code. In September 1995 the appointed appeals referee
cited section 235 and ruled in favour of the company. He stated:
The purpose of this legislation appears to be to prevent an individual from
receiving a double benefit; that is, severance pay and a pension. The text of the
legislation is simply whether the appellants were entitled to receive a pension.
They were. Accordingly, I confirm the decisions of the inspector and dismiss the
appeals.
After losing the appeal, the hon. member's constituent took his
pension at age 60, which meant a 5 per cent reduction. He gets $487
a month and he feels cheated out of the $6,872.32 he would have
received had he been three years younger. We must make sure that
this injustice does not happen again.
During the appeal process, the decision to deny stated that a
pension and severance pay are double benefits. This is a misnomer.
Severance and termination pay are a statutory benefit. The details
are regulated by law for all employers within a specified
jurisdiction. Hon. members will be aware that a pension is a
negotiated benefit. The details are part of an overall benefits
package and can vary widely from industry to industry, employer to
employer and even job to job.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Would the
hon. member please conclude his remarks.
Mr. Crawford: Madam Speaker, in conclusion I fully support
Bill C-219. Older workers deserve protection from the Canada
Labour Code which is why I am pleased to advocate this bill. It
would replace section 235 with a simple clause outlining the
reasons deemed to be termination of employment. I urge all
members to support it.
At this time I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent
that Bill C-219 be withdrawn, the order for second reading be
discharged and that the subject matter be referred to the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Does the hon.
member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1820 )
[English]
Mr. Proud: Madam Speaker, I would certainly welcome this. As
we review the Canada Labour Code we certainly will take a look at
this very worthwhile subject matter.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We have
unanimous consent to have the subject matter referred to a
committee.
(Bill withdrawn, and subject matter thereof referred to a
committee.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I now ask the
consent of the House to take a brief recess in order to prepare for
the adjournment debate at 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to request
unanimous consent, I believe that we would be prepared to go still
further than you suggest and declare it to be 6:30 p.m., because
those who will be speaking in the adjournment debate are,
apparently, already prepared.
_____________________________________________
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, last week when I rose in my place to ask a
question about the future of Canada's national parks and historic
sites, I was very concerned about what the Liberal government
seemed to be doing. I was aware that the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, the minister responsible for the national parks and
historic sites system, was about to implement a plan developed by
the bean counters in Treasury Board called the employee takeover
program.
I was convinced that anyone who had had any experience in our
national parks or at our national historic sites would never have
agreed to proceed with this foolhardy program which called for
one-half of the existing staff of Parks Canada to either quit their
jobs or wait to be fired and then if they wanted, to form a business
company, come back and bid on the contracts which would be let
out on their old jobs.
There are of course numerous problems with this proposal, not
the least of which is the threat this privatization makes to the entire
parks and national historic sites system throughout Canada.
This scheme came to our attention during committee study of the
government's spending estimates. There the members of the
committee learned that the Department of Canadian Heritage
wanted to reduce its workforce to 2,000 employees from 4,000 and
remove roughly 24 per cent of its budget. The employee takeover
plan was the scheme to achieve both goals.
Obviously people who worked in the parks system knew that this
24 per cent saving, or roughly $98 million over four years, was
going to come at their expense. When they looked at the services
they were providing to the public, they justifiably pointed out that
the system would also result in lost services to the public.
1922
Since then the dedicated people who work for Parks Canada have
reviewed what little information is available to them. Almost
unanimously from all parts of Canada they have reacted very
negatively to the minister's proposal. In addition, neighbouring
communities, their businesses and their leaders have commented
negatively on the impact such activity would have on them.
I had said previously, and my words were coming back to me
from these communities, that this scheme would result in increased
costs, reduced service, lower wages and lost jobs for hundreds of
dedicated long term employees of Parks Canada.
I had also said in a letter to the minister that similar situations
were in existence in parts of British Columbia and the United
States and except for the odd success story the overwhelming result
of these existing experiences was failure.
I was concerned that should this scheme fail, which I was sure it
would, there would be very little that could be done to correct the
mistakes and that our parks and national historic sites were much
too important to leave to chance. I asked the minister to postpone
the plan to implement this scheme as of July 1 of this year and
study much more carefully the implications of its failure.
I was pleased that the minister, who has a good understanding of
the parks system thanks to her term as Minister of the
Environment, said the program would be slowed down to look at
other options. At the same time I remain concerned that the bottom
line for the minister and the government appears to be the reduction
in spending rather than the provision of services in a section of our
economy that does not have much ability to generate its own
revenue.
I appreciate the fact that the department will take some
additional time to examine options other than the employee
takeover program, which does nothing to address the
circumstances in the parks.
I urge the minister to review the mandate of the parks system,
establish a clearly understood plan to ensure the ongoing
operational and development success of the parks and national
historic sites and to put in place the type of funding that is
necessary to secure the long term protection of our historic and
environmental heritage.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me on behalf of the Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage to respond to the
comments made by my hon. colleague, the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
The question is very timely, I am pleased to say. The Minister of
Canadian Heritage today is signing with her provincial counterpart
an agreement to create Wapusk National Park near Churchill,
Manitoba.
Members know that these are challenging times and Parks
Canada has to do its share. By 1998-99, federal funding to Parks
Canada will be reduced by $98 million. This means its
appropriation will go down to $259 million.
Parks Canada is offsetting these reductions somewhat through its
cost recovery efforts. While revenues will reach $64 million by
1998-99, they do not offset cuts of this magnitude.
Parks Canada is committed to achieving these reductions while
maintaining its core mandate to provide for the use and enjoyment
of all Canadians a system of national parks, national historic sites
and related protected areas and to manage these places in a manner
that leaves them unimpaired for future generations. Parks Canada
will continue to secure and set aside parks and sites for future
generations.
Given the economic impact of parks and sites, the government
intends to keep the parks and sites open for the enjoyment of all
Canadians and for our international visitors.
To achieve the level of reductions we are considering a number
of options. And in keeping with the direction the federal
government has adopted under program review, Parks Canada is
reducing its involvement in direct delivery of services.
One option that is now being pursued by Parks Canada is
employee takeovers. Treasury Board released a government-wide
employee takeover policy on February 22, 1996. It is an innovative
policy outlining an effective option for service delivery.
The minister has already indicated to the member and he alluded
to the fact that we are studying other options besides this one. The
minister is determined to adopt an approach or approaches which
will be best for the staff while achieving reductions and preserve
the Parks Canada mandate for all Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A motion to
adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved. This House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6:28 p.m.)