CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 28, 1996
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 31
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 34
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 37
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 38
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 40
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 40
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 41
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 42
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 42
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 42
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 42
Motion moved and agreed to 44
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 45
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 52
Consideration of motion resumed 70
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 134; Nays, 75 70
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 71
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 84
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 91
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 92
31
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 28, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our custom, 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]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on February 14, 1996 Pleasant View Junior High School
in my riding of Don Valley North held a special Canadian
citizenship week to celebrate National Citizenship Week and mark
the 25th anniversary of the school.
I salute Pleasant View Junior High on its silver anniversary and
commend the principal, staff and students in choosing the symbol
of reaffirmation of their Canadian citizenship as a meaningful way
to celebrate this significant milestone in Pleasant View's history.
Congratulations Pleasant View junior high school and happy
25th anniversary.
* * *
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday's throne speech touched on security for Canadians, yet
this government continues to add to the debt at a rate of $90 million
per day. One has to wonder how Canadians manage to sleep at
night.
My province of Alberta has been able to balance its budget and
enjoy strong economic growth. It did so by reducing spending by
14 per cent.
Just listen to this record of success: unemployment down;
production up in both 1994 and 1995; continued diversification of
its economy; and a budget surplus in 1995 with surpluses planned
from now on.
This performance demonstrates that real growth can occur as
governments get their finances in order. Believe me, Canadians
will feel a whole lot more secure once the government puts a solid
plan in place for deficit elimination and debt pay down.
Alberta has demonstrated how real long term jobs can be created
by building confidence through a balanced budget.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate Measurand Inc., a company
from my riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury that has been
awarded a contract for a research and development project in
strategic areas which will contribute to the advancement of new
and enhanced space technology in Canada. The contract is part of
the Space Technology Atlantic Initiative, a program jointly funded
by the Canadian Space Agency and New Brunswick Canada
Co-Operation Agreement on Economic Development.
Once again Fredericton is leading the way in the new economy.
Measurand will be developing a high tech sensor actuator system
that has numerous and varied space and terrestrial applications
including tele-operations, robotics, smart structures, container
level measurement and many others.
I wish Measurand the best of luck. With success stories in the
high tech industry like Measurand, Fredericton, New Brunswick is
fast becoming the silicon valley of the east.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on September 9, 1995 an article appeared in
La Presse
under the heading ``Mirabel, an airport appreciated only outside
Canada''. According to a survey of 30,000 air travellers carried out
by the International Air Transport Association, Mirabel ranked
fifth among world airports for efficiency.
According to this article, Mirabel's problems were a result of the
federal government's decision to authorize air connections directly
32
between Toronto and Europe, thus stripping Mirabel of its
exclusive status as the Canadian point of entry for transatlantic
flights.
On February 19, the new Minister of Transport blamed Quebec
separatists for the failure of Mirabel. I wish to denounce the
minister's statement on behalf of all Quebecers, especially the
people of Mirabel. This was just one more proof of how easy it is to
gratuitously blame the people of Quebec for the mistakes of one's
own government.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, after hitting
Atlantic Canada the hardest in the last two budgets, the government
proposed UI cuts near the end of the last Parliament that will tear
the heart out of Atlantic Canada.
The Atlantic Canadian economy has a seasonal nature. We want
the region's economy to grow and diversify. I also support
programs that help Atlantic Canadian workers gain the skills they
need to meet the challenges of the labour market.
Canadians across the country are worried about their jobs or the
lack thereof. They want to be able to feed, clothe and shelter their
families.
Even the premier of the province of New Brunswick said that he
believes the government's proposed reforms will merely push
people from UI to welfare.
I urge the government to reconsider. Do not put in place
measures that discriminate against seasonal workers. People
should not be punished for something they have no control over.
We should be giving people a hand up so that they can help
themselves. We do not need measures that drive more Canadians
into poverty and take away their dignity.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on February 12 Mississauga lost one of its finest citizens and early
pioneers with the passing of Sandy Scamurra.
Sandy arrived in Mississauga more than 40 years ago equipped
with the kind of work ethic, energy and generous spirit that paved
the road to a better life for so many in our community.
At Sandy's funeral more than a thousand people said goodbye to
a friend who somewhere, sometime, somehow had touched them
all and made a difference in their lives.
(1405 )
Like so many Canadians, including my own father, Sandy
Scamurra came to this country as an immigrant labourer with
nothing more than a future. He leaves us with a long trail of
achievements surrounded by family and friends who will always
remain inspired by his memory and enduring spirit.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again Windsor proves itself to be a city of
champions, a city where first place finishes are the standard.
Our new Windsor hero is Canada's figure skating champion
Jennifer Robinson. Her next accomplishment will be to represent
Canada at the world figure skating championships in Edmonton.
I know all hon. members will join me in congratulating Jennifer
on her success and in wishing her well in Edmonton.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
bring to the attention of this House that February is devoted to heart
disease. Close to 40 per cent of deaths in Quebec are related to
heart disease. Continued investment in research, prevention and
actions relating to this major cause of death is therefore of vital
importance.
Considerable progress has been made in the past forty years. The
proportion of deaths attributable to cardiovascular diseases has
dropped markedly and the downward trend continues. We are on
the right path, but we must continue our efforts.
Smoking is one of the many factors affecting cardiovascular
disease statistics. The Bloc intends to keep a very close eye on what
the Minister of Health does in relation to smoking, in order to
ensure that all steps taken are appropriate and effective. The health
of Quebecers and Canadians alike deserves nothing less.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a nation's laws should be
based on its values, goals and aspirations, not its genes. With that
observation I wish to read some excerpts from a letter to the
Western Producer by T. A. Howe of Regina.
33
The continuing tragic ethnic wars of our world attest to the folly of promoting
societies and distinctions based on ethnic heritage.
A wise and just society builds on the equality, creativity and unity of all
individuals without regard to birth or background-
Entrenching `distinct society' status based on the dominant group in a nation
or province cannot be justified (either by history or by urgency) any more than
granting or continuing special status for any historically dominant gender,
colour or creed.
* * *
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Metis people of Canada, the Metis Nation of
Saskatchewan and in particular the Metis of Batoche suffered a
great injustice in 1885 when the bell of Batoche was wrongfully
removed from a Metis church, St. Antoine de Padoue, as a trophy
of war. The bell is a symbol of Metis heritage and represents an
important period in Metis history.
Since its removal from the church in 1885, the bell has been
located first at the firehall in Millbrook and then moved to
Millbrook Legion Hall in Millbrook, Ontario. However, the bell of
Batoche disappeared from the legion hall about four and a half
years ago and the current whereabouts of the bell are unknown. As
a result, all Canadians are deprived of viewing this important
Canadian cultural artefact which is a symbol of pride and hope of
the Metis nation.
The resolution of this matter will take goodwill and a willingness
to work together on the part of the Metis people and the Millbrook
legion in order to ensure the bell's safe return to a location where
once again all Canadians will be able to see an important part of
Canada's cultural heritage.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our federal system is constantly evolving. Day after day,
our government works on increasing efficiency while reducing
operating costs. In the speech from the throne we heard yesterday,
there is a constant that runs through every aspect of the action plan
our government intends to carry out by the end of its term. At every
step, our government emphasizes co-operation and partnership.
(1410)
Our government listens to the people and will continue to work
on developing a genuine climate of co-operation with its partners in
the federation. The recent successes of Team Canada have proved
that by emphasizing co-operation and setting common objectives,
our country can continue to be the envy of the nations of this world.
* * *
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our record after these first two
years. Since the election we created more than half a million jobs,
and the economic growth rate of our country ranks among the
highest in the industrialized world.
The speech from the throne we heard yesterday highlighted the
three broad objectives we intend to pursue during the second half of
our mandate. They are complementary and fully reflect the tenor of
the red book. These objectives are: job creation and economic
growth, security for Canadians and modernizing the Canadian
federation to strengthen Canadian unity.
Canadians want a united, prosperous and secure country for
themselves and their children. Our government fully shares these
priorities as indicated to us by the Canadian people, and we will do
everything in our power to give them the country they want.
* * *
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a number
of people on both sides of the House are saying that the Bloc
Quebecois is not fulfilling its role as the official opposition.
However, a few weeks ago, Ed Broadbent wrote in the Globe and
Mail that the strongest voice in Ottawa in defence of Canadians'
social and economic rights was that of the Bloc Quebecois. I would
like to read you the words of the Tsilhquot'in nation of British
Columbia, who so warmly welcomed me:
[English]
``Never before has the Tsilhquot'in Nation-nor, we suspect, the
other nations of Canada-been so well served by an opposition
critic-The nations indigenous to British Columbia are proud of
the work being done by the Bloc Quebecois in Ottawa-The
speculation in the press. . . that it would focus exclusively on the
affairs of Quebec has no foundation in fact''.
[Translation]
To my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, who spend so much
time and energy on work in this House and on its committees, I
would say it is not only in Quebec that your work is appreciated.
34
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today I
rise to speak in support of the private member's bill initiated by my
colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley on the subject of
increasing the mandatory sentences of those convicted of drunk
driving causing death.
Drunk driving claims hundreds of lives a year. It is responsible
for more than half of the serious motor vehicle accidents that
happen.
Canadians are furious when hearing about neighbours and loved
ones who have been injured or killed by this irresponsible
behaviour. It is time that the criminal justice system started coming
down hard on these dangerous offenders, most of whom are repeat
offenders who have not learned their lesson.
This bill asks for a seven year minimum sentence for those
convicted of killing someone while drunk behind the wheel. This
amendment will improve public safety and act as a stronger
deterrent to irresponsible members of our society.
I call on all members of this House to join me in supporting the
bill.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot
these days about the rights and responsibilities associated with
Canadian citizenship. Increasingly Canadians are being called
upon to take more responsibility for their lives, for creating their
own employment, saving for their retirement and assuming more
responsibility for their families' future.
While individual Canadians are doing just that, what about the
corporate sector assuming more responsibility for our country's
future? Corporate profits totalled a record $95.2 billion last year,
up 19 per cent from the previous corporate profit record year.
Today a newspaper headline screams: ``Bank of Montreal profit
tops all forecasts''. It is well beyond even the rosiest forecast, a
profit of $296 million, up 29.5 per cent from last year.
Mr. Speaker and members of all parties of this House, is it not
time that the banks and other profitable corporations assumed more
responsibility to get Canada and Canadians working?
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on December 14, 1995 the House of Commons declared
February as Black History Month. From the earliest period of our
history to the present, people of African origin have contributed
toward making Canada one of the most envied nations in the world.
(1415 )
Black people, both as slaves and as free men and women, gave
greatly of themselves in the development of our nation. As
fishermen and domestics in New France, soldiers and labourers in
early Nova Scotia, fur traders employed by the Hudson's Bay
Company, prairie farmers at the turn of the century, skilled
tradesmen, teachers, businessmen in pre-confederation British
Columbia, black people have brought a wealth of skills to our
country.
Canadians of African origin, both past and present, are as diverse
as settlers from Europe and Asia but have been united by a
common experience in history. With a desire to succeed in the face
of adversity and weather hardship with an undaunted spirit, the
history of black people will always be an integral part of Canada's
history.
* * *
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Shania Twain, the most recent singing sensation from
Timmins, Ontario was acclaimed best new artist at the 23rd annual
American Music Awards on January 29, 1996. She was also
nominated in the country music category for best female artist, best
album and best new country artist.
This is not the first time that Shania Twain has been honoured for
her considerable musical talents. Members will remember that on
September 18, 1995 Shania won a total of five awards at the
Canadian Country Music Awards including female vocalist and
album of the year.
Shania Twain's star is not destined to fade any time soon. All
eyes will be on Shania Twain at tonight's Grammy Awards where
Shania has four nominations, including best new artist, best
country album, best country song and country female vocalist.
I would like to congratulate Shania Twain on her success at this
year's American Music Awards and offer her this House's best
wishes tonight at the Grammys.
_____________________________________________
34
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
yesterday's throne speech, the government spoke of the next
referendum in Quebec saying, and I quote:
35
But as long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum exists, the
Government will exercise its responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted
with all the facts on the table, that the rules of the process are fair, that the
consequences are clear, and that Canadians, no matter where they live, will have
their say in the future of their country.
My question is for the Prime Minister or rather the Deputy Prime
Minister, since the Prime Minister is not here.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the next referendum
in Quebec will be held under the Quebec referendum act and thus
the rules will be those set out in Quebec legislation and not those
the Prime Minister might want to impose?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to
congratulate the hon. member on his election as Leader of the
Opposition. There are a lot of new people here today, including the
new premier of Newfoundland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we expect the
new premier of Quebec to keep his word and try to work with the
Prime Minister of Canada to expand Canada's economy, something
Quebecers and Canadians want desperately.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you will
agree that this new session is off to a strange start.
(1420)
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that the statement in the
throne speech might even mean a cross-Canada referendum on the
Quebec question. Today, however, the Deputy Prime Minister
made some adjustments saying it was not a referendum. The
minister himself backed down, saying it was not a referendum for
the moment.
Probably someone is leading this government. I would like to
know who, first, and I would also like to know who is telling the
truth. Yes or no, is the government planning a cross-Canada
referendum on the Quebec question?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate part about
the approach of the Leader of the Opposition- I assume he heard
what the mayor of Montreal had to say. When the mayor of
Montreal came here, he asked us to stop talking about the
referendum and to get to work on rebuilding the economy in
Montreal and in Quebec.
I also assume he listens to commentators in Quebec, who are
saying ``Good Speech'' and ``Ambitious Program'', in connection
with our economic recovery program. That is what Michel Vastel
said. The newspaper Le Soleil said: ``Finally, a government that
governs''. Would the people across the way be so kind as to join us
in working on the real issues: economic recovery in Montreal, in
Quebec and in Canada?
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
questioning the government on yesterday's speech from the throne.
I am questioning the government, and the whole national press
gallery has raised elements that are the point of my question. The
Deputy Prime Minister is accusing me of talking about the
referendum, when I am questioning her on what they said. They are
in some other world.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, and I would ask
her to be clear. She and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
definitely contradicted each other on the matter of the
cross-Canada referendum. Here is my question: Which one of them
is telling the truth?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction.
The government, like the mayor of Montreal, like the premier of
Quebec, is saying that we are not after a referendum, but rather
economic recovery. We are waiting for the premier of Quebec to
come forward to work hand in hand with the Government of
Canada to create jobs, which is something all Canadians, including
Quebecers, are in need of.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the mayor
of Montreal himself said we should stop talking about partitioning
Quebec. According to yesterday's throne speech, the federal
government is willing to withdraw from job training, forestry,
mining, and recreation, among other things. This is somewhat
reminiscent of the Charlottetown accord, which was rejected by
Quebecers and Canadians as a whole in 1992.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister
admit that his proposal merely recycles part of the Charlottetown
accord, which, as you may recall, was massively rejected by both
Quebec and Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that, rather than
doing something else, I will perhaps borrow from Claude Béland's
analysis, according to which there has been enough
decentralization to move forward, and Quebecers now have the
powers they need to protect themselves. For several months, we
have been asked to come up with programs. We proposed some
innovative things, some new things with an open mind. All we ask
from the opposition is some co-operation, precisely so we can go
ahead with a plan that reflects Quebecers' real powers as described
by Claude Béland.
36
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that her Prime
Minister's proposal to withdraw immediately is nothing but smoke
and mirrors, since the federal government will keep control over
program policy and impose national standards? Let her give a real
answer to this question if she can.
(1425)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we showed
how open-minded we are. For the first time, we proposed that the
federal government not spend money in areas of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the province
concerned.
We also proposed to enshrine Quebec's veto and status as a
distinct society in the Constitution.
These are specific demands that the Bloc Quebecois had made
and I hope that, for once, the Bloc will be open-minded enough to
work with us at building a better Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
yesterday's throne speech the government promised that
``Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the
future of their country''.
That is a big step forward for a government which shut out and
shut up Canadians, even its own backbenchers, during the
referendum campaign last fall.
Like most things concerning national unity, there is a great deal
of confusion in cabinet and in the whole caucus over what this
strategy actually is, and what giving Canadians a say really means.
My question is for the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime
Minister, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs wherever he is. Will Canadians have a real say in the future
of their country in a national, country-wide, binding referendum?
Yes or no?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the
member is fixating on a particular issue.
If she were listening to the people in her riding, I think she would
hear them say that the real job of the government over the next 18
months has to be getting Canadians back to work.
We have provided a blueprint for economic reform. We have
shown an openness to change. We believe that Canadians do not
want more constitutional wrangling. What they want is job
creation. That is what we have delivered with the throne speech.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Exactly, Mr.
Speaker. That is the point. Canadians want economic changes.
They want to feel safer about it. They want to know that there is
going to be a country here once the economy gets better. They want
that security.
They saw no tax relief, no tax reform in the speech from the
throne yesterday. They are demanding a real say in the future of the
country. They have ideas that are worth listening to on the
economy, on areas of personal security and safety and on areas of
national unity which seem to take up a fair bit of the throne speech.
Is the government willing to bring Canadians in at the beginning
of the unity process? Is it willing to listen to them truly? At the hind
end of it, once all the plans are on the table, will the government
say that it is giving the people the ultimate opportunity to say yes or
no? At the end are these things going to make Canadians feel more
secure? Will she commit to that, yes or no?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want Canadians
involved at the hind end. I want Canadians involved in the
beginning. I want Canadians such as those I met last week on
Signal Hill in Newfoundland who have pledged to do their bit to
bring this country together, like the Canadians I met in Winnipeg
who are fighting to keep this country together with innovation and
new ideas. We want to listen to their ideas.
We want to listen to the ideas of caucus members, like the
member from Toronto who put together a plan to bring Canadians
to see each other from coast to coast. We intend to involve
Canadians in every step of the process of nation building.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the
Deputy Prime Minister commits to having them involved in every
stage of the process, it means that the government can do nothing
less than have a national, binding referendum at the end once it gets
going.
I find this unbelievable. She talks about economic security. It is
good to talk about but the track record of the government is such
that it is not going to happen. Bringing people together is a great
idea, except the Deputy Prime Minister said just the other day that
we need to go back to the spirit of '67 and live it again.
The year 1967 was a wonderful year but we are in 1996. We are
moving toward a new century. Let us move forward, not backward.
Top down first ministers' conferences, distinct society status,
special status and vetoes simply will not fly any more.
(1430)
Why does the government insist on recycling the same Mulroney
policies and problems for national unity, for the economy, for
Katimavik-2 and all these wonderful things? When Canadians
37
rejected them, they thought once and for all in the Charlottetown
accord, why the resurrection of these policies that did not work?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I may have been in
politics for a long time but in 1967 I was not in politics. I was a
Canadian who had an opportunity to understand for the first time
the uniqueness of my country. As a high school student I went to
Expo'67. I saw the city of Montreal. I saw the francophone nature
and the spirit in the community.
If we can recapture the spirit of 1967 we will be well on the way
to building for the 21st century.
* * *
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development,
whom I congratulate on his appointment.
In recent months, a wind of protest has been blowing across the
country, even in the minister's own riding, against the so-called UI
reform, which reduces benefits, limits access and penalizes young
people, women and seasonal workers.
In light of the deep concern expressed by so many people,
including some of his own constituents, and of repeated requests
from the vast coalition, in Quebec and Canada, against this UI
reform and those who support it, notably the churches, does the
minister undertake to withdraw and review his bill to ensure that
the bill that will be tabled meet the expectations of Canadians and
Quebecers?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for
her question; indeed, it deals with a very important issue for people
from coast to coast.
We have heard time and time again that this reform hits some
people harder than others. I wish to thank my predecessor who,
before the House adjourned for the Christmas recess, had made a
commitment to ensure that those provisions that cause the most
concern, that is to say those setting the benefit amounts and the rule
regarding the number of weeks of work, are amended.
We must realize, and I hope my hon. colleague does, that the
changes that need to be made to the whole UI plan are important
and that they are supported by many people across the country.
However, I fully agree with my hon. colleague that certain
aspects should be reviewed. And because, during the past two
months, all the hon. members of this House have had the
opportunity to listen to what people are saying across the country, I
hope that, once committee work resumes, we will be able to put
our heads together to resolve these thorny issues.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the thrust
of this bill is to make cuts that will eventually amount to $2 billion.
And unless changes are made, a great many people will suffer.
Could the minister reassure the public, the men and women of
my riding and his and every other riding in Canada, the ordinary
people, by telling them today that those who have jobs and those
who wish they did can rely on a real UI system, the one they are
currently contributing to, wherever they live and regardless of their
age?
(1435)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague
and anyone who is concerned about this reform that we will be
absolutely fair and we will try to ensure that access to the UI
program always remains tied to the ability to find a job or to obtain
training.
I think that we can all agree that, try as we may to remedy the
problems facing the jobless, the bottom line is that we really should
find jobs for them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after
the Deputy Prime Minister's little speech, I thought she would be
announcing that Bobby Gimby had been appointed to cabinet.
Obviously that has not happened yet.
Since 1989 Canadians have seen their disposable incomes fall by
8.6 per cent. Leading up to the election campaign the current
government made many promises about scrapping the GST,
suggesting it was going to reverse that trend. That was what it
suggested.
However, yesterday in the throne speech it signalled that it has
absolutely no intention of scrapping the GST. I would like to know
from the finance minister why it is reneging on its promise.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what was said in the throne speech is the exact wording, the exact
spirit that was set out in the red book.
It is our intention to harmonize the taxes. Clearly it is a request
of thousands of consumers across this country and the vast majority
of small and medium size businesses. This would give us a single
tax with much more fairness and much greater ease of
administration, which is our intention.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, maybe
someone in the finance minister's position does not understand
why regular Canadians are so fearful about their economic futures.
38
Canadians want less taxes, not different taxes. I remind the finance
minister of his statement in 1990 when he said: ``I would abolish
the GST''.
Assuming the finance minister is a man of his word-I make that
assumption-I ask him again why is he breaking his promise and
not abolishing the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is the government's intention to carry through on its commitment.
That intention was very clearly set out in the throne speech
yesterday and it will do so.
On the other hand, the hon. member had promised us the Reform
Party's budget for this year and came up with five little words on a
piece of paper. When is the Reform Party going to live up to its
commitment?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question also
is directed to the new Minister of Human Resources Development.
As we know, Quebec has been asking since 1965 that it be given
full powers regarding manpower training. Yet, we learned this
week that the new human resources development minister is giving
himself three years to withdraw from this provincial area of
jurisdiction.
Why is the minister refusing to immediately give full powers to
the Quebec government, when all the stakeholders from labour and
management, the various community groups, and even provincial
Liberals in Quebec support that demand?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I apologize for any
misunderstanding which may have resulted from my discussions
with the Quebec minister responsible for this matter. I fully agree
with the hon. member that there is a consensus in Quebec regarding
the manpower issue, but there is also the commitment made by the
Prime Minister of Canada. That commitment was reflected in the
second part of the UI legislation that was before Parliament at the
time of prorogation.
All I said, and I am repeating it, is that the act and the
commitment made by the Prime Minister provided up to three
years to withdraw from this area which, we all agree, should be
transferred to the provinces.
That being said, I usually do not take longer than is necessary to
do what is required. Consequently, as soon as negotiations with
Quebec and other interested Canadian provinces are completed, I
will be pleased to give effect to the Prime Minister's commitment.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary deals with a different but somewhat related issue.
Will the minister confirm that manpower training is part of the
government's constitutional plan A and that the government is
deliberately postponing its withdrawal from that area to extol the
virtues of federalism in Quebec, at the expense of thousands of men
and women, mostly young ones, waiting to get adequate training?
(1440)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the justice minister.
Canadians demand that the government address their concerns
about personal security and they demand more than one measly
paragraph in yesterday's throne speech. The immediate repeal of
section 745 of the Criminal Code, which allows for the early
release of first degree murderers, is one demand we are hearing
from thousands of Canadians.
Will the minister respond by removing section 745 from the
Criminal Code and ensure that first degree murderers spend at least
25 years in prison?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I urge the hon. member not to take
the size of the paragraph in the throne speech as the measurement
of the importance we attach to criminal justice issues.
I would rather have the hon. member refer to the eight strong,
separate pieces of legislation that have already been produced
during this Parliament to strengthen the criminal justice system.
I would rather have the hon. member bear in mind the important
changes we brought to the sentencing process in the Criminal
Code, to strengthen and toughen the responses in the Young
Offenders Act to violent crime by young people, and to solid gun
control. Those are the measures which make a difference.
As to section 745, in Alberta a week and a half ago I met with
Darlene Boyd, whose daughter was abducted and murdered some
15 years ago. I spoke with her, as I have with so many other
survivors of victims of murder about their concerns with section
745. We have already made changes and are considering others to
make sure this section fulfils at once the interests of victims and
humanity in the justice system.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice
minister can show the people of Canada he is serious about the
things he speaks about by the simple removal of this section from
the Criminal Code, but he refuses to.
39
The prime suspects in the murder of Melanie Carpenter and
Mrs. Salter from Edmonton were out on early release. The throne
speech gave Canadians no reassurance that the early release of
violent offenders will stop.
I ask the Minister of Justice if he will introduce legislation to
eliminate immediately the statutory release of offenders which has
allowed these atrocities to take place.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that in subjects that
require certain rational analysis the hon. member resorts to a
combination of oversimplification and distortion.
No one released from prison under section 745 to date has been
implicated in a crime of personal violence. Second, the suspect in
the Melanie Carpenter case was not released under section 745, but
was on parole for other offences.
Third, we do not share the oversimplified view of the hon.
member that the answer lies in scrapping the entire provision. That
is one possible approach which we are considering. We also believe
we should look at ways to improve the section and limit it to the
exceptional cases for which it is intended so that we can achieve the
dual objectives of protecting the public, including victims, and
showing humanity in the system of justice.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Last year, the government adopted a plan to promote gender
equality. Among other things, that plan provided for a review of
policies, in terms of their impact on gender equality. As we know,
there is a major imbalance in the number of temporary and seasonal
jobs held by men and women.
Could the minister tell us about the results of the review
conducted under that plan?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon.
member is a very important one. We are trying to apply, as a result
of a lot of interest having been exhibited by individuals and groups
very interested in this question, criteria to all of the programs we
are considering as to what the impact would be in terms of equality
across not just gender lines but also different age groups.
(1445 )
It is an extremely complex question. Although significant work
has been done on it, I can only advise the hon. member that I am
looking forward to discussing the matter with colleagues from
around the world, members of the OECD countries. The capacity to
analyze the impact through a variety of programs which we have
the responsibility of administering is extremely difficult. I do not
want to suggest in any way that we are delaying what we would like
to achieve.
For example, I look forward to the parliamentary committee's
being able to give us some direction on how we can address this
extremely important question
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could
the minister inform the House of the measures which he intends to
take in the new UI reform project to finally bring into realization
his government's plan to promote gender equality?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope that when the
parliamentary committee meets again and reviews the legislation
formerly known as Bill C-111 we can show why we feel it is
essential to change certain aspects of the proposed legislation,
precisely because the impact of that legislation on some sectors and
groups was not acceptable.
Those who will closely follow this issue will realize that the
changes that we think we can make will correct, at least to some
extent, a problem which has been in existence for a long time and
which could not be solved by the bill. We intend to continue to
work so as to create a balance and treat all those who work with
fairness.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Fishermen, their associations and their communities are
concerned with increased licensing fees, the quota system and
proposals to professionalize the fishery.
Will the new minister confirm to the House and to these
concerned citizens in Carleton-Charlotte and across Atlantic
Canada that he will consult with them and consider their
recommendations when implementing new policy and not just
listen to the DFO bureaucracy?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his first question this
session in the House.
40
The fishermen in his riding and in adjacent ridings are concerned
about a number of things, including licence fees. There have been
tremendous consultations on that and many changes. The licence
fees are set for 1996 but there is some flexibility for 1997.
On the criteria for reduction to a foundation fishery, the rules
were basically agreed to in principle by the fishermen. There is
some flexibility and so we can look at that.
Concerning quotas, we will be quite happy to look at that. My
department is very sensitive to the needs of the people in the
fishing industry.
We have told them over the last three weeks that we are looking
forward to talking with them after they vacate the departmental
offices.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, according to a survey by the conference board, Canadians
are more pessimistic about their economic future than they have
ever been except during recessions. A number of red book policies
promised to restore economic prosperity and the confidence of
Canadians.
I ask the Minister of Finance why and how did they fail to work?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the policies of the government have not failed to work.
The leading indicators are up, as the hon. member, an economist,
well knows. We have reported this morning another record trade
surplus for the country and retail sales are showing an
improvement.
Perhaps the most important statistic of all is that during
December and January last we created 123,000 private sector jobs.
(1450 )
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is strange indeed that apparently Canadians do not
realize any of this. They must be stupid or something. Why would
they be so pessimistic?
Canadians are likely to become even more pessimistic when they
find out the throne speech has shifted the emphasis away from
needed deficit elimination to costly subsidies and ineffective direct
job creation programs.
Does this shift in the financial priorities of the Liberals signal a
return to traditional policies in a prebudget mode of damn the
deficit and future generations, full steam ahead, getting re-elected
at all costs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the throne speech reaffirmed the policies the government has
undertaken since it took office, the policies set out in the red book.
Those policies are a measured pace of deficit reduction that is
giving us better results than almost any other industrial country. It
is giving us the policies that will give us a framework for growth
and jobs in terms of newer technologies, in terms of support from
small and medium size business and in terms of our exports.
I am sure it was a misstep or a misquote by the hon. member. The
Canadian people are not stupid. The proof is that they have rejected
unequivocally the scorched earth policies of the Reform Party and
have accepted the balanced approach of the Liberal Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
This week it was made public on the Radio-Canada program
``Enjeux'' that, in 1992, a special Canadian forces unit simulated a
terrorist attack on the Citadel in Quebec City in order to test its
security. It would appear that, because of the excessive force used
during this exercise, a tragic outcome was avoided by only a hair's
breadth.
How can the minister explain these events, and how can he
justify the fact that the senior officers who authorized them are not
only still in the employ of the Defence department, but have even
been promoted since then?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an incident did
occur at the citadel in Quebec City on February 6, 1992. A full
military police investigation was launched and measures were
taken by the military in terms of disciplining some of the people
involved.
New evidence came to light subsequently in 1994 and the
investigation was reopened. Since there is somewhat of a
connection because of individuals involved with this incident and
the deployment to Somalia, the matter will now rest before the
Somalia commission and I should not speak any further on it.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
further to the minister's answer, would the minister confirm that
the newly appointed Brigadier-General Daigle, who was promoted
despite what occurred at the Citadel and in Somalia, has been
approached to command the new peacekeeping mission to Haiti? If
so, how can he justify such a decision?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member knows, a debate will take place later today on the question
of deployment to Haiti. It is premature to be talking about that in
terms of who would command if Canada has not even agreed in
41
principle to accept such an engagement, which will depend on the
request by the United Nations.
With respect to the individual the hon. member has maligned, a
man recently appointed as a general officer, General Daigle of
Montreal, a member of the royal Van Doos regiment, the chief of
defence staff and I have full confidence in this individual.
* * *
(1455)
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last night on
``The Fifth Estate'' Canadians saw how a big drug company
affected a decision of the health protection branch by downplaying
research on calcium channel blockers. This stinks. It seems that a
faint odour follows this minister around, however.
What will the minister do to clean up the HPB and protect
Canadians when lives are at stake?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for his question.
The allegations contained in the report are very serious. I am
sure that is the reason the hon. member is making these allegations
on the floor of the House of Commons.
I have asked my senior departmental staff to provide me with a
complete and comprehensive report with regard to the allegations.
I hope that when I provide the information to the hon. member, if
he is inaccurate in his assessment of those officials at Health
Canada he will have the courtesy to apologize.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a very similar
thing happened a few years ago with the silicone breast implant
issue. Scientific data were suppressed. Thousands of women
suffered because of that decision, and the minister knows that.
Now a similar cover-up surfaces in the HPB. The minister is
responsible. The HPB is important to the health of Canadians.
When will he clean it up?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not share the premise of the hon. member's questions.
These are serious allegations and I take them seriously. I have
asked for a comprehensive report on this matter.
The hon. member must state his case clearly. If he is inaccurate
in his assessment, will he do the honourable thing and apologize to
the officials involved?
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
In November new energy efficiency regulations were announced
which set energy efficiency standards for fluorescent and
incandescent lamps. These regulations will be extended to all
lamps imported into Canada and even those traded
interprovincially.
Can the minister shed any light on the effect these regulations
will have on Canadians and our environment?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important question.
The regulations to which she refers are an example of the kinds of
regulations that make sense.
These regulations were developed from the outset with all
stakeholders involved, in particular the lighting industry. They
make both economic and environmental sense. Those who use the
lamps will enjoy significant savings on their energy bills.
In terms of the environment, which is perhaps most important,
the use of these lamps will lead to a significant reduction in carbon
dioxide emissions. By the year 2000 the use of these lamps will
lead to the equivalent of taking one million cars off Canadian
roads.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in the throne speech the government indicated
its intention to reduce its deficit to 2 per cent of the GDP by 1998.
My question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. How does
he intend to reach that objective? By continuing to attack the
unemployed? By dumping on the most disadvantaged and on
students? By shoving our seniors over the poverty line? Or, as he
has already suggested, by adding to the burden of taxpayers already
being smothered by Revenue Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is our intention to do so by continuing the highly beneficial policies
put in place by this government, that is to say investment in
research and development, assistance to small business, export
development, all measures aimed at job creation.
As we have seen, we created 123,000 private sector jobs in
December and January, the bulk of these in the province of Quebec.
42
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if I am to understand the Minister of Finance correctly,
he has just informed us that he will continue to go after the least
well-off in order to reduce his deficit.
I would like to know just when he intends to table his new
budget.
(1500)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): At last, Mr.
Speaker. It is my intention to bring down the next budget on
Wednesday, March 6 at 4.30 p.m.
[English]
I will be bringing down the government's budget on Wednesday,
March 6, at 4.30 in the afternoon.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the throne speech the government talked about how it
hoped there will be jobs for Canadians.
In the upcoming budget the minister may be putting at risk the
viability of the mining industry by discussing tax increases,
changes to the resource allowance, that will have the effect of
raising that industry's tax rate by up to 10 per cent.
Will the minister promise the House that any changes to the
resource allowance will be revenue neutral, thereby assuring the
mining industry that it will be able to provide the jobs Canadians
are demanding?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
having just announced the date of the budget I am sure the hon.
member understands that I will wait until the budget is brought
down before giving any indication of whatever kind of measures
the government intends to bring in.
On the other hand, I can assure the hon. member the Minister of
Natural Resources takes her job very seriously. She has certainly
made her views known to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know if that is reassuring or not. What we need assurance of
from the government is that its idea of tax fairness is not to tax and
gouge everyone equally.
Since he took power, this minister has increased taxes in each of
his budgets. The resource industries need to know that this resource
allowance will be revenue neutral.
Can the minister assure the industry today that whatever changes
he makes will be revenue neutral, and that the industry can go
ahead and create the jobs Canadians want?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have already answered the hon. member's question. He knows that
I am not going to reveal the budget piecemeal, that I am not going
to answer his question today.
I really wonder why he finds it so necessary to create strawmen,
to create fears. Is he playing politics? I would find that absolutely
unspeakable behaviour.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I hope we
never see politics in the House of Commons ever again.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance indicated that he
is going to introduce his budget next Wednesday. Since he has been
consistent in setting targets for deficit reduction and for the rate of
inflation, would the minister give some consideration in the
upcoming budget to setting targets for job creation for the first time
so that we could have a goal to work toward?
Also, would he call on the corporate sector now to begin playing
its role in becoming more responsible in creating jobs and getting
Canadians back to work?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
you look at the record of job creation since the government took
office, it is close to 600,000 jobs. It really demonstrates that the
government would prefer to be judged by its actions rather than by
predictions at some far flung date.
In terms of challenging the private sector I believe the member's
point is very very well taken. In the throne speech yesterday, the
government indicated very clearly that as the Canadian people are
in the process of cleaning up the national balance sheet and as a
number of provinces are doing the same, there is no doubt the hon.
member is right. The time has come for the Canadian corporate
sector to do its share.
* * *
The Speaker: I am sure hon. members will agree with me that
the last few months have been very eventful not only for us as
members of the House of Commons but across Canada. I want to
introduce today a former colleague of ours who has returned for a
very short visit. I refer of course to the Hon. Brian Tobin, premier
of the province of Newfoundland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
43
(1505 )
The Speaker: My colleagues, before we proceed to the business
of the day I have received notice of two questions of privilege. The
first one is from the hon. member for Beaver River.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
point out something which happened today that violated my rights
and privileges as a member of Parliament.
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada states:
When any of these rights and immunities, which are known under the general
name of privileges, are disregarded or attacked by any individual or authority,
the offence is called a breach of privilege and is punishable under the law of
Parliament.
Yesterday I was handed a copy of a document entitled ``SFT
Communications Briefing Book''. There was no author. There was
no copyright, no confidential wording on it at all.
As caucus chairman, I sent my staff to Printing this morning and
ordered 60 copies of it for our caucus, for our research staff and for
the press. I got a call later in the day saying that a Mr. Simpson in
the Prime Minister's office told Printing not to reproduce or release
copies to anyone except Liberal MPs.
After caucus, I immediately called Mr. Simpson in the PMO and
asked the reason for this ridiculous action. He said that someone in
the Prime Minister's office had told Printing not to go ahead with
my request and not to release the 48 copies that had already been
run off. Mr. Simpson said that he did not know who gave the edict
to deny my rightful request, but someone would get back to me.
At 1.10 p.m., just before question period, I received a call from
Printing saying that there was a mix-up and my job would be
delivered to my office. And it was.
I had also been requested some time during the morning to
provide a copy of my ``With compliments of Deborah Grey'' slip to
be reproduced with the document. Had I wanted that on there, I
certainly would have sent it on to Printing. I did not send it down
and it went ahead.
When I make a request of Printing, I make the request hoping it
will-
The Speaker: I must tell the hon. member that I was briefed on
this matter before question period by my staff. The error that
occurred was the fault of the House staff, therefore my staff.
This has been corrected. We regret any inconvenience. We are
glad that this matter has been cleared up. I assure the hon. member
that we do not take our direction from anyone else. It was an error
on the part of the House staff.
As the spokesperson for the House staff, I apologize for it. I am
glad that it has been cleared up. I do not believe that there is any
need for a question of privilege to pursue this matter. I believe that
I have been fully briefed. I believe this is the answer. I have looked
into it. I wish to assure the member of that.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege of considerable importance. As members well
know, a prime facie question of privilege arises when the rights of
this House are transgressed, breached or usurped. What I raise is
clearly a prime facie question of privilege.
I refer the Chair to Standing Order 8:
At the commencement of every session, or from time to time as necessity may
arise, the House may appoint a Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole
and also an Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole-
(1510 )
The phrase relevant to privilege and rights of the House is ``the
House may appoint''.
A press release dated February 26 on the letterhead of the Prime
Minister's office reads: ``Prime Minister appoints''-and then the
name of the member for Madawaska-Victoria-``as Assistant
Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole''.
Standing Order 8 is clear. This appointment is the right of the
House as a whole, yet the Prime Minister has claimed the
appointment as a power of his office. I contend that the Prime
Minister has usurped and interfered with a vote of the House on this
appointment, making and declaring the appointment as a fait
accompli.
Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of
privilege I will move the appropriate motion to have it referred to
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for
deliberation.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, I think you will have recognized that this is not a
question of privilege. Perhaps the member could argue that it is a
breach of the standing orders but it would not be that either,
although it would be the relevant thing for him to have raised.
Second, this issue is presently awaiting a vote of the House.
Deliberation on it by the House has concluded and the vote will
take place later this day. Therefore I would argue that the Chair
cannot even entertain the point in question had it been raised as a
point of order which it was not. It was raised as a question of
privilege.
44
Finally, I am sure the House knows that when the Prime
Minister proposes the name of a candidate he does so on behalf
of the majority of MPs in the House of Commons, those MPs
being the supporters of the Prime Minister and the government.
In any case, the point will become moot by the end of this day
once the issue is voted on.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I understand that after this
announcement was put out there was a clarification within 24
hours. We would hope this type of thing would not cause any
inconvenience. I would rule that this is, in this case, not a question
of privilege.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like clarification from the Chair. I am not trying to challenge the
ruling here. However, I want to ask a very definite question of you,
Mr. Speaker. I would like to know about censorship of individual
members and I want to know about a breach of confidentiality.
When I send something to Printing why in heaven's name is
someone from the PMO or the Speaker's office even wondering
what is in that document?
The Speaker: I well understand that the member raises this as a
point of clarification. However, I thought I had explained the issue.
I believe it was a series of compounded errors. It is the
responsibility of the staff who answer to me. This type of thing will
not happen again. I take full responsibility. No one is going to be
able to censor what members of Parliament get or what they ask for
if that is the clarification the member wants.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, it is my duty to inform the House
that, pursuant to the provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act,
Chapter 42 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, 1st
Supplement, the Board of Internal Economy is now made up of the
following members: Mr. Gray, Windsor West, and Mr. Gagliano,
members of the Queen's Privy Council; Mr. Boudria and Mr.
Hopkins, representing the government caucus; Mr. Duceppe and
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral, representing the Bloc Quebecois caucus;
and Mr. Ringma, representing the Reform Party caucus.
44
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1515)
[English]
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table a reprinted
copy of the Standing Orders of this House dated December 1995,
which encompasses all the changes made to the Standing Orders
since September 1994 as well as a revised index.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe you would find consent for the following
motion. I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs be as follows:
Bélanger, Mauril; Boudria, Don; Catterall, Marlene; Dalphond-Guiral,
Madeleine; Frazer, Jack; Harb, Mac; Langlois, Francois; Laurin, René; Loney,
John; Milliken, Peter; Parrish, Carolyn; Ringma, Bob; Speaker, Ray; Zed, Paul.
That the associate members of the said committee be as follows:
Bertrand, Robert; Brushett, Dianne; Cummins, John; Epp, Ken; Fewchuk,
Ron; Grey, Deborah; Guimond, Michel; Hanrahan, Hugh; Harper, Stephen;
Harris, Dick; Jordan, Jim; Solomon, John; Stinson, Darrel; Tremblay, Suzanne;
Wayne, Elsie; White, Ted; Williams, John.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
point of order regarding the question raised by the hon. member for
Beaver River. I understand that you have settled the issue by saying
that it was a mistake on the part of your staff, who refused to print
the document. But the real question is this: are we to understand
that there are people at the printing shop who make it their business
to communicate to the Prime Minister's Office all the documents
that members send over to the printing shop to have them printed?
The Speaker: As I said, it is a question that I raised myself. It is
something that was done, but that will no longer be done. It was a
mistake, and it should not have happened. It is as simple as that.
You can be sure it will not happen again because I say so.
45
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
think all of us would acknowledge that this is a difficult time for
our country given the problems we have experienced with respect
to national unity, et cetera. I think all Canadians would want to
know that in the House of Commons as wide a spectrum of views
as possible generated by them through elections and the electoral
process is expressed. In view of this, I rise on a point of order to
seek the unanimous consent of the House that following the
spokespersons of the three official parties in the House in the
address in reply to the speech from the throne that a representative
of the New sDemocratic Party be allowed to speak. With a view to
increasing the representativeness of the House at this difficult time,
I think everyone should be heard.
(1520)
I ask that we be allowed to be heard after the first three speakers.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
the same point of order. In fact in the same spirit that my colleague
made his comments and in the same spirit that we heard comments
from representatives of the Reform Party yesterday on the issue of
fairness, I rise today to ask the same consent.
[Translation]
Today is the day when the leaders will have an opportunity to
reply to the speech from the throne. There was a lot said about
national unity in yesterday's speech, and you certainly know that
last November, when we-the New Democrats and the
Conservatives-tried to take part in the debate on the distinct
society resolution, we were denied unanimous consent by the
opposition parties, namely the Bloc and Reform.
Since that time, and I will be very brief here, I am happy to say
that the present leader of the Bloc Quebecois has promised publicly
on the radio in Sherbrooke to see to it that the leader of the
Conservative Party has the opportunity to speak more often in the
House of Commons. Therefore, it is in that spirit that we are now
asking the consent of the House to have an opportunity to reply
today to the speech from the throne.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as far as the government is
concerned, we would be willing to allow a twenty minute period to
each party, as was requested, for speeches. We will pleased, for our
part anyway, to accept this request.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, we stood in the House during the
last session to explain that judgments were made on this question
following the arguments put forward by NDP and Conservative
members at the time. I believe that the same judgment must be
made today. We will not give our consent, and the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois explained, or tried to explain, to the leader of the
Conservative Party that if he wanted to take part in the debate, there
was an essential condition: he had to be here more often.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the members be
permitted to put the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament I am sure that I have made
errors and staff members have made mistakes.
I want a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker. The fact that someone
makes a mistake, does that exempt it from being a breach of a
member's privilege? I would like clarification from the Chair. Is an
honest mistake or a dishonest mistake not cause or not eligible to
be a breach of privilege?
The Speaker: I have already ruled on this particular matter but I
would invite the hon. member if he would like to pursue the
conversation with me to do so in my chambers, as I would any
other members on this particular issue.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
a point of order, I would like the record to show that when a chance
came for a federalist party to be heard on the floor of this House of
Commons, given all the crocodile tears by the Reform Party, they
were silent.
(1525 )
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, speaking to
the point of order, the status in this House of any party was
determined by rules when the Reform Party came here. The hon.
members that have-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the
House leader of the New Democratic Party that I am prepared on
behalf of the Reform caucus to have discussions with him. The hon.
House leader has extended a letter to me. I intend to follow that up
and look at possible ways we can facilitate his involvement in the
House.
I would also like to say to the leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party that my leader extended an invitation to him to
discuss how he could participate in the House in a further way and
he rejected that offer. That offer was rejected so why should I open
the door today?
46
[Translation]
The House resumed from February 27 consideration of the
motion of Mrs. Sheridan for an Address to His Excellency the
Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the
session.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today will be my first speech in this House as the new
Leader of the Official Opposition. I imagine hon. members will be
interested to know where the member for Roberval will be coming
from.
Let me reassure the House, first of all, that I intend to continue
the tradition of respect and deference for the institution. Above all
else, we in the official opposition want to contribute towards
raising the level of the debate. We look forward to a debate that is
calm and respectful of the rules of this House, in the same
democratic spirit that has always characterized the Bloc Quebecois,
even when addressing its fundamental opposition to this country.
We expect and look forward to seeing the same respect and a
similar spirit among our colleagues opposite and of course among
the members of the third party.
I may add that while we will undoubtedly represent the interests
of Quebec, we also intend to promote and defend the interests of
Canada as a whole, as we have done for the past two years. We will
do this systematically, case by case. In other words, although
mindful of our roots, we are the official opposition and we
willingly accept a role that goes well beyond the party line.
Yesterday when we heard the speech from the throne read by the
Governor General of Canada, we had the distinct impression the
government does not realize something has changed profoundly in
Canada since the Quebec referendum on October 30.
Since then, the final outcome of that battle has led many
Canadians to see the sovereignty of Quebec as inevitable. The
reactions of Canadians to that event were at times diametrically
opposed to those of their leaders.
(1530)
We saw our English speaking fellow citizens getting together to
form new interest groups such as Dialogue Canada, British
Columbians for Canada, Canadians Together and Civitas Canada.
Their members meet to discuss ways to define a new Canada,
often without Quebec. The reactions of political leaders, however,
have been immature and sometimes inconsistent. Verbal overkill
and aggressive language have reached heights never equalled in the
history of a country that has enjoyed such a long tradition of
democracy. We saw ministers contradict each other, even today. We
even heard a new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs mention
the partition of Quebec as a possibility.
We saw a good example of the conciliatory approach in a recent
statement by Ovide Mercredi, the Chief of the First Nations, who in
no uncertain terms condemned the remarks of the Minister of
Indian Affairs, and I quote:
[English]
``The minister of Indian affairs does not speak for the Indian people
when he raises the spectre of violence. I take great exception to
that. He had no business to heighten the tension between us and the
people of Quebec''.
[Translation]
At the same time he launched an appeal for a dialogue with
Quebecers and the government of Quebec. That is the kind of
consistent approach this government has sadly lacked during the
past few weeks.
However, one would expect our leaders to set a premium on
wisdom and calm, especially the Prime Minister, who now seems
unable to control either his ministers or his own actions. We on this
side of the House draw some consolation from the fact that English
Canada does not resemble its leaders and has shown it understands
what is really at stake: the need for coexistence of the two peoples.
The inevitability of Quebec's sovereignty is only a first step. For
us in the Bloc Quebecois, sovereignty is as unavoidable as
partnership is desirable in the interests of Canada and Quebec. We
know that partnership implies respect for the other partner and it is
that new wisdom we would like to see demonstrated on the part of
the government.
[English]
The inevitability of Quebec's sovereignty is only a first step. For
us in the Bloc Quebecois sovereignty is as unavoidable as
partnership is desirable in the interests of Canada and Quebec. We
know that partnership implies respect for the older partner and it is
that new wisdom that we would like to see demonstrated on the part
of the government.
[Translation]
Sovereignty and partnership are both part of the same equation
and part and parcel of the strategy of the Bloc Quebecois.
Meanwhile, we have a mandate to defend the interests of Quebec
and condemn the inequities and injustices that are often its lot. We
must not forget it was the exercise of democracy that made the Bloc
Quebecois the official opposition, a status we fully intend to keep.
But what will it take for the other side of the House to start to
recognize that federalism cannot be changed?
47
[English]
What will it take for the other side of the House to start to
recognize that federalism cannot be changed?
[Translation]
Stéphane Dion said not long ago that the Massé Committee had
A and B plans to deal with the problem of Quebec. Is he not aware
of all the commissions and committees we had in the past:
Laurendeau-Dunton, Pepin-Robarts, Charest-Spicer,
Castonguay-Dobbie, Beaudoin-Dobbie, Beaudoin-Edwards? The
federalists have had as many plans as there are letters in the
alphabet. The real solution, the longlasting solution, the real plan is
sovereignty for Quebec with an offer of partnership.
(1535)
[English]
Following the referendum result, we have to wonder at the
attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada. He has knowingly kept
Canadians in ignorance of what is happening in Quebec; the
increase in the number of sovereignty supporters caused in part by
the dissatisfaction of Quebecers. With the federal government
policies this very significant phenomenon has been concealed by
the Prime Minister.
[Translation]
This refusal to explain the situation clearly to Canadians during
the referendum campaign largely explains English Canada's
reactions now.
The Prime Minister acted like nothing had happened in this
country in the past 15 years, as if he himself had not had a major
role in the course of events. He is, however, an integral part of
Canada's problem; he seems to have forgotten that. Maybe he was
not involved in the unilateral patriation of 1982. But he was one of
the signatories as we well know. Maybe he did not speak out on the
Meech Lake accord, but he was one of those who helped bury it.
Maybe he played no part in the Charlottetown referendum; except
that we know he did everything possible to reduce Quebec's share
in this agreement, which was rejected. And, while we are at it,
maybe there was no referendum in Quebec. Maybe the surveys are
not indicating that support for sovereignty continues to rise.
This irresponsible attitude coupled with the deplorable
prevarication so ably exemplified by the Minister of Canadian
Heritage in her remark to the effect that it was the fault of the
separatists that the unemployed were demonstrating all across the
country. Any unemployed individual in the Prime Minister's way
deserves to be grabbed by the throat, as are all the unemployed as
the result of the minister's reform. In any case, it is always the fault
of the separatists, and for the Deputy Prime Minister this justifies
all actions.
We can only hope that cabinet pulls itself together and returns to
an analysis of the situation that considers what is really going on.
Until Quebec becomes sovereign, we will play by the rules,
especially because it is our best interest to have our future partner
in optimum political and economic health. The fact that Canada's
economic health is of concern to us is in large measure due to the
actions of the present government, which, in 1993, made firm and
specific commitments it subsequently failed to keep for the most
part. Had it done so, our economy would have grown, but it did not.
Two years later, let us have a look at what the government did with
its own commitments, those in the red book and those in the first
throne speech.
Quebecers and Canadians thought there was hope when the
Liberals undertook in their red book to, and I quote,
``-redistribute opportunity more broadly so that many more
people have a decent standard of living and can build good lives for
themselves and their families, allowing them to live with dignity
and respect-''. Yet, with the first Liberal budget, barely a few
months after an electoral campaign waxing passionately over the
disadvantaged, our fellow citizens were blown away.
The Minister of Finance announced up front that he was going to
cut $5.6 billion from the unemployment insurance program. Last
fall, he added to that by introducing into this House Bill C-111,
commonly and cynically known as the employment insurance bill.
It too provides for major cuts in funding to those who are or could
become the victims of this scourge of underemployment.
Never once, during the electoral campaign, in the fall of 1993, or
in the speech from the throne was there any hint that the fight
against the deficit would involve humiliating those in need, who
are trying desperately to avoid abject poverty.
(1540)
Quebecers and Canadians did not suspect that, when the
government said it wanted to achieve sustained economic growth
by counting on human resources, it meant that it would, through
Bill C-111, launch an attack against the unemployed now and in the
future, as no Canadian is immune from this plague.
No one suspected that Quebecers and Canadians would face a
substantial increase in the number of weeks of work required to
qualify for benefits, that this government would drastically reduce
the level of benefits, or that it would force tens of thousands of
households onto welfare in the next three years.
This government did not make a commitment to attack women.
Yet, women are the big losers of this reform. It did not make a
commitment to rob the UI fund-to which the federal government
48
stopped contributing several years ago-of its annual $5 billion
surplus, which comes solely from worker and employer
contributions. Yet, that is what it has done.
Few people would have believed that the Liberals who solemnly
rose in this House to condemn the Tories' actions would do worse
in two years than their predecessors did over two mandates. It is
certainly not on that basis that the Liberals gained the trust of
Canadians in October 1993.
As for the commitment to keep the deficit under control through
sound management of government finances, we are far from it.
They are reducing the deficit mostly by unscrupulously using UI
fund surpluses and by cutting $7 billion from transfers to the
provinces for health, post-secondary eduction and social
assistance. In Quebec alone, these drastic cuts will translate into an
additional tax burden of $650 million in 1996-97 and a $1.2 to $2
billion shortfall in 1997-98, depending on how the cuts will be
distributed. If it is done based on the population, Quebec alone will
sustain 40 per cent of all cuts.
On October 20, 1993, during an interview on the television
program ``Canada AM'', the current Prime Minister had this to say
about transfers to the provinces, and I quote:
[English]
``We said in our platform we do not intend to reduce the transfer
payments. What I said in the program, and I intend to keep my
word, is we do not intend to cut further''.
[Translation]
In fact, budget targets are not pursued through sound
management but by cutting benefits to the unemployed and
transfers to the provinces.
The Minister of Finance's commitment is to limit debt growth.
Our debt will exceed $600 billion this year.
As far as employment is concerned, the promises made to
Canadians and Quebecers have not been kept, although the Liberals
had made it the cornerstone of their election platform. But what
really happened on the labour market, while Quebecers and
Canadians were hearing that tune ad nauseam? Decline and
stagnation.
Our economic difficulties have had serious consequences on the
employment situation. In the last 12 months, only 120,000 new
jobs have been created in Canada, almost four times less than the
year before. Not only was employment stagnant, but participation
in the labour force dropped. This situation cannot be tolerated in
the long term, because it would impoverish the entire population.
In fact, Canada's unemployment rate has not budged and, if we
take into account the reduction in the labour force participation
rate, it has even risen by half a point. It is not the federal
government but exports that drive the economy and keep it from
sinking into a recession.
(1545)
As for Montreal, the Liberal government did nothing to improve
the situation in that area and to prevent one of the worst
employment crises in its history. What did the government do to
help Montreal restructure its economy? Nothing, Mr. Speaker.
Two years after the Liberals came to power, the people of
Montreal are still waiting. In light of this neglectful attitude, is it
any wonder that the greater Montreal area, which was to be the
driving force of the Quebec economy, has the highest
unemployment rate of any major urban centre in North America, or
10.1 per cent? That is unacceptable.
Is it any wonder that the labour force participation rate has
dropped from 67 per cent to 63 per cent since 1989? This means
that four per cent of the labour force, or 40,000 people, have given
up all hope of finding a job. They do not even show up in official
unemployment statistics any more, but they remain jobless,
discouraged and underemployed, and are gradually being dragged
into the vicious circle of poverty.
If you include those who have stopped actively seeking work
since 1989 because they have given up hope, the unemployment
rate in the Montreal area actually rises from 10.1 to 15 per cent.
What is the federal government doing about that? Absolutely
nothing. This is one more promise the Liberals have broken.
What has become of the promise to eliminate the GST? We will
recall that the red book stated, on page 20, and I quote:
-the GST undermined public confidence in the fairness of the tax system.
The GST has lengthened and deepened the recession. It is costly for small
business to administer and very expensive for the government to collect.
What did this government do? Nothing. What did the
government do in 1993-94 to collect $6.6 billion in unpaid taxes?
Nothing, or almost nothing. Only $250 million was collected on
$6.6 billion in unpaid taxes. A mere $250 million amounts to
almost nothing in that case.
Also, what has become of the fairer tax system we were
promised? We will come back to it later because this is a very
important issue that needs to be discussed further.
As for culture, we would have expected such a significant vote
for a sovereignist party to bring about a more open-minded attitude
toward the people and culture of Quebec. What did the government
do about that? Nothing. The Canadian heritage legislation totally
overlooked the existence of a Quebec culture.
The Liberals promised $1 billion would be earmarked for the
science and technology policy. God knows how important it is to
invest in that area, for the future of the Canadian economy and our
49
ability to create good steady jobs. We are still waiting. Nothing has
been done.
The list goes on and, while listing all the promises this
government has not kept during the first part of its mandate is
certainly tedious, it is nevertheless necessary in order to see the
extent to which they failed to honour their commitments.
Canadians deserve to know where they stand in this regard.
The January 18, 1994, throne speech read in part, and I quote:
On October 25, 1993, Canadians chose a new Parliament and a new
government. The Government has made a number of commitments to the people
of Canada. They will be implemented.
That is what the last throne speech said, yet the list of
commitments that were not fulfilled appears endless.
How can the people of Quebec and Canada believe in the
policies and commitments set out in this speech from the throne?
How could they be expected to trust a government that trampled
most of its commitments underfoot? That was the government's
record of unfulfilled undertakings.
(1550)
Yet, some things needed to be done in the last two years. We kept
saying that, to put our fiscal house in order, a tax reform was
necessary, particularly as regards tax expenditures, which include
all the exemptions granted to individuals and businesses.
Mr. Speaker, do you know that, in a December 1993 document
on tax expenditures, the Department of Finance listed 288 tax
exemptions available to businesses? The department candidly
admitted that 176 of these exemptions cost over $17 billion, adding
that it did not know the dollar figure for the other 112 exemptions.
This is unbelievable. And what has the government done since?
Absolutely nothing.
The lack of accurate information on tax expenditures compels us
to demand that a review and a reform of the taxation system be
undertaken. In fact, we suggested that even before this
comprehensive reform the government should set a minimum tax
on corporations' profits, not to unduly increase their tax burden,
but to ensure that each and everyone of them makes a contribution
to the Treasury.
Last December, the International Monetary Fund, which is not
recognized for its social-democratic convictions, proved the Bloc
Quebecois right as regards corporate taxation. The December 8
issue of La Presse provided a summary of the IMF report, which
made a comparison between Canada and the other OECD
countries. The article read: ``Corporate taxation represents a
smaller proportion of the GDP in Canada. This leads us to believe
that it may be possible to reduce some of the tax benefits granted to
companies''.
Let me also say that, under my leadership, tax reform will be, in
1996, the official opposition's main target as regards public
finances. We do not seek to impose an unfair tax burden on
businesses. We simply want them to pay their fair share. Corporate
income tax now accounts for a smaller proportion of the federal
government's tax levy, while the contribution made by individual
taxpayers has increased.
This means that the government is overburdening the middle
classes with taxes, while also targeting the poor in order to reduce
its deficit. This does not make sense. Contrary to what was said in
yesterday's speech, this lack of compassion for the poor is, in the
case of this government, also accompanied by a tax avoidance
policy that benefits the most powerful people, this at a time when
major companies are reporting record profits and laying off people.
The government's approach, which is patterned on what is being
done abroad, protects the corporate tax system in the hope that
large corporations will create jobs. But the fact is that, while profits
are increasing, jobs are disappearing.
GM Canada reported record profits of $1.39 billion, while at the
same time laying off 2,500 employees. Total profits for the five
major banks reached $4.9 billion, but 2,800 jobs were cut. In 1995,
Bell Canada recorded profits of $502 million, but also eliminated
3,200 jobs, this in addition to the 8,000 already lost since 1990.
Petro-Canada's profits totalled $196 million in 1995, but the
company eliminated 564 jobs.
In conclusion, the time has come for the government to review
its analyses and its priorities, so as to ensure that all businesses do
their share as regards taxation and job creation. We have no choice
but to say that, in this regard, the Liberal Party's economic program
is a dismal failure.
Unfortunately, in light of yesterday's speech from the throne, the
government seems to be deliberately pursuing a tax avoidance
policy which benefits large corporations and which even condones
such practices as the use of tax havens, practices that are
questionable, to say the least.
(1555)
In the July 1995 issue of the trade journal of the Canadian
chartered accountants-not so long ago-it was recognized that
almost all of the major multinational corporations of Canada used
foreign affiliates as part of their financial strategy.
In plain language, one could say that a Canadian corporation that
operates a foreign affiliate under certain conditions can practically
get away with paying almost no tax on the profits its affiliate made
outside of Canada. However, we do have a few indicators that give
us an idea of the amount of tax revenue that can be lost this way.
The auditor general told us that, according to the most recent
statistics, Canadian companies invest billions of dollars in
non-resident corporations and that these corporations have
received
50
hundreds of millions of dollars in dividends they do not have to
report.
These tax havens, which are well known to the financial
establishment, have very nice names like Barbados, Cyprus,
Ireland, Liberia, the Caiman Islands et even Switzerland.
Tax havens have never been so popular. Here are some figures I
hope the Prime Minister and the government will take time to
consider.
According to International Privacy Corporation, a company
specializing in tax havens, it deals with hundreds of Canadian
clients. Moreover, of the 16,000 companies incorporated in Turks
and Caicos, the majority belong to Canadian interests. Hundreds
and hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested outside
Canada.
A few years back, the tax section of the Harris & Harris law firm,
in Toronto, had 30 to 40 client companies set up for tax avoidance
purposes. It now has more than 300.
Interestingly enough, of the 119 branches of the six major
Canadian banks, 57 are operating in the West Indies, in the Cayman
Islands. Over there, they have 28,000 corporations for 30,000
inhabitants. The number of companies increases by 4,000 every
year.
Under these circumstances, the Minister of Finance could have a
more balanced tax policy and go easy with cuts to the Canada
assistance plan and established program financing. He could show
some compassion, let the unemployed and the welfare recipients
breathe a little easier and go after the right targets.
In 1996, in what the United Nations call the International
Anti-Poverty Year, it is deplorable that the federal government
chooses to go after the poor instead of tackling poverty. Given the
employment crisis, this is not a good time to reduce the deficit by
cutting programs for the unemployed, especially since there is a
surplus in the unemployment insurance fund.
As for the shortage of jobs, the performance of the Liberals has
been worse than that of the Conservatives. The rates under the
Liberal government are worse than what we saw under the
Conservatives. This same Liberal government has tried in almost
every way to show its interest in the jobless and its commitment to
job creation.
[English]
At the end of 1995 the major Canadian urban centres, Montreal,
Toronto and Vancouver, had unemployment rates higher than that
of the large American cities.
[Translation]
The situation in Canada is worse than anywhere else in North
America. The deficit shovelling into the provinces' backyards,
undertaken by the Conservatives and carried on by the Liberals,
has led to an increase in welfare recipients. The number of welfare
recipients in Canada went up by 800,000 between 1990 and 1994,
an increase of 35 per cent. In Ontario, their number rose by 45 per
cent over the last five years. To make matters worse, provinces
have had to cut benefits because the federal government has
reduced its transfer payments. In 1993, the Liberal Party promised
to give Canadians the dignity of a job. Can you imagine that, Mr.
Speaker.
(1600)
What it did, really, is introduce a new poverty culture. In 1980,
16 per cent of Canadians were below the low income cut off. In
1994, 17.1 of them were, and that is more than 5 million people.
Not only is poverty not declining, but the gap between the rich and
the poor is getting wider.
There is no improvement in sight either for those most in need,
that is single parent women. In 1994, 56.4 per cent of them were
below the low income cut off, a percentage that has not fluctuated
for years.
As if things were not bad enough, Statistics Canada reported on
January 24 that poverty is a status that is hereditary. Those who are
poor have every chance of staying poor.
The feature that used to set Canada and the U.S. apart, that is our
safety net, is collapsing. More and more, in both countries, poverty
breeds poverty and wealth breeds wealth, and the middle class in
slowly but surely sinking into poverty.
The Bloc Quebecois does not oppose social program reform.
Indeed, it repeatedly reaffirmed that all social programs should be
modernized, and adjusted to our way of life, to the labour market
and to the economy of the 1990s.
The government has to acknowledge the consensus that has
emerged in Quebec that it should be the sole policy maker as far as
manpower and occupational training are concerned. This means
that Quebec must regain control and administration of employment
and manpower services. These matters should be under Quebec
jurisdiction, unconditionally. I certainly hope the federal
government will finally understand that.
That is why the official opposition asks the government to do its
homework, and not reinstate Bill C-111. We think this bill is unjust,
regressive, detrimental to jobs and a source of poverty. Let the
government drop that bill.
Instead of cutting social programs, the Minister of Finance
should turn to the national defence budget. There, he would find
plenty of savings to be made. For example, the government should
give up this idea of buying or leasing, at any price, submarines it
has never been proven we need; it should replace only a limited
number of shipborne helicopters and it should not insist on
submarine warfare capability for them. In the current state of world
affairs, it is a luxury we cannot afford. We could have saved $2
51
billion by not ordering the new armoured vehicles. That purchase
was never really justified. And what about the 1,600 new anti-tank
missiles, ordered at a cost of $23.6 million in an overall weapons
acquisition program of $230 million. These are expenditures a
government that respects its citizens could reconsider instead of
cutting benefits to the unemployed.
Instead of taking money away from the unemployed and the
welfare recipients, the government should review its strategy,
impose a moratorium on new purchases, and allow its acquisition
projects to be debated in the House so that members of Parliament
can discuss them and indicate to Canadians why the government
should stop pouring their money into projects of dubious
importance.
(1605)
In foreign affairs, the Liberal Party has, in the last two years, put
an end to the very old Canadian tradition of giving top priority to
human rights.
The new foreign policy statement ``Canada in the World''
confirms the about-face of the government which is now pursuing
only its commercial interests at the expense of promoting
democracy and human rights, as is shown by Team Canada's
commercial missions.
From now on, human rights will come after commercial
imperatives. Let me give you two examples that clearly show this
new attitude on the part of the Canadian government. While in
India, the Prime Minister was reminded by a young Canadian of the
mass exploitation if not the enslavement of children. It is
appropriate here to pay special tribute to this 13-year old Canadian,
Craig Kielburger, who, by his courageous condemnation, reminded
the Prime Minister that Canada's foreign policy used to promote
human rights.
Everybody recognizes the importance of opening our country to
international markets. Exports are the backbone of the Canadian
economy. But, even when he is doing what is best, the Prime
Minister has to turn everything into a show. During his trips abroad
with Team Canada, the Prime Minister makes sure that human
rights are well out of the spotlight and takes care to surround
himself by a huge propaganda machine that streeses the form rather
than the substance of the agreements. That is the lesson that the
young Kielburger taught the Prime Minister.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois will be the defender of the cultural
uniqueness of Quebec. In North America, Quebec's culture is
unique and must be treated as such. As communications and new
information technologies become more and more important,
Quebec's culture must take the place it deserves. Quebec must not
be kept out of the decision-making process in this area. Yet all the
powers in the area of telecommunications, which is vital to the
future of Quebec's culture, are in the hands of the federal
government.
Quebec must no longer be considered as a province just like any
other province. The Bloc Quebecois must force the federal
government to recognize Quebec's cultural uniqueness. It intends
to hound the federal government until the funds allocated to
francophone cultural institutions are readjusted to reflect the need
to protect Quebec's culture which is constantly threatened in a
mostly anglophone environment of more than 250 million people.
Right now, at the CBC, the English network receives double
what the French network receives on average for one hour of
production. This inequity is unacceptable and unjustified,
especially considering that, in 1976-77, the average hourly cost of
programming was shared equally between the two networks.
Equity must be restored.
The Bloc Quebecois must also ensure that federal decisions
relating to the information highway preserve the cultural
uniqueness of Quebec. The federal government is giving private
businesses complete freedom for defining the content of the
information highway. Yet the government has certain means at its
disposal for the development of a Canadian and a Quebec content
in the area of radio and television broadcasting. The Bloc
Quebecois must see to it that the federal government does not rob
Quebec's culture of its importance by lowering it to the level of a
Canadian subculture. Quebec's culture is the culture of a people, of
a real people.
In its speech from the throne, the federal government has finally
admitted that it has interfered, and still does, in areas under
exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In the same breath, it undertakes
to withdraw from certain areas and it even has the nerve to claim
that it will turn over these areas of jurisdiction, which are not its
own, to municipal governments or to the private sector. This is a
strange way indeed of reversing policy.
(1610)
This behaviour is in line with the federal government's historical
tendency to mess up federal-provincial relations.
Once again, the federal government is trying to isolate Quebec,
by suggesting that it could use its spending power to create new
cost-shared programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
What takes the cake is that creating new programs would only
require a simple majority of provinces.
Worst of all, the government is intimating that it might hold a
cross-Canada referendum. It must be clearly understood that
Quebecers will never let their future be settled by a Canadian
referendum.
52
In conclusion, we believe it to be essential for the House to be
presented with a plan containing the following elements. This
might provide the Prime Minister with food for thought and it
might steer him in the right direction. First of all, the federal
government must put its fiscal house in order by reducing its
expenditures and eliminating waste; re-establishing tax justice in
this country, especially with regard to big corporations;
implementing a true and moderate reform of social programs
instead of cutting them; creating jobs, especially in the high tech
sector, since Canada is the OECD country which invests the least
in this area. This is incredible. Should the government be
reminded that grey matter is this country's main resource?
Consequently, we want to move the following amendment to the
throne speech. I move, seconded by my colleague, the House leader
and member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie:
That, the following words be added to the Address: This House deplores that
Your Excellency's advisers have demonstrated a lack of vision in the face of the
fundamental issues confronting Quebec and Canada, such as job creation, better
administration of public funds, the re-establishment of fiscal justice for all, the
recognition of Montreal as the economic hub of Quebec society, the need to
protect Quebec culture;
And show a lack of sensitivity toward the poor by proposing a reform of the
social programs that strikes at those who are unemployed or on welfare, as well
as seniors and students;
And show a total lack of understanding of the referendum results.
(1615)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the member for
Roberval on his appointment as the Leader of the Opposition.
I must tell you that, in my student days at the Séminaire de
Joliette, the students from Roberval and Saint-Félicien who had
been requested to leave the Collège de Chicoutimi for being
somewhat over-exuberant transferred to Joliette, and I became very
good friends with some of them. In those days I would never have
believed for a minute that one day I would be sitting in this House,
as Prime Minister, across the way from a leader of the opposition
from Roberval, almost next door to my riding. I felt I must make
particular mention of this coincidence, and I offer the traditional
wish of good luck to the Leader of the Opposition-not too much,
but just enough to make the debates interesting and profitable for
us all.
[English]
I would like to congratulate the member for
Saskatoon-Humboldt-
[Translation]
-and the member for Ottawa-Vanier, for their excellent
presentations yesterday in the House of Commons.
They took me back in time with a bit of nostalgia, because I was
a rooky MP for Saint-Maurice at the time of the Pearson
government's second throne speech, and had the privilege and
honour of speaking on that occasion. I know that they both have
done their constituents proud.
[English]
We were very pleased with the member for
Saskatoon-Humboldt. I would like to congratulate her on the
quality of her French. It was pretty good. We were all impressed.
She was probably not born when I made my speech but my English
was not as good as her French is.
[Translation]
The member for Ottawa-Vanier is a Franco-Ontarian. There are
a million francophones in Canada who are not Quebecers and who
are deeply attached to, and proud of, their culture and their
language. The member's speech yesterday demonstrated the
vitality of the francophone community outside Quebec. We on this
side of the House will never abandon francophones who have
shown such courage and been so ably represented here.
[English]
This new session of Parliament marks the mid-point in the
mandate of our government. We are halfway through our term,
setting new goals, meeting new challenges and building on the
accomplishments of two years and four months in office.
It is often said that to know where you are going, you must
remember where you have been. I will add that you should
remember where you started. I remember where this government
started just over two years ago.
We inherited a country which was indeed in economic trouble.
Unemployment was more than 11 per cent, the deficit was $42
billion and growing every year. The economic malaise that we
inherited was only half of the picture. As deep and destructive was
the distrust and cynicism that Canadians felt toward their own
government. Ministers served in the federal government who did
not even believe in Canada. The taint of scandal forced the
resignation of minister after minister and the business of
government was dominated by lobbyists and fixers. This was the
scene when we took office in 1993.
This government rolled up its sleeves and got to work to turn
things around. And turn things around we have.
(1620 )
We came to government with a plan, the red book. In the last
session of Parliament we passed almost 100 government bills and
implemented almost three-quarters of our red book commitments.
But these statistics do not tell the whole story: That more than half
a million new jobs have been created in the Canadian economy
since we took office; that the unemployment rate has fallen by two
53
points to under 10 per cent for the first time in half a decade; that
after years of empty promises and deferred actions, the federal
government is finally getting its fiscal house in order.
At the end of the new fiscal year we will have reduced our deficit
to GDP ratio from more than 6 per cent to 3 per cent as promised in
the red book, from $42 billion to $24 billion. Next year it will be 2
per cent, another per cent lower, the lowest level in 20 years and it
will keep going down. This has been accomplished not against the
will of Canadians but with their active support.
It has not been easy. I salute the work of the Minister of Finance
who has been able to garner support for tough but fair budgets. And
I want to thank the Canadian people for their understanding and
commitment. We made it clear to Canadians and Canadians
understood that deficit cutting is not an end in itself. We have not
pursued it because we want to nor because we are driven by
ideology, but because it is a necessary step in restoring the
economic health of Canada in ensuring long term growth and jobs
for Canadians.
Accepting high deficits year after year has meant accepting high
interest rates. That has meant higher mortgages for Canadians who
own homes and it has made it more difficult for young families to
buy their first home. It has meant that thousands of small
businesses and farms cannot grow and expand and create jobs.
Accepting high deficits year after year has also forced us to
borrow money from abroad just to finance our debt. This has made
us too vulnerable to the foreign money markets. It has limited our
own economic sovereignty and every single Canadian has paid a
heavy price.
These are the reasons we have worked so hard and will continue
to work hard to reduce the deficit. Our success so far is translating
into real lasting benefits for all Canadians. Much has been
accomplished. We are not yet at the end of the road, but for the first
time in a long time the end is in sight as the Minister of Finance
will show next week in the budget.
[Translation]
In the red book, we wrote that: ``The Liberal two-track policy of
economic growth and fiscal responsibility will make possible a
monetary policy that produces lower real interest rates and keeps
inflation low, so we can be competitive with our major trading
partners''.
That is exactly what is happening. Interest rates have come down
dramatically. Inflation in Canada is lower than it has been in
decades-and lower than in virtually any other industrialized
country.
Since March of last year, short term interest rates have dropped
by three percentage points. This decline is 2.5 percentage points
more than the decline in the United States. Today there is virtually
no difference between Canadian and American short term interest
rates.
(1625)
The way we are putting our fiscal house in order says a lot about
our values as a government and as a society. We could have gone
after spending with a meat cleaver-hacking everyone and
everything with equal vigour. But that would have been unfair. As
Canadians, we cherish the values of community, of equal
opportunity, of tolerance and understanding, of compassion and
support for the most vulnerable. We believe in simple decency and
respect. Canadians want deeply to win this important battle against
the deficit. But they absolutely refuse to do it on the backs of those
in need of help. So does this government. And we are proud of that.
That is why, for example, we have cut military spending, but we
have actually increased spending on employment programs for
young people. That is why we have cut subsidies to business by
more than fifty per cent, but invested in a national infrastructure
program that is resulting in capital projects in every province of
Canada that have created tens of thousands of new jobs and will
have important economic benefits for decades to come. That is why
we have closed loopholes for family trusts and imposed a special
tax on bank profits, but funded new programs such as the pre-natal
nutrition program and the aboriginal head start program and
restored the national literacy program.
That is also why we eliminated the $100,000 capital gains
exemption, and increased the Small Business Loans Act ceiling to
$12 billion. That is why while we have worked to reduce the size of
the federal public service, we have also created programs such as
youth service Canada and the youth internship program to give
thousands of young people the work experience they need to
earn-and keep-that important first job.
[English]
It is this sense of balance and priority that has been the hallmark
of our government: tough, no nonsense deficit fighting, which
frankly has broken the back of the deficit, combined with
compassion, understanding and a willingness to invest in people, as
we set out in the red book. We have proven that a government can
be a tough, fair and effective financial and economic manager and
that it can also be progressive and human. That more than anything
else is the balanced approach Canadians voted for when they voted
for us to lead Canada over two years ago. I am proud to say that,
more than anything else, has been the accomplishment of the first
half of our mandate.
I mentioned earlier that our government inherited not just a
fiscal deficit from our predecessors but a credibility deficit too.
Canadians had given up on their public institutions. They had
54
stopped believing in their government and they had stopped
trusting elected officials.
(1630)
One can agree or disagree with our policies but no one, after
more than two years in office, can question the honesty and
integrity of the government and its ministers-no one. That is an
accomplishment that not only makes me very proud but which has
given Canadians a reason to believe in their government again.
Canadians know that when the government gives its word, it keeps
it.
Restoring the Government of Canada as a competent fiscal and
economic manager and restoring people's faith in government as an
honest institution are our cumulative accomplishments half way
through the mandate, accomplishments of which we are deeply
proud. They set the stage for the second half of our mandate.
Yesterday the throne speech announced the broad initiatives the
government will take in this session, initiatives that continue the
work we began two years ago, initiatives promised in the red book
that promote economic growth and job creation, unity and the
security of individual Canadians and their families.
We were elected to restore the economic well-being of Canada.
Unemployment is down considerably from the time we took office
in 1993 but it is not down low enough for our liking or for the liking
of Canadians. Too many Canadians are still out of work. Too many
more are still worried about holding on to their jobs.
Above all, we want young Canadians to become active
participants in our economy. They want jobs. They deserve jobs.
Young people want to embrace the future, not fear it. It is up to all
of us to create that hope and opportunity for them.
Youth unemployment is not unique to Canada. We see it
everywhere in the industrialized world today, in every country,
most far worse than here. However, that comparison should give us
little comfort because we should not measure the success or
self-fulfilment of our young people against those of other
countries. We should measure them by our own hopes and
ambitions and by our sense of obligation as the custodians of the
society they will inherit. If we want Canada to continue to grow and
prosper, if we truly want a country of hope and confidence, young
people working hard in meaningful jobs, jobs with a future, is our
only guarantee.
In our first two years the government has done much to actively
foster a climate of job creation and it has met with success.
Government does not create jobs; it creates the climate for the
private sector to create jobs. That is what we have done and
continue to do, laying the foundations for long term sustained job
growth. Now we need the active partnership of the other levels of
government and the private sector to make that job growth happen.
We have had a preview of how well that partnership can work
with the right amount of commitment and effort. Nothing in many
years has given Canadians a greater sense of pride in
accomplishment than the Team Canada trade missions to foreign
markets such as China, India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Indonesia.
(1635 )
These trade missions, combined with the Latin America trade
mission I led a year ago, brought home more than $20 billion in
deals for Canadian businesses. That means tens of thousands of
jobs in Canada and an important foothold in some of the fastest
growing foreign markets in the world.
Even more important than the impressive statistics of the Team
Canada missions was the impact on Canadians of seeing their
Prime Minister, their provincial premiers and leaders of businesses
large and small working together to bring home jobs for Canadians.
There were politicians from just about every party, representatives
of just about every kind of business, small and large, all pulling in
the same direction. For once the politicians stopped pointing
fingers at each other. The business people stopped blaming
government and everyone pulled together, working on the same
team with the same goals.
Canadians were used to seeing governments compete, first
ministers bicker, but with Team Canada they saw us working
together. They liked what they saw and they want to see more it.
We can and must prove to Canadians that we, federal and
provincial governments and the private sector, do not need to leave
Canada in order to work together. Team Canada worked well in
Beijing, Bombay and Buenos Aires but it can work as well in
Burnaby, Brampton or Bromont. We should put the same Team
Canada spirit to work here at home creating jobs in a true national
partnership. I commit here and now before the eyes of the nation
every resource of the federal government to creating that
partnership. I urge the private sector and the provincial
governments to join with us.
To the private sector I have a very specific challenge. For many
years you have urged the federal government to get its fiscal house
in order. You have campaigned against deficit. You have warned us
of the negative impact of too much government spending on the
economy and you have urged us to get out of areas that are better
dealt with by the private sector. You said that when this is done the
private sector would create jobs. I say to you that the federal
government has delivered. Now Canadians want the private sector
to deliver.
Now it is your turn to show your confidence in Canada and
Canadians, especially young Canadians, to recognize that just as
we have taken the lead in eliminating the fiscal deficit, you have a
responsibility to eliminate the human deficit of unemployment. No
true balance sheet can ignore the heavy and growing cost of chronic
55
unemployment. It is wrong. It is wrong on a human level. It is
wrong on an economic level. It is wrong on a commercial level. It
is wrong on a moral level.
(1640)
You have a responsibility, just as surely as I and my colleagues in
government have, to invest the energy and commitment it takes to
solving this problem. That is why in the throne speech yesterday
we announced that the federal government will be doubling its
contribution to summer job creation this summer and urged the
private sector and provincial and municipal governments to do the
same. We need to encourage and help young people who are putting
themselves through university and this is an important way we can
do it.
[Translation]
Today I want to announce another initiative. In the weeks ahead I
will be calling on businesses to join in launching a domestic Team
Canada focused on creating jobs for young Canadians-primarily
in the private sector. I will be appealing to businesses large and
small to invest just one additional per cent of their payroll budget
into jobs for young Canadians. This would create many tens of
thousands of new jobs. It would further promote economic growth
and consumer demand. And most of all, it would prove to millions
of Canadians that Canada does work-not just for the powerful and
the privileged, but for ordinary Canadians.
And to the provinces I issue a challenge as well. I challenge you
to join with us in rekindling the spirit of Team Canada-and
making it work on a permanent basis. As we work on redefining
and clarifying our responsibilities, let us work together on this jobs
agenda. It may not be as exciting as picking fights with each other.
It certainly will not be as easy. But we have proven we can work
together for jobs and economic results. We owe it to Canadians to
give it the effort it takes.
We also owe Canadians the security that is provided them by our
social programs. A healthy, growing economy means healthy,
viable, sustainable social programs. That is why getting our fiscal
house in order is such an important key to preserving the social
programs we as Canadians hold so dear.
But that is far from the limit of this government's commitment
to social programs. We also know that if we want healthy social
programs not just today and tomorrow, but ten and twenty years
from now, we must plan for them now. And that is a responsibility
that this government takes very seriously.
In no area is this more important than in the public pensions
system. Everybody recognizes that demographic changes in our
society mean that we will have to make changes to ensure that our
pension system remains sustainable for future generations of
Canadians.
That is why we have begun discussions with the provinces to
ensure that the Canada pension plan, which we run in partnership
with the provinces, will be there for Canadians who work hard and
contribute to the plan. The public has been asked to participate in
these discussions.
[English]
The next step is to ensure that the support provided to seniors
through the old age security and guaranteed income supplement
program is sustainable and will be there for future generations as
well. You have our commitment that we will do it. We have an
obligation to plan for the future. We do not take that obligation
lightly.
(1645)
As we do that we will honour another commitment, a
commitment I undertook in the House on behalf of the government.
I made a promise to current seniors that I will repeat today. The
OAS and GIS payments that you receive will not be reduced. We
will also continue to ensure the health and sustainability of
medicare, the most cherished social program of all.
The government will ensure that the health system will be there
for all Canadians, rich and poor alike. We will maintain substantial
cash transfers through the Canada health and social transfer to
ensure that the federal government always has a strong say in
medicare and is able to preserve free, universal access to health
care anywhere in Canada for every Canadian.
Medicare is as much a part of our country as the air we breathe
and the water that runs through our rivers and lakes. It defines what
we are and who we want to be. It sets us apart from other countries.
It draws us together no matter where we live in Canada. We will
work to ensure it continues to draw Canadians together for a long
time to come.
Bringing Canadians together and keeping Canada united in
common cause and purpose must be the number one priority of any
government. The referendum on October 30 last year showed us
that we can never take our magnificent country for granted. We
need to remind ourselves every day why it is so good to live in
Canada. We need to remind ourselves of all that we have in
common: the values that we cherish, tolerance, respect, generosity
and sharing. We need to remind ourselves what many generations
of Canadians have accomplished to make our country the envy of
the world. We need to remind ourselves of the genius of federalism
and how it has accommodated our diversity while building on our
strength.
56
A united Canada is a far nobler enterprise than the narrowing
of vision proclaimed by those who want to break up this country.
[Translation]
Canada is a vast country occupied by a diverse population.
Thirty million people of diverse origins who live peacefully
together in a land that the United Nations ranks as the very best for
its quality of life.
(1650)
It is a great success on the world stage, a success that we cannot
simply take for granted, a success which we must continue to build.
In the community of nations, Canada is seen as a young country
that is constantly evolving in an environment of rapid change. The
global economy is transforming itself and becoming more and
more interdependent as larger blocs of nations are formed, as in
Europe. Canada itself has become a large collectivity as more and
more provinces and territories have joined over the years to make
us one of the seven leading industrial powers in the world. Canada
has grown very quickly. It is only natural for us to review the way
that our country functions. Economic globalization is forcing
governments around the world to redefine themselves.
The one constant in Canadian history has been our ability to
adapt to new circumstances and new realities without sacrificing
our principles and values. The Fathers of Confederation provided a
framework that is as valid today as it was 130 years ago. They
provided for strong, autonomous provinces capable of delivering
services and of adapting them to local circumstances. They
provided for provinces that could grow and flourish in their own
individual ways. For example, all of Canada is richer because
Saskatchewan invented Medicare. All of Canada is richer because
British Columbia makes us a Pacific nation. And at a time when
people are told to think globally but act locally, strong provinces
are more important than ever.
[English]
But the Fathers of Confederation also provided for a single
national government, elected directly by all Canadians that speaks
and acts directly for all Canadians on the great issues of the day. In
the 21st century that national government will be as important as it
has ever been.
We will preserve the role of that national government in
strengthening our economy and economic union to ensure a
prosperous country for ourselves and our children; in enhancing
social solidarity in Canada, in preserving and modernizing the
social union so that the caring and sharing society is truly
Canada-wide in scope; in pooling our national resources to achieve
common goals efficiently and effectively; in protecting and
promoting Canadian values and identity while celebrating our
diversity; and, in defending Canada's sovereignty and in speaking
for Canadians collectively on the world's stage. Together we will
modernize our federation with respect for our diversity and with
confidence as we head into the 21st century.
Clearly, Canadians face particular challenges following the
referendum result in Quebec. This is not a time for major
constitutional change. We must continue to adapt, modernize and
develop our federation. I believe we can do so by focusing on
practical steps within a spirit that respects the principles of
federalism.
The operation of our federation should be responsive to our
common needs and diversity. It should show respect for each other
and our institutions. It should involve partnership and dialogue
between governments and citizens. It should be flexible. It should
aim for efficiency and effectiveness in addressing our problems.
The fact is Canada has largely operated in this way in the past. The
federation has proven remarkably flexible and responsive to
Canadians.
(1655)
What I propose now is a concerted effort between the federal and
provincial governments to address a number of outstanding issues
in the operation of the federation with a particular focus on
strengthening our economic and social union. Our effort should
focus on practical, concrete steps rather than a grand design or the
emotional symbols of major constitutional change.
Canada's economic union has been one of our greatest successes.
Canadians underestimate the depth of our economic integration,
which goes far beyond the economic integration we have with any
foreign country, including the United States.
Over the past generation we have seen regional disparities in
Canada diminish. We have largely closed the gap between
Canadian and American standards of living but we have still have
not taken full advantage of our economic union. Maximizing the
advantage is key to ensuring Canadian competitiveness
internationally.
I invite the provinces and all Canadians to consider how we can
improve our economic union to enhance labour mobility between
provinces, to reduce internal barriers to trade, to improve our
internal capital markets, to enhance the sharing of technical
knowledge and to co-operate better abroad.
[Translation]
There is a strong consensus in Canada to promote our social
union. The people want governments to work together to
modernize our social safety net to ensure that it is sustainable in the
long term and continues to reflect the values of Canadians from
coast to coast. Working with provinces and individual Canadians,
beginning with the principles that we have in common, our
government will explore new approaches to social policy issues.
57
The development of our social union needs to respect the spirit
of our federation as well as the fiscal realities we confront. In
recognition of this, the government makes a formal engagement
that any new national cost-shared programs in areas of exclusive
provincial responsibility will require prior agreement of a majority
of provinces. Such programs will be designed so that provinces
choosing not to participate will be compensated provided they
establish initiatives which are equivalent or compatible with
national objectives.
This is the first time any federal government has undertaken
formally to restrict its use of the spending power outside a
constitutional negotiation. Our undertaking recognizes that the use
of this power for shared-cost programs has been a source of tension
with the provinces. We believe we can build our social union within
this spirit, as well as through other, non-financial means.
Canadians want their governments to be flexible and to work
effectively as partners so that the country functions well. We will
work with the provinces to ensure that Canadians are served by the
most appropriate level of government. In a number of areas, the
federal government no longer has to be involved in order to serve
its citizens effectively. We have made a start on transferring
transportation infrastructures to municipal authorities and the
private sector. Then, for example, we had a tourism program
managed by the Department of Industry. Last year the tourism
industry recommended that the private sector be made responsible
for managing this program in co-operation with the public sector.
We agreed. We withdrew from our own program and the Canadian
Tourism Commission was set up. It is managed by the tourist
industry in co-operation with the federal and provincial
governments, with all parties working together. This has been a
remarkable success which serves as a model of partnership
between the various levels of government and the private sector for
the 21st century.
(1700)
The federal government is also prepared to withdraw from its
functions in such areas as labour market training, forestry, mining
and recreation, that in the 21st century will be more appropriately
the responsibility of others-provinces, municipalities or the
private sector.
There are a number of fields in which both levels of government
have a genuine role to play. In those sectors, we must achieve
maximum efficiency in our actions, to ensure that taxpayers get
value for money. The government will ask the provinces to increase
their efforts to eliminate duplication and overlap and identify other
grey areas that could be discussed.
In the months to come, a first ministers' conference will
consider better ways of working together for job creation in
Canada, how to secure the social safety net, and how to put in place
a common agenda for change to renew Canada.
Preserving and enhancing Canadian unity requires more than a
rebalancing of roles and responsibilities of levels of government. It
requires us to remember what we have in common, by promoting
culture, the arts and our heritage.
Preserving Canadian unity requires us to offer, to Quebecers
tempted by an alternative, a nobler vision of a Canada in which
Quebecers-like all Canadians-feel at home wherever they are in
the country; a Canada that believes it is the best assurance of the
French fact in North America.
Democracies endowed with more than one official language, and
accordingly a broader window on the universe of cultures, make
special arrangements to help their linguistic groups live together in
harmony. Our Official Languages Act and the recognition of
language rights in the Constitution are a model of such
arrangements. We need only go further and recognize as a strength,
as a piece of good fortune for Canada, that anglophone America
contains a society that functions in French and takes action so that
it can continue to do so.
On a continent where only one person in forty is francophone,
we must all appreciate the concerns of many of our francophone
fellow citizens in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. They are
worried not only about the survival of their language and culture,
but also about their development.
Quebec wants to be recognized as a distinct society through its
language, its culture and its institutions. The House of Commons
has passed a resolution in those terms, and a regional veto
guaranteeing that there will be no constitutional change without the
consent of every region of Canada was also approved here in this
House.
(1705)
We want to entrench these changes in the Constitution. We know
it will not be easy. We must convince and explain that recognizing
the distinctness of Quebec society does not take anything away
from anyone but simply reflects reality. A reality that represents an
asset for our country.
Last week, we all found out what the former premier of Quebec,
Mr. Parizeau, would have said if the result on October 30 had been
in his favour. The result was irreversible; democracy had spoken;
the page had been turned; everyone had to support the choice. Why
not accept that Quebecers chose Canada for the second time in 15
years?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Why not concentrate all our
energy and resources on building the future of our country
together?
58
Canada needs political stability to ensure its economic stability,
so that Montreal will find the road back to prosperity, Toronto will
develop further and Vancouver will continue its growth. In fact,
every Canadian city, town and region needs it. Political stability
benefits all Canadians, and that is very important.
[English]
Let us work together to preserve what we have built together. It
will not be easy, but it was never easy to build this great country in
which we have the extraordinary good fortune to live. Canada was
built with courage and determination. It was built with the desire to
live together, recognizing our differences are also our strengths.
That is our heritage. It is up to us to preserve and to build on it.
There are different ways of measuring greatness. Some measure
the greatness of nations in terms of wealth or power. I believe we in
Canada have found our own special definition of greatness by
achieving the greatest balance between economic success and
social justice of any nation.
I have had the privilege of travelling to foreign countries,
representing Canada and Canadians to the world. I have had the
opportunity to see how the world sees Canada. What it sees is very
much a real country, un vrai pays, make no mistake about it.
What it sees much more is a large and diverse society that has
turned diversity into prosperity. It sees a country of promise and
integrity built by people from every corner of the world. It sees a
land where each individual citizen has the opportunity to be the
best they can possibly be but where there is also a true sense of
caring and compassion, a true sense of community.
(1710)
We have seen that when the world looks to Canada. What it sees
is the future, or rather the best hope for the future of the world.
Together let us build that model of hope and confidence, that model
for all mankind.
When I was in Kuala Lumpur a few weeks ago I realized what
Canada is all about. I was invited to visit the two biggest towers in
the world, which have just been completed. They wanted to link the
two towers together but they needed the best technology. They have
problems with weather there as well, but not snow. They needed a
bridge very high in the air between the two towers. They came to
Canadians to test the technology. When we crossed from one
building to the other they told us this is their Canadian connection;
it was build by Canadians.
I was also invited to visit a construction site in Kuala Lumpur for
a light transit system.
[Translation]
SNC Lavalin and Bombardier were there, who were building this
advanced system in co-operation with companies from Vancouver
and Toronto. They were all working together, all these Canadians,
who are all proud of this French- and English-speaking country
selling an outstanding technology a few days after we left Pakistan,
where they were awarded the contract for the construction of a
similar system in the city of Karachi.
[English]
I saw everybody there, French and English, east and west
together, and the joy when one government was on the stage with
the business community of that province signing contracts. The
premier of Ontario was congratulating the socialist premier of B.C.
when he was doing well. Others were turning to the premier of New
Brunswick because he had made a great deal for a farming
community of New Brunswick. It was such a good deal that he was
telling me he will need some cattle from Quebec. I said fine, we
will talk with the Bloc and send some there, and even from
Manitoba. There were congratulations from each other and the
people were looking at us.
They were not buying Canadian goods and services because we
were Canadian. A lot of them remember that we were there at the
time of the Columbo plan. They remember that. They were buying
Canadian goods and services because they are the best on the
market.
If we can build a bridge in Kuala Lumpur between the two
highest towers in the world, we will build a bridge that will keep
the greatest nation in the world together.
(1715 )
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to respond to the government's second speech from the
throne in this 35th Parliament, or we could refer to it as its second
kick at the can.
This second try is full of words, hope and promise. We certainly
have just heard an hour's worth of them from our Prime Minister. It
is an indication that at last the government seems at least to be
hearing the anxious voices of Canadians and recognizing that
Canadians are scared. They are scared for their own futures, the
future of their country and the future of their children.
It is a speech that gives an indication that at last the government
seems to recognize and is attempting at least to remedy the past
mistakes and strategic inaction of the last couple of years.
This second speech from the throne is in many ways an
admission of failure by the government, but it is an attempt at a
jump start.
When the Liberals came to power in 1993 expectations were
high right across the country. At last the Conservatives had paid the
ultimate price, the price of arrogance and the Liberals were
promising hope, jobs and a bright secure future.
In 1993 Canadians were told not to worry, the mighty Liberal
Party was back in power. Today in 1996 though, two and a half
years later, the hope has faded. The real, long term jobs have never
really materialized. It is one thing to say that jobs have been
59
created but the Prime Minister did not note how many jobs have
been lost in that amount of time.
The Liberal promises of a bright future were shown to be nothing
more than empty election rhetoric. Any sense of security and hope
that Canadians had in 1993 withered away as the months and
months of Liberal do nothing government drifted by.
Yesterday the throne speech talked about giving Canadians hope
and lifting them out of the despair they feel right across the
country. What it did not acknowledge however was that the Liberal
government's inaction, its lack of a plan, lack of innovation and
lack of vision contributed to that overwhelming sense of
hopelessness and despair in the country.
This is where we stand now in 1996 and it is why the government
is beginning again. It has shown in the throne speech that it can
speak the words of the Canadian public, but the question of course,
and one which we will be asking time and time again is: Can it
deliver? This is what we have to analyse today as we sift through
the guarded wording and cloaked phrases of the Liberals' second
try.
Everyone deserves a second chance, even if they make an
incorrect ruling. Everyone deserves a second chance. Do not get me
wrong. That is something with which I am sure Canadians agree.
But three strikes and your are out. That is the way it is done in
baseball and that is the way I think it should be done here.
So in the spirit of second chances and second tries, let us look at
what the Liberal government in this speech has promised the
people of Canada. Let us look at what it is intending to do to restore
hope, confidence and security to Canadians, all of which we so
desperately need in these times of uncertainty and fading hope.
Jobs and financial security are of concern. In an attempt to
convince Canadians that the government is working toward long
term economic growth, it is heralding its new and improved deficit
reduction target of 2 per cent of gross domestic product. Low
targets are always easy to reach. We need deficit elimination and a
balanced budget. Quit digging the big debt hole deeper. The
digging must be stopped period before starting to fill in the hole.
(1720 )
The government still stubbornly refuses to produce its firm
timetable for totally eliminating the deficit. Two year rolling
targets are rolling along. As we come to the end of the century I am
wondering how long they are going to continue to roll.
Without totally eliminating the deficit or the yearly amount
which we are spending more than we are bringing in, the federal
debt continues to increase at an alarming rate and interest payments
continue to eat more and more of the money that government needs
to spend on securing our essential social programs. Billions and
billions of dollars every year we are spending just on interest on the
debt. There is something inherently wrong in that and we need to
get that totally under control.
By the government taking this go slow approach it might just as
well be promising to raise taxes because that would be the result. If
we are going to continue to overspend, there is a way that we have
to be able to feed that appetite and there is nothing more than
increasing taxes when we are going to do that.
Elimination of the deficit on the other hand as Reformers have
proposed will stop the further unnecessary erosion of our social
programs. It will enable the government to begin paying down the
massive debt, a debt that successive Liberal and Conservative
governments have piled up incidentally over the last 32 years while
our Prime Minister has been on the public scene. It will enable the
government to give much needed tax relief to Canadians.
We saw nothing about tax relief in the throne speech. If there is
anything that is going to cheer Canadians up it is the promise of
real live tax relief so that they will have more money in their
pockets.
Elimination of the federal deficit will not just give us a light at
the end of the tunnel; it will bring us out of the seemingly endless
tunnel and finally into the light, not just a glimmer at the end of it.
Canadians will once again control their own destinies. Social
programs will be financially sustainable. People will have more
money in their pockets. With that money, they can use it to pay
down their growing debts, buy new houses, new cars and have a
plan for the future of their families.
Another thing that would improve consumer confidence and
even voter confidence in this government is scrapping the GST.
The throne speech back in 1994 promised it. It is promising it again
now. It talks about progress on it, but time is running out on this
Liberal government and on the political career of the Deputy Prime
Minister. This is an actual quote from her. During a CBC town hall
program on October 18, 1993, one week before the last federal
election, she said: ``If the GST is not abolished under a Liberal
government, I will resign''. We are still waiting for it. It would be
easy for her to stand up and say that the Liberals are planning to
abolish it. In my estimation from what I know of the English
language, abolish does not equal harmonize, or make a few
changes, or rename it, or whatever. Abolish means abolish.
The Deputy Prime Minister has said that the Liberals will
abolish the GST. They will not just harmonize it with provincial
sales taxes. In my province of Alberta we do not have a provincial
sales tax. That is the last thing on their minds, harmonizing
60
something on the GST, on which the Deputy Prime Minister said
she would resign. I say, we are waiting.
On April 4, 1990 before the last election when the present
finance minister was in opposition he said this which I thought was
kind of excellent: ``I would abolish the GST''. There is that word
again, abolish. Not harmonize, not change, not rename, not
whatever, but abolish. That means over, done with, toast. He would
abolish it. ``The manufacturers' sales tax was a bad tax but there is
no excuse to repeal one bad thing by bringing in another''. Oops,
how times change. How things change when one moves across the
aisle. I suspect you know that feeling, Mr. Speaker. You have been
in government and I have not yet but we are working on it.
This is what is particularly painful. When something comes from
opposition it is one thing but when it comes from right within
government it is painful. Just yesterday the Liberal member for
Mississauga West said: ``I keep hearing from the finance
department that Canadians are getting used to the GST and they
now accept it''. She went on to say: ``If anyone really believes that,
I don't think they are in touch with reality''. That is a Liberal
backbencher.
Most of the insecurity and worry being felt by Canadians today
relates to their jobs and job security. Instead of addressing this
genuine concern however, the government has decided to embark
on programs that create artificial jobs or, as they have been so aptly
termed, bubble jobs; they are here and gone just like that. That is
not long term. That is not something people are working toward.
(1725)
The government has announced a plan to double for one year the
number of federal summer student jobs. Unfortunately though,
with youth unemployment stuck at a staggering 16 per cent,
although well intentioned, it will do little to ease the job prospects
for thousands and thousands of our struggling youth. It looks good
on paper and I am sure people will appreciate it in the short run, but
the question I and I am sure many young people would like to ask
is: Why is the government going to give young people money now
and then yank it back later from them plus interest? That is what is
happening. It is easy to say the cash will be given out now, but
because our interest payments are just so incredible the
government is going to yank it back later from those people and
from their kids when they get to be my age and later at your age,
Mr. Speaker, but not that much later.
What else is this government going to do to create jobs and job
security for Canadians? From this it does not look like very much.
Without eliminating the federal deficit, growing interest payments
on the national debt continue to endanger social spending, continue
to endanger the health, education and pension systems of
Canadians.
When it comes to the Canada pension plan, the government is
planning to dramatically increase the amount snatched from
Canadians' paycheques while at the same time lowering the
benefits. Such actions will further depress the job market adding
undue payroll tax stress on Canada's small and medium size
business. This is stress that neither the job market nor Canadian
business can afford. Such moves will do nothing to increase the
security of Canadians. In fact it might depress them even more.
Reformers encourage the government to look seriously at our
approach to address Canada's pension crisis through the
introduction of super RRSPs. This does not need to be partisan. We
need to get out of this mess we are in. Mandatory contributions into
self-directed retirement funds will ensure that all generations will
get their fair share of benefits without dramatic contribution
increases. At the very least, it would be great if the finance minister
would have the political courage to at least put it on the table for
discussion.
The government states it wants to co-operate with the provinces
in establishing new national standards in the area of social policy.
The government however has a record of confrontation not
co-operation, of inflexibility not accommodation. We need to
correct that problem. If the government is serious about
co-operating with the provinces in social policy areas, it should
transfer tax points to the provinces; that is, let the provinces
determine what their taxation levels should be. That would not just
ensure stable funding for health, education and welfare, it would
also provide a mechanism for the growth of funding in these areas.
Heaven knows, we need that in this day and age.
Canadians wanted firm measures to improve their financial
security and bold initiatives to stop the drain on their social
security. Unfortunately, in the throne speech they heard nothing
more than half measures. At least in these two areas the
government is making some positive moves. When it comes to
personal security the throne speech lacks both substance and
rhetoric.
Criminal justice is another area that at least was touched on in
the throne speech but it was one single paragraph out of the entire
speech. That is all the government felt the fears of Canadians for
their safety and the safety of their families and property warranted.
The government has spent half of its mandate harassing
law-abiding farmers, hunters and gun collectors and is now feebly
paying lip service to addressing the criminal element. Let us spend
more energy, time and resources hitting the criminal element and
leave the law-abiding citizens alone.
If the federal government really means business on criminal
justice reform, it must make the protection of life and property the
number one priority of the criminal justice system. The law must
reflect the values held by the majority of Canadians that all
offenders must be held accountable and responsible for their
criminal acts and the rights of victims must supersede the rights of
criminals always, every time.
61
The government must amend the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act to ensure that violent offenders serve their full
sentences. Once released, some violent offenders and all repeat
offenders should be under parole supervision for the rest of their
lives. To allow for the indefinite incarceration of dangerous
offenders, the government should amend the current dangerous
offenders law to allow for the designation of ``dangerous offender''
prior to, during, or at the end of that offender's sentence. Such
offenders have no right to live in society and the people of Canada
are right to demand protection. They are right to demand their
indefinite incarceration. Canadians want and need to be freed from
fear.
(1730)
Canadians want security so their kids can walk home after school
or over to a friend's house and not have to worry about what is
going to happen to them on the way, so women can walk to their
cars, as we do all the time, so they can wander through airports and
hotels alone across the country, so we would feel safe, so we would
not feel threatened of being mugged or assaulted.
Canadians need the assurance that violent criminals, whether
they are at home or on the street, are being dealt with by a criminal
justice system that knows and understands the severity of their
crimes, and will protect Canadians from them always.
Regarding national unity, the government has begun to realize
that over centralization, bringing the power to the centre, in large
measure has contributed to the frustration and alienation Canadians
have felt toward their federal government. Any movement on this
front is welcome.
The government is to be commended for expressing its desire to
strengthen the economic situation and lower internal trade barriers,
but it has to go beyond just desire. The federal government should
seek more power in this area in exchange for giving other powers to
the provinces, powers they originally had vested in them that
federal governments have taken away over the decades.
Canadians from coast to coast have indicated that they want
Canada to be a balanced federation in which Ottawa would play a
co-operative role but not a dominating role. Reform has advanced
20 new Confederation proposals that help to establish this
arrangement for the long term.
There have been longstanding concerns about the arsenal of
centralizing powers, that power that is used by the federal
government under the Constitution, and about the over
concentration of power in the hands of the executive in the cabinet.
The throne speech indicates a willingness to address some of those
concerns but of course it does not go nearly far enough.
Now is not the time for half measures and tinkering. Canadians
want leadership. They want to know where they are going as they
get closer to the next century. Future governments have to be able
to respond more effectively to the needs of ordinary Canadians
through a revitalized federal system, one that addresses the historic
concerns of dissatisfied Canadians, both inside and outside
Quebec.
There are dissatisfied Canadians right across the country and I
think it is time we realized it. National unity is more than a
rebalancing of roles, responsibilities and levels of government, as
the speech from the throne has pointed out. The ending of over
centralization must be coupled with substantial democratic reforms
to federal institutions, reforms that will ensure that Canadians
themselves have more input into the way the federal government
runs, the directions it takes and the decisions it makes.
Democratic reforms such as referendums, an elected Senate,
citizens' initiatives, recall and freer votes in the House of
Commons are all needed to ensure the long term unity of our
country, to put an end to political uncertainty and to make Canada
one of the most progressive democracies in the world. Sadly, we
saw nothing about that in the throne speech.
Again, we are encouraged by the signs in the speech that the
Liberals have finally recognized that any constitutional change
must be put to the people directly for ratification in a referendum.
It is one thing to say ``people will have a say on it''.
As I said earlier in question period, when people are told they
will have say they equate that to having a vote. The Charlottetown
accord changed everything in this country. Since people were given
an actual vote on that issue, they will never again put up with
anything less. That was the best thing about the Charlottetown
accord.
Reformers and all Canadians must also be pleased to see the
government has learned its lesson from the last Quebec
referendum. The government will take its responsibility seriously
with any future referendum in the province of Quebec to debate the
consequences of secession based on a real or possible scenario that
there may be a yes vote.
The federal government should develop now a Canadian position
on terms and conditions of secession rather than what it did last
time, nothing. If that would have been on the table, if the people of
Quebec knew there would be real consequences of a yes vote, they
would have said: ``Wow, there are serious consequences and I think
my vote is going to be to stay with Canada''. We hope that happens
next time.
However, the government needs to lay out on the table that if the
people of Quebec decide to vote yes, they had better be prepared
for some hard answers and some hard negotiations. ``These are the
terms and conditions of secession. We want you to think again''. I
62
think Quebecers will vote strongly to remain a part of Canada. We
are confident that this can and will happen if the government
responds to it, rather than leaving everyone out of the debate as it
did last October. We can all live together and prosper.
(1735)
In the end, where has the government left Canadians? That is the
question people are asking. There appear to be glimmers of hope
and I want to give the government credit for those glimmers. The
Liberals are learning from their past mistakes, however reluctantly,
and the real concerns and fears of Canadians for their own security
and the security of their country are finally being heard. That is a
good move.
The real question is, can they deliver on these promises? We will
watch during the second session of this Parliament. Where progress
is made, we will encourage it. Where they fail, we will propose
constructive alternatives so that they can rethink their positions.
We truly feel for Canadians and the stress that all are under
during this time in our history, the sense of insecurity in their lives
and jobs, and the constant threat of the break-up of our country.
These things must be dealt with once and for all.
Reformers will do everything in their power to ease this stress
and to calm the worry Canadians have about the future of their
country. We share their feelings and we will never give up their
cause.
Therefore, I would like to amend the Bloc amendment by adding
the words:
-and in particular, providing more personal security; the need to effectively
reduce the budget deficit; simplifying the tax system and balancing the budget;
greater personal social security by providing a permanent and stable source of
social program funding in the areas of health, education and social assistance;
greater public safety; understanding the need to communicate to Quebec
honestly and openly what will be the stance of the rest of Canada concerning
separation; understanding the need to pledge their unconditional commitment
to protect and defend our rights and freedoms as Canadians wanting to remain
Canadians in Quebec both before and after a possible yes vote in the future.
I have signed that Deborah Grey, member of Parliament, Beaver
River.
The Speaker: Generally the amendment seems to be in order. I
wonder if the hon. member might give the Chair the liberty of
adding three small words at the end of ``and in particular does not
address''. We have to have a verb in there. Being old school
teachers we happen to know that.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North
Centre.
It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to take part in the debate
on the throne speech. This is an exciting time in the history of our
country. As we approach the 21st century, a world of opportunity
lies before us. We must continue to build a strong economy to
secure our communities, and to strengthen our country to take
advantage of those tremendous opportunities.
(1740)
The government has been laying the foundation for a strong and
prosperous economy. In the last two years, 497,000 full time jobs
have been created. Inflation is low and interest rates are declining.
In Hamilton, my home town, the unemployment rate is 6 per
cent. This is down from a rate of 11.3 per cent two years ago, a 5
per cent decline since this government was elected. The low
unemployment rate is a testament to the advantage of co-operation
between business, unions, schools, community groups and
government that exists in Hamilton. Organizations like Mohawk
College in my riding have been co-operating closely with unions
and management and the federal government to develop training
programs for workers that have increased productivity. Increased
productivity is leading to more jobs as resources are used more
efficiently.
Through hard work and co-operation among everyone in
Hamilton over the last five years, we have turned Hamilton into a
world recognized model of sustainable community development. It
took a lot of hard work, which is continuing, but the achievement
was well worth it. I am sure that similar effort and co-operation
among all Canadians can be equally successful across the country.
That is the government's goal, as we heard the Prime Minister state
earlier this afternoon.
Just as the Team Canada approach to external trade promotions
is paying dividends, Team Canada co-operation can pay off in job
creation. As was said in the throne speech, it is time to harness the
energy of the Team Canada partnership to create hope, opportunity
and jobs.
The government's balanced and steady approach to deficit
reduction has led to a steady reduction in the deficit and in interest
rates. Careful spending cuts, coupled with a well thought out
restructuring of the government will lead to a stronger economy
and to job growth.
Members of the business community have often stated that if
government would get it finances in order, private industry would
create jobs. The government is putting its finances in order and is
challenging Canadian businesses to move forward on job creation,
particularly for our young children.
Of course, getting the government's finances in order is not an
end in itself. The steps we are taking are necessary to defend and
maintain social programs, such as medicare, that embody the
63
values that Canadians hold dear such as caring for the less
fortunate and maintaining a high quality of life in all areas of the
country.
As was stated yesterday in the throne speech, the government
will continue to defend the principles of the Canada Health Act:
comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility. The
government will maintain the sustainability of social programs by
putting a floor under the cash component of the Canada health and
social transfer so there is a steady level of cash transfers to the
provinces. The government will also be working with the provinces
to develop common standards to maintain our social programs.
Youth unemployment is a major challenge to the government
and it is addressing this through programs such as the youth
internship program and Youth Service Canada. The proposal to
double the number of federal summer jobs this coming summer
will be a great help to students. These programs help young people
make the transition to the working world giving them the
experience they need to get their first job.
Whenever I visit Mohawk College or the high schools on
Hamilton Mountain, I am impressed by the intelligence and
enthusiasm of these students. Canada's young people are
tremendously talented and have a great deal to offer our country.
It is our responsibility through programs such as Youth Service
Canada to give young Canadians the opportunity to put their talents
to use. In my riding of Hamilton Mountain a $150,000 youth
service project, which will help to reduce the incidence of car theft
and vandalism, is co-sponsored by the Hamilton-Wentworth
Regional Police and the federal government. Along with improving
community safety this project will provide young Hamiltonians
with valuable experience in planning management and
communication skills. The government has also taken steps in the
throne speech to reassure all Canadians that their retirement years
will be financially secure years. The benefits of current seniors will
be protected. Adjustments to the Canada pension plan will be made
to ensure that future seniors can enjoy their retirement.
(1745)
Canada is the best country in the world to live in. In order to keep
making our country even greater we must take steps to enhance the
security of our communities as well as improve our economic
security.
Recent reforms of the justice system such as amendments to the
corrections act, gun control legislation and amendments to the
Young Offenders Act will help ensure the safety of our streets and
neighbourhoods. Proposed changes such as legislation on
dangerous offenders, improvements to the stalking legislation and
the establishment of DNA data banks will future enhance safety for
Canadians.
Security of our communities does not simply refer to personal
safety. Environmental protection is equally important. The health
of Canada's air and water is vital to our quality of life. In
recognition of the importance of our environment, the government
is committed to modernizing the Environmental Protection Act.
We must take steps now to ensure our children can still enjoy a
clean environment in the future.
The Liberal government is determined to work with all
Canadians to build a modern, united country to face the challenges
and opportunities of the 21st century. For all our differences,
Canadians live in peace and we have together built a successful and
prosperous country that is the envy of the world. Our shared values
unite us more than our differences divide us. Our success in the
world is proof of the wisdom of continuing to build on those
common values.
Canada is more than the sum of its parts. Together we can and we
will build on our common achievements to create an even better
country in the years ahead. Canada is a country committed to
international co-operation, open to the world and open to new
citizens of every heritage.
Canada must continue to engage in the events of the world and
promote peace, economic development and environmental
protection on a worldwide basis.
While continuing efforts to reduce economic barriers around the
world, we must continue efforts to reduce trade barriers among our
own provinces. All Canadians have a role to play in modernizing
our country. Every single citizen can and must have a say in our
future. We must not let the voices of disaffection dominate the
discussion or convince us that we would be better off divided and
separate rather than united and working together.
Working together, we can build on our wonderful heritage, our
incredible blessings, our amazing diversity and our limitless
opportunities to ensure that Canada will always be a beacon to the
world of hope, of freedom, of human dignity, of peace and of
decency. It is a very exciting future that Canadians can and will
chart together. That is the message of the speech from the throne,
for that is the real message of Canada.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there has been negotiation among the parties and I believe you will
find unanimous consent that the House continue to sit this day after
6.30 p.m. in order to consider the following motion:
That this House take note of Canada's current and future international
peacekeeping commitments in Haiti, with particular reference to Canada's
willingness to play a major role in the next phase of the international
community's efforts to sustain a secure and stable environment in Haiti.
64
That, during consideration of the said motion, no member shall speak for more
than 10 minutes and no dilatory motions or quorum calls shall be receivable; and
At 9.30 p.m., or when no more members rise to speak, whichever is earlier,
the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.
(1750 )
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, before beginning my speech in response to the speech
from the throne I would like to take a minute to thank the House for
the co-operation I received as Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance. It is a heavy workload and requires the
patience of the Speakers and of the table officers to make sure the
work gets done.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the Bloc Quebecois member who will sit
with me on the finance committee. I think we will have a great time
working together.
We are proud of our record for the first two years of our mandate.
We have fulfilled the vast majority of the commitments made in the
red book and our first speech from the throne. We have focused on
our plan to promote job creation and economic growth. As a result,
500,000 jobs were created and our growth rate is one of the highest
among industrialized countries.
This throne speech outlines our plan of action for the second half
of our mandate. Our goals remain unchanged. We want to build on
what we have accomplished so far. This throne speech has three
main thrusts: job creation and economic growth, the security of
individual Canadians, and streamlining the federal system to
strengthen Canadian unity.
We will put special emphasis on three major areas, namely
young people, science and technology, and trade.
We will continue to foster a healthy economic climate by
strengthening the basic parameters of our economy. To this end, we
will meet our deficit reduction targets and work together with the
provinces at harmonizing sales taxes and eliminating domestic
trade impediments.
We will therefore rely on the Team Canada partnership between
federal and provincial governments and the private sector to create
jobs for young people; double the number of federal summer
student jobs as early as this summer; support technology
development in the aerospace industry, in environmental
technologies and in biotechnology, and launch a Canadian
technology network; expand the access to the information highway,
particularly in rural communities; undertake further Team Canada
missions under the leadership of the Prime Minister; and finally,
announce new measures to enhance export development and
financing.
[English]
I will also spend some time today addressing the very real issue
facing Canadians, the Canadian pension system, an issue that
perhaps has been discussed the most in the time leading up to the
speech from the throne and next week's budget, as announced by
the Minister of Finance today.
I cannot think of anything that hits more at home to the security
of Canadians than what they believe their pensions will be as they
retire. Because of great media speculation the government has
decided to take the initiative to bring security to the system.
I as a Canadian and as a Liberal and now as a parliamentarian am
very proud of the progress made among our seniors since the
mid-1960s. The cornerstones of that program are the Canada
pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income
supplement.
(1755)
We have designed a program which, more so than any other
country in the industrial world, has lifted literally millions of
people from the edge of poverty or in dire straits during their
retirement years to having a secured monthly pension.
Any discussions in public debate, whether from the government
in the House, from the public in general or from researchers, that
insinuates the Canada pension plan cannot be secured and that old
age security is about to be taken away creates an insecurity among
older Canadians that reverberates across the country. My
constituency of Winnipeg North Centre is one of the areas in which
many elderly live in very poor conditions. This worries people.
Let me assure the House on behalf of the government that we are
making every effort to secure and modernize our pension plan.
Perhaps the best way to think about this is to realize that people my
age, in their late 40s, the baby boomers, will be hitting retirement
age in approximately 15 years. That means an effective planning
system has to be set in motion and we literally need a 15-year
countdown. We have to facilitate and maintain the security of those
who are already in retirement because they have the least flexibility
to respond to new situations.
That is why our low inflation strategy, our price stability
strategy, helps so many seniors. It gives them the security that their
monthly pensions will not be eaten away at 5 per cent, 10 per cent
or 15 per cent per year, rates which are not just a nightmare but
rates we have already had in our own lifetime.
The purpose of the Canada pension plan review, which will be
launched in March with the co-operation of the provinces, done
jointly with them, is to ask Canadians how they want to secure their
Canada pension plan. Do you want to see any cuts in benefits? Do
you want to see increases in contribution rates? Do you want to see
65
changes in disability pensions? Do you want to see changes in the
age of entitlement?
None of the 11 governments involved, as well as the two
territories, is coming with preconceived ideas as to how it should
be changed. However, they are coming with the one idea that it
must be changed and that it must be done jointly. I am very
optimistic that by the time the new year rolls around again we will
have a resecured Canada pension plan with a new structure that will
enable Canadians to understand that long into this 15-year horizon
they will have a plan that is stable and able to finance their own
retirement.
On the issue of government funded pensions, not the CPP which
is paid for by the employers and employees but the general pension
plan, it is incumbent on all parliamentarians to enter into a debate
with the retired and also with people in their 40s and 50s about the
retirement plans they have, how we can best structure all the
components, whether RRSPs, the OAS or the GIS, and what sort of
package can we put together that will help them in their retirement
plans.
I can think of no other purpose for parliamentarians, no higher
calling right now, than the accomplishment of security for seniors.
This will require work at a time when the government maintains its
deficit reduction strategy. The less call we make on the public
purse the better off the country will be.
Because we are a Liberal government we have priorities. Our
priorities are to focus on social security. We will have negotiations
with the provinces this year to jointly set out a framework for the
continuation of social and health transfers. We will make sure that
social policy has direction and that the right thing is done for
Canadians from sea to sea to sea.
We will also ensure, as outlined in the speech from the throne,
that the cash component of the transfer does not disappear and that
Canadians know that real money will continue to be put in the
system by the federal government. This will bring upon us a new
level of co-operation among the provinces so we can be assured
that we have a transfer which is flexible, which allows the
provinces to do what they think is best and is done in the
framework agreed to by all of us and with the declared values we
have as Canadians toward the health system, social assistance and
post-secondary education.
These are the parameters of the government. This is what we are
trying to do. The social agenda is evolving. It began with the
former Minister of Human Resources Development. It is being
continued with the present minister who is being assisted by the
Minister of Finance and is being led by the Prime Minister. This is
the cornerstone to providing social security for Canadians of all
ages and turning our attention to the youth.
(1800)
I say to the people of Winnipeg North Centre, this speech from
the throne addresses issues of prime concern to you. We will have
in front of us an agenda that treats people as fairly as possible and
gives us a sense of purpose in our social policy.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could share the optimism that the hon.
member had for the future of the Canada pension plan. He seems to
think that some minor adjustments and a slight increase of the
contributions to the plan will salvage it.
He also talked about the baby boomers in his presentation. I
happen to be in that group and one of many millions of Canadians
who wonder whether there will be a CPP around when we reach
eligibility age.
Another factor that he did not discuss in his speech should be
considered. When we baby boomers were teenagers at the time of
the centennial, the federal debt was only $17 billion. The
population was about 20 million. Twenty-nine years later, 1996, the
debt has multiplied 34 times. It is now $570-odd billion and is
growing by over $90 million per day. This debt will be borne by the
baby boomers as well.
How does the hon. member expect the younger generation, the
children of the baby boomers, to make higher contributions to the
CPP to fund our retirement while heaping on them a debt that is
continuing to grow by $90 million a day? There are already three
Liberal budgets or another $100 billion to add to that debt.
If it were just the CPP contributions that were going to go up,
maybe the younger generation would be able to shoulder it. They
will have to shoulder the interest on the increase of $100 billion in
three years and no plan to balance the budget in the near future. The
projection now is 2 per cent of GDP and 2 per cent is still billions
and billions of dollars added to our debt every year.
We are handing this over to the baby boomers' children as well.
They are going to be shouldering higher CPP deductions or
premiums or however we arrange it, plus paying higher taxes to
pay the interest on the debt which continues to grow.
Certainly it is not a fair burden to place on our children. I do not
really think they will be able to shoulder it unless we take more
responsible actions sooner.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I do not share the total pessimism of
the opposition spokesperson but I understand his frustration. If he
thinks he is frustrated, I can say what it is like being a
parliamentary secretary in the Department of Finance for the last
two years and having to deal with reality every month.
66
The reality is that the government has made tremendous strides
in the steps of reduction strategy and that it will in the next couple
of years reach the targets that are acceptable to all Canadians. It
will show tremendous progress on that front.
It has to be remembered that the drain being put on young people
is untenable unless we change our ways. We agree with members
opposite 100 per cent on that issue. It is hard to imagine that the
Government of Canada will probably have to have a cash excess
each year of about $50 billion to match interest rates for a while.
That is a tremendous burden.
Having said that, the reductions that we are making in public
expenditures and in interest rates, and the modest economic growth
that we are seeing, are still contributing to a more positive cash
flow situation for the federal government. I am optimistic that we
will be able to hit these targets and give people enough tax base so
that they can accommodate any changes in the CPP.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we also are very concerned about what is happening with
CPP money. We hear the government is floating ideas such as the
age of qualification is going to have to change, the amount of
premiums that are collected are going to have to increase and
perhaps benefits decrease, or a combination of those.
(1805 )
Looking at the money that is collected, I understand that it is
then loaned back to the provinces at non-market rates. What is the
government suggesting that it do? Perhaps the money that is
collected can receive a proper return on the international market
rather than be given at non-market rates to the provinces.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Government of
Canada has not made any of these proposals but all 11
governments, including the 10 provinces, have agreed to discuss
these ideas. What Canadians tell us will be the way that we decide
to go.
On the question of the money being available to the provinces,
that is true. One of the questions in the discussion paper that has
been circulated is whether or not that should continue. If premiums
change, for example, there could be quite a pool of capital and I
think we should all take an interest in how it should be invested.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the throne
speech. What surprised me most in the throne speech the governor
general made yesterday is the way in which the truth was doctored.
In the speech from the throne, the government is doctoring the truth
when it says that is has honoured its commitments. This is the first
comment that came to our minds and it is crystal-clear.
When you examine the speech from the throne, you realize that
some of the commitments mentioned in there are somewhat similar
to the commitments the federal government made in its inaugural
speech, on January 18, 1994. Let us review some of these
commitments, one by one. The first commitment made by the
government, and it was even mentioned in its platform, was to
control the increase of the national debt and to control, through
sound management practices, the deficit, year after year.
But, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, to control the annual deficit,
the Minister of Finance is not using sound management practices,
but rather measures to get out of his responsibilities in terms of
public finance. The first of these measures, as we keep telling
everyone, is to reduce the deficit by shovelling part of it into the
provinces' backyards. These cuts already represent $7 billion in
Canada, and almost $2 billion in Quebec, which the provincial
government will have to make up for in the next two years.
We also know that, far from controlling the deficit by efficiently
managing public finances, the Minister of Finance is stealing the
surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, surplus that should
reach in the next few years an average of $5 billion a year. What the
Minister of Finance is not saying and what does not transpire in the
speech from the throne is that the federal government stopped
putting money into the unemployment insurance fund several years
ago. Since the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund is used
for this purpose, I guess we can say that the government is using it
as a hidden tax to control the deficit.
Otherwise, the deficit control we were promised in the first
speech from the throne and again in yesterday's speech would
never come about, because nothing has been done to reduce the
deficit in a correct and fair way, through good fiscal management.
Nothing has been done to reduce the deficit. This is the first
commitment that has not been honoured.
The second commitment that has not been honoured, and we see
it again in yesterday's speech from the throne, is the abolition of
the GST. The Prime Minister had even made this a major campaign
issue in the fall of 1993. The government is dragging its feet. It is
searching for a solution to this commitment made by the Prime
Minister, and Quebecers as well as Canadians are still waiting for
this promise to be fulfilled. So that is another commitment that has
not been honoured.
Third commitment. The government is speaking as if it had just
arrived in this House.
(1810)
It says that we need a research and development policy, a policy
in the bio-food industry. It says we need a research and
development policy because Canada is lagging behind. Canada has
been lagging behind for ten years and it has been nearly three years
since government members had made this a major issue in the
1993 campaign, even before being elected. I remember the
Minister of Finance making a speech in Montreal, as early as 1989,
on the
67
importance of research and development. I remember him saying
that year that Canada was lagging behind considerably in this area,
which undermined its ability to create in the medium term steady
and meaningful jobs.
This government and its spokesperson, the Minister of Finance,
are making empty promises. The research and development policy
never became reality, the money was never spent, the billion
dollars that were promised during the election campaign were
never invested, and the government is now telling us in this speech
from the throne that it is going to do all that.
What is another commitment from the Liberal government
worth when it did not honour its previous commitments in the first
half of its mandate? As for the fourth commitment, the government
promised to help Montreal get back on its feet. As the Leader of the
Opposition was saying this afternoon, Montrealers are still waiting
for concrete measures that will help them get out of the slump.
Another commitment, and it struck me as soon as I heard the
speech from the throne. Not only have the Liberals not honoured
their commitments, but they also have shirked their
responsibilities. Regarding the environment, the speech says that
``The solutions to many environmental problems lie outside our
borders''. It is shameful to say such a thing. At the present time, we
have a major environmental problem called the raising of the
Irving Whale. The Deputy Prime Minister, who recently held the
environment portfolio, spent over $12 million on a solution which
we knew would fail; now, we have to go back to square one and the
whole shoreline of the Magdalene Islands might be polluted. When
I see such statements, I am ashamed of this government.
This afternoon, I listened to the Prime Minister. I listened to him
religiously since he is the chief of state, the Prime Minister. He
urged us to follow up on Canada's success story. He said: ``A
success which we must continue to build''. But on which
foundations? The foundations can be found in the throne speech;
the first one is national unity. The government wants to continue to
build this country by refusing to recognize Quebec's specificity,
Quebec's identity, and the existence of a people in Quebec.
The throne speech is nothing but a frame-up; it says that the
government wants to entrench the distinct society in the
Constitution. But what the Prime Minister does not say, and what
the governor general did not say yesterday while speaking on his
behalf, is that entrenching an empty shell does not change the fact
that it is still an empty shell. This is the kind of distinct society the
Prime Minister would eventually like to entrench in the
Constitution while trying to convince the other provinces that it
would not deprive them of anything. This is what the Prime
Minister was saying this afternoon. However what the Prime
Minister overlooked is that if that concept does not take away from
other provinces and does not offload anything in the provinces'
backyards, maybe it means nothing to Quebec. That is what we
understood and that is what Quebecers understood last October 30.
Now we see that the Prime Minister did not get that message.
Quebecers are no longer looking for symbolism, they want real
actions, real measures, a true recognition, and the Prime Minister
will not be able to fool them. He asks us to continue building
Canada's prosperity on another basis. We find the same thing again
in the throne speech on the continuation of jurisdictional fights.
What a wonderful program. What a fine perspective. In two
different places in the throne speech, they announce that, first of
all, the federal government will withdraw from certain areas of
jurisdiction it now occupies. We should thank the government, but
at the same time, it announces that the measures taken in those
areas could be transferred to municipal authorities or to the private
sector, that it could bypass the provinces and go directly to those
instances.
(1815)
When the federal government speaks about withdrawing from
certain fields, certain areas it now occupies illegitimately, because
they are areas of provincial jurisdiction, of Quebec jurisdiction,
like occupational training, forestry and mining, it is not offering us
a gift. And it is certainly not offering a gift when it says: ``Not only
do I recognize that I was occupying these areas inequitably, but
from now on, I will go over the head of the Quebec government and
contact directly its own creations, the municipalities, or I will
simply give more power to the private sector in areas falling under
Quebec's jurisdiction''.
This does not make any sense. We should also thank it for asking
us to continue to build on the success of Canada when it more or
less says in the throne speech: ``From now on, I will continue
invading jurisdictions that are exclusively provincial and I will do
so with the help of a majority of Canadian provinces''.
What it means is that if Quebec, a distinct people, does not want
the federal government to implement a Canada-wide program in an
area which is its exclusive jurisdiction, it will be isolated if a
majority of provinces decide otherwise. This is a way of isolating
Quebec. This is what the government calls an invitation to build on
this country's success.
The government is also inviting us to continue building this
country on the basis of a smaller social security net. Let us not kid
ourselves. I almost blew my top when I read that in the speech from
the throne. The Governor General started the speech by talking
about compassion, he said the government showed compassion.
The truth is, this government has shown less compassion that the
Conservatives during their nine year rule. Liberals did their utmost
to shrink the social security net. How else would you interpret the
reform of social programs? How else would you interpret the
general dissatisfaction throughout Canada about this reform of
68
social programs? How else would you interpret this systematic
attack against the unemployed?
Quebecers, like Canadians, know that between talk and action,
between commitments and what is actually being done, the
government has left a large gap, and it will remain during the
second part of its mandate.
How could it ask us, ask Quebecers, to continue to build a
country on the basis of a systematic squandering of public funds?
How can it ask us to continue working within a system which has
recently allowed spending $2 billion to buy armoured vehicles in
peacetime? We should be grateful that we are at peace. How can we
continue building a country which is buying 1,600 antitank
missiles at a cost of $23.6 million out of a total program of $230
million in peacetime? Is this the way to success, to continue
building a country on the basis of continuing fiscal inequities? We
can only repeat that popular phrase: ``No thanks''.
It is incredible that a government whose spokespersons have
been talking about compassion, social justice, fiscal justice and
equity for two years, would have come to a point where it refuses to
examine the whole system of tax exemptions, a system benefiting
mostly large corporations which have the means to take advantage
of it. The government readily accepts that Revenue Canada does
not even know how much half of the more than 250 such
exemptions are costing the federal government. We know the value
of about half of these exemptions.
(1820)
According to the Department of Finance, these exemptions to
large businesses cost taxpayers in Quebec and Canada more than
$17 billion a year. But for the other part, the other hundred or so
exemptions, the finance minister and all the government
representatives have systematically refused for the last two years
and a half that the House examine their content, their scope, their
objectives and their costs. Why? In order to continue to build this
country on the flouting of democratic rules. We also say no thanks,
Mr. Speaker.
A country where, from the very first pages of the throne speech,
the government says that it respects the October 30 verdict and then
says: ``But if that happens again, we will not respect it, we will not
allow Quebecers to choose their future for themselves, we will hold
a referendum or a Canada-wide consultation to do that'', is a
country that does not make any sense. It is a country I have more
and more trouble relating to. It is a country that accepts a
democratic verdict one day, when it suits it, and at the same time
decides, through its political representatives, that, if Quebecers
were to decide tomorrow to choose a country for themselves,
perhaps it would not recognize this verdict or perhaps it would hold
a Canada-wide consultation so that Canadians from the other
provinces can determine Quebecers' fate and future.
In conclusion, I was listening to the Prime Minister who was
saying earlier, and I quote: ``The world sees Canada very much as a
real country''. I wondered that he meant by that. We never doubted
that Canada is a real country. But what the Prime Minister has
failed to understand is that, next time, Quebecers will also choose a
real country for themselves, a country where they will feel at home,
a country where they will not feel increasingly crowded in, for a
increasing majority of them, a country that they will also be proud
of, a country where values of compassion, fairness and social
justice will be expressed in policies on employment, the fight
against poverty, economic growth and tax reform. That will be a
real country.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the hon. member's speech. He had all sorts of
complaints about Canada, but he did not make any comparison to
show the relative importance of all these problems. It is true that
we, in our country, have many problems. There are always
problems. The way to solve them is to find solutions. Before saying
that we must leave this country, however, we should first look at
the options. We should look at how other countries operate.
Otherwise, we work in a vacuum. The hon. member has not taken
that into consideration. I feel that Canadians should always
consider our position in the world.
I have seen very poor countries in the world, such as Haiti.
Haitians would love to trade their problems for ours, because ours
are much smaller than theirs.
[English]
It seems the hon. member is a bit like the airline passenger
aboard an aeroplane in mid air who decided it was too noisy and so
he decided to get out. This country may not be perfect. It has a lot
of problems. It is probably the worst there is, except for all the
others. The United Nations said it is the best country in the world to
live in.
This member does not want to consider that. He wants to look
only at the negatives and only at the problems. Yes, there are
problems and yes, we are committed to working on those problems.
In the throne speech the government talked about how it is very
important that we focus on problems like job creation even more
than we have in the past.
(1825)
We have to keep focusing on deficit reduction. It is important we
get our economic fundamentals right so the economy can create
jobs. We have interest rates down. We started two years ago. Our
69
interest rates were three points above the American's. Now they
are about the same. That is a great improvement.
However, there are still problems. We still need to create more
jobs. People in my riding of Halifax West are looking for jobs. The
government has to keep focusing on that. We have to focus more on
that in the next couple of years. I was glad to hear in the throne
speech that we will do that.
It seems the throne speech sets the government in the right
direction. The priorities set in the throne speech are Canadian
priorities. They are priorities of the people of Canada from coast to
coast, from sea to sea to sea, and they are the priorities of the
government, as they should be.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised several
points, as comments rather than as questions. I will deal with two
of those. To be sure, there are problems in Canada and everywhere
in the world. I am not saying that there are more problems here. I
am saying, however, that in Canada we are creating our own
problems.
Your government creates problems. Producing a speech from the
throne that promotes all sorts of measures likely to lead to
constitutional friction and jurisdictional disputes, regardless of
how cautiously the government wants to proceed, that is creating
problems.
The other point is the reference to Canada as the best country in
the world. To say that there is a best country in the world is to insult
other countries. It is insulting to other countries, because if you live
in the best country, it means that the others are not as good. The
fact is that countries are different. The best country is the one we
have in our heart; it is the one we will build in Quebec.
[English]
We must understand the real and durable solution for Quebec
and Canada, for Quebecers and Canadians, is sovereignty for
Quebec and the development of a new relationship between the two
peoples.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am specifically interested in the member's comments earlier
regarding the armed forces.
CFB Chilliwack in my riding is now doomed and destined to be
closed. It is, unfortunately, the last armed forces base in British
Columbia. It has brought a lot of consternation and concern to
many British Columbians that we no longer have an armed forces
base in British Columbia.
The member said we should not be spending money on personnel
carriers or on weaponry in peace time. To follow that logic, would
he be willing to give up some of the military establishments in his
province?
Perhaps he could encourage the premier of his province and his
own party to consider the closure of perhaps Saint-Jean, perhaps
the F-18 service contract, some of the things that were taken from
the west. If he finds it offensive, we are willing to look after those
military establishments in the rest of Canada. I wonder if he thinks
they should be shut down and moved out of his province or what he
has in mind for the military.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I have this answer to the hon.
member's two questions. First, as far as Quebec and National
Defence are concerned, Quebec gets far less than what it pays in
taxes to the federal government. We get about 13 per cent of the
spending-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Loubier: Look at the figures instead of acting like your
minds are already made up. Look at the Statistics Canada reports,
look at the figures for spending and investment by National
Defence in Quebec and compare them with the figures of the other
provinces, and you will realize what is going on. You say you are
pragmatic, so be pragmatic for once. Check your information.
Quebec gets 13 per cent of National Defence spending although it
pays 25 per cent of the tax bill.
The Deputy Speaker: I would appreciate it if hon. members
would address the Chair. I get very lonesome when you speak
directly to the other members.
Mr. Loubier: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. They were talking about
downsizing at the Department of National Defence. Downsizing
should not mean closing bases right and left but taking a long hard
look at what should and should not be done.
Does it make sense that at Canada's Department of National
Defence, there are ten times more officers in the senior ranks than
in most industrialized countries? These senior officers are paid
salaries ranging from $75,000 to $150,000, or more, plus a
chauffeur and a limousine, in some cases. Could there be too many
of them? Does it make sense to spend money on anti-tank missiles
in peacetime nowadays? Does it serve any purpose to invest in very
sophisticated submarines?
Downsizing also means looking at the mandate of the
Department of National Defence. In peacetime, it should be
peacekeeping. Peacekeepers need training, they need bases and all
the infrastructures, but they do not need anti-tank missiles.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for
Kootenay East. The hon. member will appreciate that the debate
ends in two minutes. There will be two minutes remaining until
next time. He has a minute and his colleague will have a minute to
reply.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the two
years that we have been here we have heard the Bloc Quebecois
70
members consistently talk about their vision of Quebec, which I
suppose is fine except when they are the official opposition.
In the context of the majority of the member's comments, would
he not agree that they are all virtually focused on the whole issue of
the province of Quebec as a province of Canada and that is it? In
other words, in his judgment what purpose is he or his party serving
in this House in the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, my answer to my Reform Party
colleague is simply this: During the past two years we have spoken
to Canadians across Canada, from east to west, and recently we
heard from Canadians who said they liked the Bloc Quebecois as
the official opposition and even hoped we would win the three
byelections in Quebec, so there would be no more of this talk about
the Reform Party claiming to be the official opposition on the right.
* * *
Those house resumed from February 27, 1996, consideration of
the motion that Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, member for the
electoral district of Madawaska-Victoria, be appointed Assistant
Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred division on Motion No. 2
under the heading ``Government Business'' standing in the name of
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice).
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 2)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-134
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
71
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-75
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Caccia
Clancy
Daviault
de Savoye
Dubé
Fewchuk
Gaffney
Lebel
McKinnon
Paré
Serré
Speller
(1855)
[English]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
_____________________________________________
71
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1900)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): My colleagues, this is the
first opportunity I have had since the new session started to thank
you all for the support you have shown for me in my role as the
Chair.
[English]
I appreciate your renewed confidence in my abilities and will
endeavour to do my best to ensure your confidence has not been
misplaced.
[Translation]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved:
That this House take note of Canada's current and future international
peacekeeping commitments in Haiti, with particular reference to Canada's
willingness to play a major role in the next phase of the international
community's efforts to sustain a secure and stable environment in Haiti.
[
English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I remind all colleagues that
each intervention will be only 10 minutes without questions or
comments.
[Translation]
Ten minutes without questions and comments.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to open this special debate on Canada's participation in
another peacekeeping mission in Haiti.
First of all, I would like to thank my fellow members of this
House, members of the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party, the
Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party as well as those of
my own party, the government party. This debate would not have
been possible without your support, and I thank you for it.
I am sorry this debate was held on such short notice. As you
know, things are happening very fast in New York, at the UN, and
the Canadian government may have to make a decision in the very
near future. I appreciate the co-operation of all parties in this new
Parliament. This way, the people of Canada will be able to express
their views to their elected representatives on an important foreign
affairs issue.
I also want to point out that today's consultation will not the last
on Canada's foreign policy or on Haiti. And I promise that, as far as
possible, future debates will be held under better circumstances.
(1905)
[English]
We all know how important the situation in Haiti is to us as
Canadians, to the Haitians and to the world community as a whole.
It has in the last several months been a remarkable demonstration
of a country under a major process of democratization. For a
country that used to be dominated by dictatorship, severe police,
autocracy and by a total elimination of human rights and economic
hope, it has now had some of that restored.
Now that the euphoria of the first months of freedom is
beginning to set into reality, we must dedicate ourselves to the
continuous building and construction of that country.
The new president, Préval, was sworn in on February 7. I am
pleased to say my new colleague, the hon. Pierre Pettigrew,
Minister of International Co-operation, attended the inauguration.
The president made a representation to the United Nations of the
need for continued assistance while his country does the
rebuilding. The first necessary condition is long term stability.
Haitian police force members, many having been trained by our
country and by others, are ready to ensure their responsibilities.
However, they are young and inexperienced and still need time to
learn on the job. As a result there has to be a complementary
international presence to ensure stability and security for the
population to allow its fledgling institutions of democracy to be
formed. It they are left on their own at this crucial stage, the
likelihood is that the problems would mount and there would be no
backup or security for their initial efforts.
Over the past few weeks I have had a number of consultations on
the issue of Haiti. My first trip as foreign affairs minister was to the
United Nations where I consulted with the secretary-general and
72
officials of the UN to ensure that any continuation of mandate in
Haiti would have sufficient resources to meet the task.
We have learned our lessons. We realize that when the United
Nations takes on a role there must be proper and effective resources
to meet the needs.
I have also had the opportunity to hold consultations with
members of the opposition parties in the past two weeks to talk to
them about what their concerns would be.
[Translation]
Last week, I met with members of the Haitian community in
Montreal. They show great solidarity. They are also quite inventive
in coming up with solutions to the problems facing their home
country.
[English]
I also brought the views of Canadians to bear by opening up this
question on the Internet so we were able to ensure that Canadians
from a wide variety of perspectives could let us know what their
thoughts were. The vast majority are very supportive of the
continuation of Canada's role of support.
As members know, at the present moment the security council is
still debating the issue. The secretary-general has made a request
that Canada would take leadership as the mandate of the Americans
comes to an end at the end of this week.
The security council is considering the questions of the size of
the force and the length of the tenure. Certain members of the
security council have raised questions, as they have a right to do.
However, because we believe so strongly in the need to continue
and maintain a UN presence, an international presence in Haiti, we
have come forward with proposals and solutions we think will
allow that force to continue and allow the deadlock to be broken,
once again demonstrating that as a country we are in a unique and
special position to provide leadership, to put forward ideas and to
help create bridges, as our Prime Minister said earlier, for solutions
to this problem.
What we are suggesting in effect is that if the size of the UN
force is not sufficient to meet the task, we could provide auxiliary
forces still under the control of a Canadian general, under the UN
rules of engagement admission, to ensure that fully adequate
resources are available when necessary to maintain the full and
adequate positioning of the international forces there and to
maintain the security and stability required.
It is our hope the proposals we have put forward will serve as the
basis for the resolution of this matter.
(1910)
At this moment the UN security council has not made its final
decision. It is looking at these proposals and although the time is
getting short we are confident that because of interventions we
made we will find an adequate, proper and effective response to the
request of the Haitian government.
We still need and want the expressions of opinion of members of
Parliament on what they think would be the most effective,
adequate, proper, constructive way for the force to continue its
leadership.
When the official decision is made by the security council we
would be in a position to make a proper and immediate response.
Our will is there. Our inclination and disposition are there. We are
finding the solutions but we need to have the views of members of
Parliament.
If the decision is made by the security council for Canada to take
on its leadership and for us to provide the kind of resources
required, I will maintain constant communication and discussion
with the new foreign affairs committee so that it will be fully
informed on an ongoing basis.
I have had discussions with members of the opposition and they
have expressed to me their interest in having the committee as a
monitoring agency able to maintain a constant overview and
assessment of Canadian overseas operations. We will make that
initiative with the committee once it is established, report on a
periodic basis and receive responses so that Parliament is a
constant partner in this very important mission.
Canada will not be alone. Other countries are making their own
interest known. The Pakistan and Bangladesh governments have
indicated their willingness to continue the missions. The French
government has told me that it is continuing to be involved in the
training of police forces and the maintenance of that area. The
Americans are maintaining missions of economic development and
support in that country.
Beyond the pure maintenance of order we must also ensure
rebuilding, economic development, social development,
development of a civil society in Haiti, building up judicial
institutions and proper ways the government is allowed to conduct
its efforts.
Canada cannot try to solve every problem everywhere in the
world but this is a place where we can make a difference as
Canadians. We have been asked to take a role. We have the
reputation and the experience.
[Translation]
Our country is a bilingual country capable of providing
peacekeeping services in French. Since Haiti is a member of the
Francophonie, this special role played by Canada will make a
difference for the people of Haiti.
[English]
I hope we as Canadians can offer hope to the people of that
country. They are looking for help. They want support. They are
starting an exciting process of rebuilding a country, rebuilding a
democracy. Canada can make a difference to those people in terms
73
of expanding and enhancing the role of the United Nations, giving
the international community a place and once again demonstrating
to the world that Canada is the real peacekeeper.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
some time now we have been given the opportunity to participate in
debates on peacekeeping missions. In that regard, I want to tell the
new Minister of Foreign Affairs, whom I congratulate on his
appointment, that we are pleased to once again take part in a debate
on peacekeeping missions in which Canada might take part.
In light of previous debates on this issue, of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs' speech, and of the motion, it goes without saying
that, as a matter of principle, the Bloc Quebecois supports this type
of motion, which proposes that Canada play a role in helping to
maintain peace in Haiti whose population, as we know, was ruled
by dictators for many years.
(1915)
However, I remember that we asked on several occasions,
including the two debates on Bosnia, that the government come up
with specific and well-defined criteria before holding a debate in
the House.
In his speech, the Minister of Foreign Affairs shows a great deal
of compassion and goodwill, reflecting Canadian values regarding
peacekeeping missions, and the Bloc Quebecois fully agrees with
those. We have no problem with that.
However, we also said on several occasions that some specific
criteria should be set, that the duration of the missions should be
determined, as well as the mandate, the number of troops to be
sent, and the cost of these missions. It appears that nothing has yet
been decided, even though cabinet apparently agreed, based on the
information that we have, to send some 750 peacekeepers to Haiti
to carry out that mission and to ensure the establishment of a
democracy.
But nowhere is there any mention of what Canada's mandate
would be. It was assumed that Canada might take over command of
the UN mission and that American troops would leave, to be
replaced by troops from other countries.
As I said, we readily support this principle but I may have to play
the killjoy here and say that, in my view, not much has changed in
the preparation of peace missions. We seem to answer requests by
the UN without knowing in advance what the real needs are or what
we can offer.
It even happened a few times that we exhausted our own
peacekeepers. I see the Minister of National Defence sitting in the
front benches, and I remember quite well that we often heard him
say that if we were to provide more peacekeepers we would not
have enough soldiers for the turnover. Some of them were on their
fourth or fifth tour of duty in Bosnia. And here we are, committing
to yet another mission. Far from me to suggest that we do not agree
with that except that, in the last debate on Bosnia, we had asked for
exact figures and we still have not received them.
The planning seems to be somewhat improvised. I would say this
is rather what we have come to expect from this government over
the last two years. There is no shortage of great ideas and grand
principles, but there does not seem to be any planning. Right now
in Bosnia and in Haiti there are almost 6,000 peacekeepers,
Americans, a few French, Canadian, and Dutch troops, etc. I will
not give a full list. There are also almost 800 police officers. Yet in
spite of all that aid, there are problems. It is very difficult to disarm
the Haitian putschists. In fact, Haitian citizens have complained
about the non-application of these standards.
Considering the scenario that is slowly unfolding, and this is my
reservation on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, if the Americans
withdraw from Haiti and Canada takes over command of the UN
force with some 2,000 peacekeepers and 500 to 600 police officers,
how can we expect as Canadians to disarm the putschists?
Moreover, the UN expects, and this is mentioned in the motion, the
problems to be solved within six months. Unfortunately, I do not
agree with that when we see all the problems that have occurred
since 1991-92. I have a hard time acknowledging that simply by
arriving with a new mission we will really get what we want.
(1920)
We could support the principle for another reason. During the
defence policy review, the Bloc Quebecois suggested in its
dissenting report that Canada should also consider whether its
universal mission was not overly ambitious and whether it would
not be more appropriate for it to concentrate its efforts in areas of
the world where its presence is more natural, such as in America
and the Caribbean. We said that, by establishing a regional profile,
Canada could better manage and plan requests from the UN while
giving Canadian military peacekeepers better and more thorough
training. This suggestion was made in a dissenting report tabled in
October 1994. We repeated it in the debate on Bosnia and it seems
to have gone unheeded, unfortunately. Here is another instance of
lack of planning.
I say again, in terms of the principle itself, the Bloc Quebecois
supports the Canadian mission without hesitation. We would even
say that-as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said-it is really
Canada's role, in the end, given that Haitians are part of the
francophone community. Obviously, being French speaking, troops
coming from the Val-Cartier base, in my riding, will find it easier
to relate to the Haitian people than American peacekeepers did due
to the language barrier.
74
On the other hand, I do have other reservations regarding this
mission. This afternoon, during question period, I asked the
defence minister to confirm the information we had to the effect
that General Daigle might be appointed the commanding officer
of the UN force in Haiti.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to raise the issue again since the defence
minister told me that he would comment on it during the
emergency debate. I am referring to the problems in Somalia, to the
attack on the Quebec Citadel, and other problems the minister is
probably aware of, including the incidents in Gagetown when
General Daigle was not yet general. There seems to be a trend as
revealed by the inquiry on the deployment of the airborne regiment
in Somalia and all the problems surrounding certain individuals.
This causes me some concern and my colleagues are of a same
mind. We are concerned even though the minister told us he has
full confidence in the new general. We are concerned about the
history of problems which have been more or less fixed and, I
would say, sometimes covered up. This is another reservation I
want to mention, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, I will say that the Bloc agrees in principle, with a
few reservations: we do not know the costs, and we do not know the
mandate nor the criteria, and this is not the first time we are saying
this. I believe the time has come to present a more specific plan
before making any further commitment.
To conclude, I would like to say there is no doubt that the Haitian
people needs this and that Canada, because of its geography, must
take part in this mission. However, as usual, I would appreciate if
we could have more detailed information, as we have requested, in
order to apprise the people of the role our peacekeepers are going to
play in Haiti, as well as the costs and the means provided to carry
on this mission.
(1925)
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, before I begin my
speech I want to comment on the minister's statement. He said that
he would consider using the foreign affairs committee as a vehicle
through which members could discuss this sort of thing. That
should be very positive. If foreign affairs is not an area that we can
approach in a non-partisan way, then there probably is not an area
where we can. I look forward to that co-operation. I certainly hope
it works.
A few areas must be talked about with regard to Haiti and this
decision. As the last speaker mentioned, this is in our hemisphere.
We have a great deal at stake in maintaining stability within the
Americas and can set an example that hopefully the Europeans will
look at when considerations come up later in the year regarding
Bosnia.
We have to talk about the leadership role we can play in Haiti. I
believe we are giving an important message which I hope will be
picked up by everyone. Obviously we are doing a favour for the
U.S. It is election year but we will not talk about that issue.
However, we expect this should weigh rather heavily when the US.
considers setting policy in such matters as international trade and
removing anti-Canada provisions in the Helms-Burton bill. We
expect the Minister of Foreign Affairs to make very clear to the
Americans the help Canada is providing them in this area and that
certainly we need consideration in other areas-wink, wink.
We need to talk about the problems, the factions that exist in
Haiti and their long history. Guns are still in the hands of people,
particularly in the countryside. We could talk about the hatred that
has built up in this country. These are all issues that could be talked
about.
As I understand it, Canada will have control of this mission. That
was something that really bothered us in Bosnia where we were not
even part of the contact group. This is a move forward.
I want to tell the minister that I was at a town hall meeting last
night which over 300 people attended. I gave a 20-minute
presentation on Haiti because I knew this debate was coming
tonight. That is just about as grassroots and as immediate as one
can get. A wide range of people were there, not simply party
members. I think the group was a typical cross section of
Canadians.
I was rather surprised at the message which was: ``You're cutting
our health care, you're threatening our pensions. Now what about
this going off to other places?'' I was rather surprised that the
message was quite as blatant as this, that it was so outspoken.
Two people said that Canadians should go but that we should be
sure the soldiers have the right equipment and the right training.
They put qualifications on their going. However, a huge number of
that 300-person crowd said: ``We have real concerns. We think you
should hold back until you have all the criteria''.
What should those criteria be? The message certainly included
the length of stay. The resolution in the UN very clearly says that
this is an extension for six months. I listened carefully to the
minister, making sure that he emphasized that part of the mandate
in the UN resolution. I trust it will be made clear that in fact it is six
months. Conditions could arise that would cause us to reconsider
but there is a six-month period in there.
The government should tell Canadians the cost of this. If on
September 30, 1996, the government tabled in this House what this
mission cost us, that kind of openness would help to build the
confidence of the public, certainly the 300 people I talked to last
night.
Is there a contingency plan? When the Americans were there
they had a carrier in the harbour. They had attack helicopters that
could be brought in. That is a pretty big stick to hold over anyone.
75
My question is: Do we have any kind of contingency plan, any kind
of big stick that we might use to keep people in line?
(1930)
I bring forth again the U.S. election situation. Obviously this
plays very heavily on why the Americans want to leave. They want
to leave because they cannot afford to have any ripples and
obviously this is a major issue.
I also want to ask about the OAS. I want to know what the OAS
has said, what it is going to do, how strongly it is supporting this
sort of mission. Can we count on the OAS for support and help and
what sort of help will that entail?
It seems to me that the OAS should become a much more
important body. If we talk about the regional nature of the
Americas, the OAS should be the one that helps monitor problems
within that sphere. Obviously Europe is another area and possibly
Africa is in their sphere. In southeast Asia there is the whole area of
the Asia-Pacific. If we have these spheres we can then start to
create a more peaceful world in which all of us can live, trade and
get along.
I also would like to know about the reconstruction. Haiti is a
country that does not have an education system, that does not have
the services, the social system. Certainly there are the problems in
the countryside which we have read about. What sort of plan does
the UN have, if it has a plan, for the reconstruction of this country?
We need a long term solution. We do not need to go back in a few
months, years, or whatever. We need a plan.
In conclusion and in talking about this take note debate, I know
the minister is aware of my concerns that we do not have a sham of
a debate. We must have a true debate where all members take part
and represent their constituents on a non-partisan issue like this
one, where they can actually hear the pros and cons of the debate.
They would then have the duty in a free vote to vote on what this
assembly has heard on an issue like this one.
Let us take the politics out of it and put it into the area where we
are really representing. This would be a perfect area to do that. If
we are sending over 100 troops we should have that sort of debate.
As well, it is important that the government at least 48 hours
prior tells us of the tentative budget, the mission's mandate, the
size and duration of the commitment, the rules of engagement and
certainly the rotation and so on planned for those troops. We owe
that to Canadians. If we cannot get that information then we should
not be signing a blank cheque. If the UN is so disorganized that it
cannot provide it, then perhaps we should not be going.
These sorts of things are the big issues for Canadians and they
are asking these questions: What is the mandate? Would you send
your son or daughter on this mission? Is it safe? Do we have the
equipment? Do we have the mandate? We owe it to Canadians to
come up with the answers to those questions.
I believe the House will respond to that in a very positive way.
That is how we build up the feeling as Canadians that we are proud
of our peacekeepers, that we are proud of our missions abroad, that
we are proud to be Canadians. We tend to be shy when we talk
about ourselves. I know that all members on all sides of the House
would agree it is time that we became proud Canadians. We can
demonstrate it through missions like this one provided we have the
confidence of the people. The way to have that confidence is to
make it transparent, make it open, let them be part of it, let the
members of Parliament be part of it and ask the people.
I welcome this opportunity to deliver this message. I know that
our new minister is listening.
(1935)
[Translation]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy
to take part in this debate because it is crucial to Canada's
peacekeeping mission.
It is appropriate that Canada was called upon to play an
important role in Haiti because we have for a long time participated
in the peacekeeping missions of the UN and we have made great
efforts to ensure the security and the stability in the western
hemisphere.
Our participation in Haiti also reflects the reality of bilingualism
in Canada and our role as a leader within the francophonie.
Canada helped in many ways: members of the Canadian armed
forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police participated in the
UN mission in Haiti; Canada trained Haitians who would form a
national police force in Haiti; finally, we offered bilateral financial
help in order to facilitate the social and economical stabilization of
the country.
[English]
We have assisted in the last number of months in Haiti. I visited
our forces last fall in Port-au-Prince and also on a mission to
Gonaïves.
The forces have been composed of about 600 members of the
Royal Canadian Air Force, some army, but largely air force. I
underscore this because people often think that peacekeeping
missions are simply the reserve of the army. The fact is that the
navy and the air force do participate in these missions and of course
the air force has carried the load so far in Haiti.
What we are talking about this evening and my colleague the
Minister of Foreign Affairs has talked about the ongoing debate in
New York, we are talking about a force that Canada might send of
up to 750 personnel. It may be configured in an imaginative way,
76
perhaps not all under blue berets, perhaps under green berets. The
fact is that what is envisaged is to have a Canadian commander.
On that point I do regret the comments made by the hon.
member-
[Translation]
-for Charlesbourg because he criticized one of our generals. It is
unfortunate because, as I said during Question Period, I trust all the
generals in the Canadian forces and I also trust the person who
raised that question this afternoon and this evening.
[English]
The decision as to who commands the Canadian force should we
participate is a decision for the chief of defence staff. That is an
operational decision and is one that I shall support.
A lot of good work has to be done in Haiti. The reconstruction of
Haiti is needed. The force in the last six months under the
leadership of the United Nations has established a degree of peace
in that area. The crime rate has gone down. Democratic elections
have been held. Really it has been quite successful.
I understand the reservations some members have with respect to
Canada participating yet again in terms of the length of the mission
and especially the cost of the mission. I stood up in this House
sometime ago and I gave an approximate cost for IFOR. I have
been quite amazed that not the incremental costs on the Canadian
side but the costs on the NATO side have escalated.
I think the hon. members for Red Deer and Charlevoix have
raised very good points about getting a better handle on the costs
before we go into these missions. I will not be able to give a full
accounting of IFOR for a few weeks. I will come back to the House
and give that information but we do have to be very very careful.
With respect to the rules of engagement, we have to be very sure
that we know under what auspices we are operating there. We have
had some unpleasant experiences before, one in Somalia, and we
have learned a lot of lessons.
As I mentioned in the IFOR debate before Christmas, it was
because of the lessons that we had learned in the past that we were
able to work with our colleagues in NATO to develop rules of
engagement that were applicable to that particular situation. We
want to make sure that the rules of engagement for any mission in
Haiti are certainly ironed out and that we know what we are getting
into.
With respect to the resources devoted to the development of the
Haitian national police, that is also something we want to know
about. This is just not a Canadian Armed Forces operation; the
RCMP have been involved and involved in a terrific way. Inspector
Pouliot of the RCMP has been well received and has been widely
congratulated for the efforts he has given to the Haitian police
force.
(1940)
However we would like to know what the UN has in mind in
terms of financial resources for that force. The mandate has to be
appropriate and achievable under the circumstances. We have to
know the rules of engagement. We have to know what the ultimate
force size and composition are and they are the subject of
negotiation, as my colleague just said, and we do not really have a
clear handle on that. When we get all the costs and conditions, we
will be in a position to know if the mission is viable. I think it will
be viable but the questions raised here today have to be answered.
The hon. member for Red Deer talked about the public meeting
in his constituency. I applaud him for having that kind of grassroots
debate before we came here this evening. He made a statement that
I would really like to challenge, which is that Canadians, despite
our own financial woes, despite our own domestic pressures are
unwilling or unable to help less fortunate nations.
Those of us on this side of the House believe that no matter what
belt tightening we have to do as a government or as a people, the
generosity of Canadians and the richness of our society is such that
we must continue to do our bit in helping less fortunate patrons in
the world. From time to time we run into doubting Thomases so to
speak about our involvement and where it gets us. We have a track
record, whether it has been in Somalia, whether in Bosnia, Croatia,
Rwanda, Haiti in the last number of months, I think the UN
missions have been successful. They have been worth participating
in and the UN has made a difference. It has made a difference
because it has been able to count on the dedication of forces from
around the world.
We have heard the Prime Minister say in this House how highly
regarded the Canadian men and women of the Canadian Armed
Forces are, how highly regarded men and women of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police are, as are other civilian officials who
monitor elections, are involved in overseas development work, are
involved in bringing aid, in monitoring and are involved as
observers. All the Canadians who have been involved in missions
in the last few years have done an excellent job. That is why the UN
needs us.
The UN frankly needs Canada. We have been in the forefront of
peacekeeping development and overseas development generally in
the last 50 years. If Canada is asked, if the conditions are right and
if my colleague and I are satisfied that certainly the conditions
under which we want to operate which we described this evening
are met, then we should entertain participation in that force.
77
We owe a helping hand to Haiti. It is the poorest country in
this hemisphere. I know the country well. I have been there at least
a dozen times on various business and overseas development
missions. It is a tragic case of where a people and a country have
been exploited unduly. We as well as others in the United Nations
are trying to make a difference to at last get Haiti back on the
right path to democracy and to the improvement of its economy
and the lot and lives of individuals.
The hon. member for Red Deer raised a very good point, that is,
the whole question of what guarantees there are if there is a
problem. This is not quite like Bosnia or Croatia but there are
precedents where the United States particularly was willing to
extract forces from Somalia. The U.S. was certainly willing with
the allies to extract forces from UNPROFOR last year. In fact, we
were part of that planning. The hon. member should rest assured
that should anything untoward happen, we have the means, we have
the ability, we have the equipment and we have the belief that our
friends and allies would make sure that if there were any undue
emergencies, they would be there to help us in a difficult situation.
The precedents have already been set.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the motion
introduced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, providing that
Canada assume control of the UN Mission in Haiti shows, first of
all, that the United Nations Organization has a great trust in Canada
and its peacekeeping missions.
(1945)
I would like to stress that the Bloc Quebecois is pleased to see
that the new Minister of Foreign Affairs is willing to consult
members of Parliament regarding the Canada's involvement in this
mission. The goal is to continue the peace mission already in
progress in Haiti. As I said previously, Canada shows a great deal
of openness towards countries in need of humanitarian help, or
support in re-establishing democracy and respect for human rights,
or help in maintaining a stable and peaceful society, in short, help
in their peacebuilding efforts.
We are currently living in a world where a country cannot ignore
what other countries are doing or experiencing, and even more so
when such a country is a friend and almost a neighbour. The need to
live in peace in the world requires actions and initiatives which
promote better conditions. Some would tell us, wrongly, that we
should take care of our deficit and our own problems before giving
any help to foreign countries. This would be a shortsighted view
when faced with a problem which might endanger our own
security.
To get a better understanding of the context which led to the
motion we are debating today, I would like to review briefly the
various interventions of the UN in Haiti. In December 1990 the
long awaited first democratic election brought President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power. The success of that election was
in part the result of the good work of an international mission of
observers under the direction of Pierre F. Côté, director general of
elections in Quebec.
Less than a year later, a coup perpetrated by the Haitian army
forced the new president into exile. Following the coup of
September 30, 1991 and until the President's return, the people of
Haiti were under a military regime that scorned the fundamental
principles of democracy. During those three years, more than 3,000
people were killed by putschists in summary executions, over and
above others acts of torture. In the absence of any willingness on
the part of the military to restore democracy, severe economic
sanctions were imposed on the country by UN and OAS members.
Quebecers and Canadians were among the first to call upon their
elected representatives to make major efforts in order to restore
democracy and ensure President Aristide's return. Canada also
took part in several humanitarian missions under the UN and the
OAS.
Furthermore, more than 500 police officers and peacekeepers
from Canada and Quebec were involved in the UN mission to Haiti,
known as UNMIH. That mission was launched pursuant to
Resolution 867 of the Security Council. It was aimed at
implementing the Governors Island agreement in order to ensure
the President's return as soon as possible. In July 1994, just a year
and a half ago, the UN mission to Haiti being unable to give effect
to that agreement, Canada took part in setting up a multinational
force under U.S. command, in order to hasten the departure of the
Haitian military leaders.
The UN Security Council then gave increased capabilities to the
multinational force, which would give over these powers to the UN
mission to Haiti once the situation had been stabilized. As of
March 31, 1995, Canada had provided 100 RCMP officers and 500
members of its armed forces to the UN mission. Since then, the UN
mission has taken over from the multinational military
implementation force. It includes a military contingent of 6,000
soldiers and a police component of 800 officers from 30 countries.
The Haitian people gave a warm welcome to the troops and
police officers, and there has been a substantial drop in the crime
rate over the past 12 months. Peaceful demonstrations are now
allowed. Journalists are free to do their job. The international
community, however, still has one concern: the mandate of
UNMIH expires tomorrow.
(1950)
Since the situation in Haiti is still precarious, the Secretary
General of the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, recently indicated that
a smaller transition mission would be desirable in order to
strengthen the young Haitian democracy. This mission would
focus on
78
supervising the new Haitian police and supporting the civilian
institutions. The military aspects of its mandate would be reduced.
We must be assured that this new national police force, which
would be trained by Canadian instructors among others, will be
able to maintain order after the peacekeepers leave. The newly
elected President of Haiti, Mr. Préval, has already stated his
intention to ask the Security Council to extend the mission.
The challenge of democratization has not been won yet. It seems
that the disarming of the former supporters of the putschists is far
from over, and that there is still a risk that hostilities will resume
after the international forces leave.
Despite its reservations, the Bloc Quebecois feels that the
presence of UN troops, which will be under the direction of Canada
for a while, will undoubtedly be a great help in rebuilding Haiti.
Maintaining foreign troops is desirable until we have more
evidence that democracy prevails in that country. However, before
committing Canadian Forces any further and responding to the
UN's request, we wish to express certain reservations.
First of all, the government must set the rules and criteria
governing its intervention and assess the resources needed to carry
out this mission. The minister seemed prepared earlier to take into
account what his colleagues were saying, and I hope it was not idle
talk.
The government must immediately specify what the mandate of
our troops will be in Haiti, to avoid repeating the ad-libbing that
has taken place during other missions. We believe that their
primary task should be to consolidate democracy by supervising
and training local forces and reinforcing civilian institutions.
Since the American troops are scheduled to leave next month,
the Bloc Quebecois questions whether this new mission will be
able to keep the peace in Haiti. We think that the Canadian
government should negotiate with the UN and the U.S. government
the withdrawal, possibly over a six-month period, of the American
and Pakistani troops currently deployed.
The multinational force under U.S. command included 6,000
troops. Canada should know from the start how many troops we
will be able to count on when we will take over command, and
make sure that the UN will provide all the resources we will need to
fulfil our mandate properly.
As for the Canadian troops in the field, the Bloc Quebecois is of
the opinion that no more than 750 peacekeepers should be sent to
Haiti, as my colleague, the defence critic, indicated. More than
1,000 Canadian military have already been assigned various tasks
with regard to the implementation of the Dayton accords in Bosnia.
While being generous and compassionate, Canada must also take
into account what if any resources are available.
So far, the government has not told us much about the costs
involved in this mission. Again, the minister seemed to take that
aspect into consideration. For the sake of transparency and
integrity, taxpayers in Quebec and Canada must know what
expenses the government will incur during this mission.
In June 1995, I took part in an observer mission for the
verification of parliamentary and senatorial elections in Haiti. I
saw for myself that the presence of foreign forces was absolutely
necessary if an atmosphere of detente and security was to prevail
over there. For far too long, the people of Haiti have been afraid of
walking in the streets, of speaking, singing and expressing
themselves freely.
(1955)
Democracy is a wonderful means of integrating citizens in the
society to which they belong. This can take place provided that
citizens can play an active and responsible role in society. The
democracy emerging in Haiti deserves to survive, if only it will be
given a chance.
[English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise for the first time in this new session of Parliament to
debate the role of Canada in Haiti. We all recall that an emergency
debate on our peacekeepers was among the first topics discussed in
the first session of this Parliament. It was also my maiden speech in
Parliament. Since then the government has consulted, as promised,
this House on several occasions because it believes in hearing the
opinions of its members as representatives of all Canadians.
Today, once again, the Liberal government is turning to us for
our views on the subject of Haiti where Canada has played a
fundamental role in helping to restore peace and democracy. More
than ever, Canada continues to be asked to assist in such missions
as the one we are debating today. The reason for this, as the Prime
Minister said in his speech this afternoon, is because they see
Canada as a model for hope for the future and they aspire to
achieve what we have in our country.
I feel it is our duty as well as our responsibility to help these
nations, which I will call also our brothers and our sisters in need.
After all, we live on this planet earth together and we are all a
global family.
[Translation]
Haitians see us as a partner and a strong ally who has never let
them down. As for the UN, it sees us as an active participant in a
multilateral system, and also as a country with a deep respect for
peacekeeping. Today, both of them are showing the great
confidence they have in our country and its citizens.
79
I want to focus on two themes that, I think, justify our
participation in that mission: to help strengthen the civilian
authorities in Haiti, and to ensure the safety of individuals.
On February 7, our new colleague, the Minister for International
Co-operation and Minister for Francophonie, went to
Port-au-Prince to represent our country at the swearing-in
ceremony of the new President of Haiti, René Préval.
This was the minister's first trip, which is an indication of the
importance given to the Haitian situation by our government. The
minister was able to see first hand the rebuilding going on, as well
as the magnitude of the job that awaits Canada and other donor
countries willing to help Haiti meet the basic needs of its
population.
Canada has played, and continues to play, a major role in the
march of the Haitian people towards democracy. Our immediate
concern is to maintain a stable and safe environment in Haiti. In
order to do that, the UN peacekeeping mission must remain in
Haiti. Canada will continue to support the development of the rule
of law in Haiti and help strengthen the civilian authorities in that
country.
In the long term, this will not only mean helping Haiti reorganize
its courts, but also train its judges and help reform its whole legal
system. The Canadian International Development Agency is
currently developing a program that will help Haiti train judges as
well as court officers. That program will also help the Haitian
government reorganize trial courts and develop its own training
capabilities. Technical assistance is currently being provided to the
Haitian justice department through that program.
As a Montrealer, I am pleased to know that over 245 police
officers from Montreal's urban community volunteered to spend
three to six months in Haiti, where they will join the 15 or so
officers who are already there, to help train their new Haitian
colleagues. This type of exchange shows the value and the strength
of international co-operation.
(2000)
This program will not only help the new Haitian police force, but
will certainly work to bring together the SPCUM and the cultural
communities of Montreal. This shows what co-operation can do.
This is a fine example of what international co-operation can bring
to all of us in Canada.
We need to help Haitians not only to overall their justice system,
but also to discover and protect their rights. With its Human Right
Education and Promotion Program, CIDA is teaching the Haitian
people, at the community level, how to exercise and protect their
rights. This program will promote a sense of civic duty and try to
make the Haitian people more responsible, while the lack of such a
sense of civic duty has only led to violence and fear in Haiti.
We will help Haiti to further develop this sense of civic duty by
revitalizing its co-operative movement. The Haitian people will
gain a better understanding of the true value of participatory
democracy. The co-operative movement has been in existence in
Canada for a long time. Whether it is in Quebec with its caisses
populaires or in Western Canada with its wheat pools, we know the
many benefits this movement can bring to the community. The
co-operative movement helps to create and protect jobs and to
distribute wealth, but also teaches its members about democracy
and gets them involved in society. This is why CIDA implemented
a five-year program to promote the co-operative system as the key
to economic growth and to the social and financial security of its
members.
Strengthening democracy in Haiti will lead to social
development. The Haitian people had the courage to take the first
steps in what will be a long and difficult march. Haitians have let
go of their painful and violent past and are working hard to build a
peaceful society where all their fellow citizens will share the
benefits of development and progress.
They can be proud of what they have accomplished in such a
short period of time. We agree with President Préval, when he said
in his inaugural speech that, in the end, it will be up to the Haitian
people to take responsibility for their future.
Even if they have taken their future into their own hands, we
must continue to stand beside them and to give them a hand. We
cannot let the gap between aspirations and reality get any wider in
Haiti. The longer people have to wait for real change, the greater
the potential for violence and instability. For this reason, Canada's
two priorities in Haiti are to seek and maintain a stable and
peaceful environment, and to reduce poverty and foster economic
growth.
Canada is convinced that Haiti must have sustainable
development. If there is to be any chance of that development
fostering any hope, it absolutely must integrate all of the
environmental, social, economic and cultural challenges that face
Haiti. This holistic approach is the key to reducing Haitian poverty.
Too often poverty, coupled with inequality, injustice and
systematic abuses, leads to violence. We must break that vicious
circle, and this we can do if we create the necessary conditions for
growth and for job creation.
If we contribute to maintaining the current atmosphere of
stability in Haiti, and if we can consolidate it still further, national
and international investors will be more inclined to make
investments there. In the meantime, Canada has concentrated its
efforts on small labour intensive infrastructure projects throughout
Haiti, such as rebuilding schools and nursing stations, repairing
roads and improving irrigation and drainage ditches.
80
(2005)
In addition to supplying technical assistance in various forms,
since 1994 Canada has provided more than 300,000 tools such as
hoes and shovels-simple, but in scarce supply-to allow these
projects to take shape. So we have a grasp on the magnitude of the
task Haiti has before it.
In conclusion, Canada is aware that the Haitian people have
great confidence in us. On behalf of myself, and of all Canadians I
believe, I wish to thank them for their confidence and to assure
them that we intend to show ourselves worthy of it. We and our
ministers will work hand in hand with them, while respecting their
differences, at fulfilling their aspirations for peace and
development.
[English]
I wish once again to applaud the efforts the Liberal government
and our ministers have made in helping to restore democracy in
Haiti. It is important for us to continue to do all we can to
strengthen our commitment to our brothers and sisters in Haiti.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to speak to the motion of the
House, this take note debate have before us tonight, on Canada's
current and future international peacekeeping commitments in
Haiti, with particular reference to the United Nations aspect for
Canada to take military command of the United Nations mission in
Haiti.
To me and other members of the House this take note debate is
purely smoke and mirrors. Although we would like to see pure
consultation with members of the House of Commons, we
recognize there will be no vote with respect to the information that
comes out of this debate tonight. The Reform Party deplores the
hypocritical attitude the Liberal government has toward the
Canadian people in this regard.
For several weeks now the media has been reporting that the
government has decided to commit troops to Haiti. The chief of
defence staff advised the cabinet that we have the capability to
participate, and military preparations have been underway for some
time now.
The Liberal government even referred to this mission in
yesterday's throne speech. Despite the hypocrisy of the
government, the Reform Party supports in principal taking
command of the UN mission to Haiti. Canadians recognize the
importance of stability in Haiti, the poorest country in our
hemisphere, and Canadians support the principle of democratic
reform.
This is a dangerous mission and Canadians should be fully aware
of that fact. It is dangerous and this is not a traditional
peacekeeping mission. We will not be monitoring opposing armies
but playing a role in maintaining political stability in Haiti.
Canadians recognize that our armed forces are ready and capable of
success in this mission because we have a trained, combat capable,
professional armed forces to do the job.
However, the Reform Party is concerned about the government's
handling of Canada's defence policy. One of the most important
tasks of any national government is to support the existence of
sufficient combat capable armed forces to match the nation's
defence policy. This is not something that is just desirable, this is a
responsibility and a requirement of any sound national
government. It would be an abdication of the government to fail in
this regard.
(2010 )
In 1994 the special joint committee on Canada's defence policy,
after careful consideration, identified that we must maintain at
least 66,700 military personnel. Yet the minister in his white paper
stated that he intended to reduce the size of the armed forces to
some 60,000, almost 7,000 fewer than identified during the eight
months the special joint committee was working on this very issue.
The commitment capability gap does not stop there. In the white
paper the Minister of National Defence also announced the
government intends to cut the primary reserves to 23,000 from
29,000 personnel. This is strategically and fiscally irresponsible for
this minister. The militia provided more than 20 per cent of the
UNPROFOR mission to the former Yugoslavia. The militia cost the
Canadian taxpayers only 4 per cent of the entire armed forces
budget. The militia is a very cost effective way of having a national
defence plan.
If the Liberal government accepts the recommendation of the
1995 Dickson commission report on the restructuring of the
reserves, 50 per cent of Canada's militia units will be disbanded
across the country.
Only two weeks ago the Liberal government changed 50 years of
Canadian defence policy by saying that Canada does not have nor
does it need to maintain combat capable land forces. On February
13 the new chief of the defence staff told Canadians that land forces
are unfit to fight in a serious war: ``If the government asked me to
go into a high intensity theatre with the equipment I have today, I
would have to say I can't do it''.
The Minister of National Defence, contradicting his own white
paper, said that General Boyle's comments were pretty fair. He
added that General Boyle's comments reflect the 1994 white paper
on defence. Then the Minister of Foreign Affairs went even further
in reversing the defence policy of the government, stating: ``A lot
of defence purchases have been geared toward the peacekeeping
effort because that is the changing nature of the world. The notion
81
that we might re-engage in a major conflict like the second world
war does not seem to be there''.
These statements, in a matter of a 10-second news clip, by the
Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs
destroyed the work of the special joint committee, destroyed the
work of the Minister of National Defence's own white paper on
defence.
In Gaza in 1956 Canadian General Burns said you can always
turn down a fire hose to water a garden but you can never turn up a
garden hose to put out a blazing fire. General Burns was telling
Canadians the Canadian Armed Forces must be able to tackle a
variety of challenges in the dangerous and unpredictable world we
live in today. Our armed forces personnel must be first and
foremost combat capable professionals which then and only then
enables them to be the finest peacekeepers in the world.
The Minister of National Defence should take heed of General
Burns' illustration. If the minister would listen tonight I would say
stabilize the size of the Canadian Armed Forces and make sure the
resources go toward making it first and foremost combat capable.
He should live up to the combat capability which he committed an
entire chapter to in the white paper.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs also must consider the
illustration of General Burns. It is fine and dandy for the Minister
of Foreign Affairs to commit our armed forces to Liberal
government foreign policy objectives. However, they must not be
trained only for peacekeeping; they must remain combat capable
professionals, as they are today.
The Reform Party supports in principle taking command of the
United Nations mission in Haiti. Canadians are confident in the
ability of our armed forces. However, Canadians are not as
confident in the Liberal government. Canadians call on the
government to stop abdicating its responsibility. We have reached
the critical mass where further cuts and reductions to our armed
forces will make them an impotent marching band.
(2015)
[Translation]
Mr. John Godfrey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation): Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to
rise in this House today to support the government's motion for
increased Canadian involvement in the UN mission in Haiti.
But first of all, let me stress the fact that this motion is moved in
the context of the government's willingness to consult Canadians
and parliamentarians on broad foreign policy issues.
This House has been given the opportunity to discuss the
government's new foreign policy and, on several occasions, the
involvement of our troops in UN missions in Bosnia and elsewhere.
As the minister said, this debate is something of a last minute
proposition. I know some members would have liked to have more
time to prepare for this debate. I want to say to hon. members that
the government will make every effort to give more notice of future
debates such as this one, whenever possible.
The government's foreign policy review has indicated that
Canadians want to be more involved in the making of our foreign
policy. For the first time, the government has asked Canadians to
express their views through Internet on Canadian participation in
the UN mission in Haiti. I am pleased to report that, out of about a
hundred responses, 75 were in favour. We got many relevant
comments and useful suggestions.
I am pleased to see that today's debate gives us once again the
opportunity to talk about Canada's participation in a mission led by
the United Nations. We have the chance not only to reaffirm the
unique role our country plays within the United Nations system,
but also to review the special contribution Canada has made these
last few years to help the Haitian people on its way towards
democracy.
In 1990, the Haitian people took a first big step towards
democracy when they elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
The 1991 coup led by the Haitian army served to show how fragile
the movement towards democracy was. The determination of the
world community, of the United Nations, of the friends of Haiti and
of the president in exile showed however that that was the only way
the Haitian people could go.
The Canadian population and the Canadian government never
wavered in their support for the Haitian people and for its fight for
democracy and freedom.
Besides helping to organize presidential elections in 1990, we
worked for the return of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, we were there to
welcome him back to his country, we helped Haiti to hold
legislative and presidential elections last year and we were there, a
few weeks ago, to assist for the first ever handing of power from
one democratically elected president to another.
Our new colleague, the Minister for International Cooperation
and the Minister responsible for Francophonie, Mr. Pierre
Pettigrew, went to Haiti to attend this event. It was his first official
trip, which goes to show how important the Haitian issue is to the
government.
And now that a new president has been elected and that Haiti is
on the way toward building its civilian society, Canada will still be
supporting the Haitian people.
82
We can be proud of what the international community and
Canada have accomplished in Haiti in such a short time after
President Aristide's return. We have quickly identified the most
urgent needs of the Haitian people and coordinated the activities
of all donor nations to provide adequate assistance.
Canada has helped to restore power supply in Port-au-Prince not
only by fixing the actual power stations but also by providing
back-up stations. As well as providing emergency food aid, we
have helped the Haitian people to build schools and health care
units.
(2020)
The sad episode of the de facto government served to show the
harsh reality: democracy is fragile in Haiti. It is still threatening for
certain interests. That is why we must try to consolidate it so that it
can put deep roots in the Haitian society. It must allow all groups in
the Haitian society to express themselves and get involved.
To this end, we must continue to favour the onset of a secure
environment, to rebuild the judicial infrastructure of the country
and to help Haiti embark upon the economic transition it needs to
ensure its future and its stability.
As the government stated yesterday in its speech from the
throne, the future of our societies depends on the safety of their
citizens. This sums up Canada's action in Haiti as well as in other
developing countries.
We must give the Haitian people the time it needs to bring about
these changes. The more the months to come will be stable and the
more the democratic institutions will have the time to develop and
to consolidate, the stronger the economy will be.
Haiti is facing huge challenges. And yet, I am sure it will be able
to rise to them. Just think about it. Only two years ago, Haiti fell
prey to political violence. Haitians were afraid to walk in the streets
and rightly so. It is estimated that 4,000 to 5,000 Haitians were
killed during the Cédras regime.
Today, there is almost no more political violence. Arbitrary
action is a thing of the past. A year ago, setting up a professional
police force in Haiti seemed an impossible dream. Let us consider
the challenge taken up by the Haitian government more than 12
months ago: abolishing the army, and training and deploying 5,000
police officers, with the help of Canada, among others, before the
end of the UNMIH, which is scheduled for tomorrow. Nonetheless,
a few days ago, the lastest graduates of the Haiti police academy
were deployed throughout the country.
During the next few months, Canadian police officers will
continue to help the new Haitian police force learn community
police techniques and field methods. At the same time, they will
continue to train the new recruits.
I know Canadians will be happy to learn that the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, of which we are all proud in this country, has
agreed to play an even more active role in Haiti. There is still much
to be done, including providing adequate training to senior officers
to ensure that the police can face with all kinds of situations in a
professional and disciplined manner.
Canada's participation in the multinational police force in Haiti
is a good example of what Canadians from all regions of the
country can accomplish when they work together. More than 100
police officers from the RCMP and several municipal police forces
across the country worked together to train their new Haitian
colleagues.
I was impressed to learn that more than 245 police officers of the
Communauté urbaine de Montréal applied to serve in Haiti. For
me, that enthusiasm shows that the officers of the SPCUM see that
exchange as an excellent opportunity to share their knowledge with
their new Haitians colleagues, but also, to learn first hand about the
harsh reality in Haiti to better understand and interact with the
Haitian community in Montreal.
(2025)
This illustrates perfectly well how international co-operation is
not for the sole benefit of others. It must also allow us to learn from
others.
A few months ago, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the
United Nations. I believe that what the UN is doing in Haiti is
nothing short of remarkable. The United Nations never undertook
such a complex mission. It is not the kind of traditional
peacekeeping mission Canadians got used to long ago. It is much
more than that: it goes from ensuring a stable environment to
establishing a new police force, from the reform of the Haitian
justice system to the organization and supervision of two elections
in less than one year, from meeting basic human needs to
establishing the foundation of a civilian and democratic society.
But we must admit that the mission will not be an easy one.
There are risks involved. Democratic and social development in
Haiti will continue well after the UN have left. Stability in Haiti
remains fragile.
However, our successes in the last two years are encouraging for
the future, not only of Haiti, but of the UN itself. Canada is eager to
play a greater role for the United Nations in Haiti and to help that
country to reach its full potential.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when we
talk about Haiti, I am always reminded of the hundreds of priests,
nuns, missionaries and young volunteers who have gone there at
some point in their life to try and give these people a little more
happiness in this world.
I am also reminded of my former colleague, the late Gaston
Péloquin, a member of the Bloc Quebecois, who spent two years in
Haiti and who adopted a young Haitian child who now lives in
83
Quebec. Pascal must be 18 now. I am also reminded of all these
Haitians who have come to live in Quebec and elsewhere, mainly in
Montreal, and who may be watching us tonight on television. I take
this opportunity to say hello to them.
The Bloc supports and salutes the government for its present and
future international commitments with regard to the peacekeeping
mission in Haiti.
Because of our concern for Haiti and of our peacekeeping policy,
Canada is now called upon by the United Nations to take military
command of the UN mission in Haiti.
I am also very happy with the foreign affairs minister's decision
to consult his parliamentary colleagues about Canada's
participation in this mission. We, members of the Bloc, believe that
it is very important.
This consulting of Parliament is very much in line with the
recommendations made by the Bloc Quebecois in its dissenting
report on Canada's foreign policy in November 1994.
In this report, on page 4, under chapter 1.2, the Bloc Quebecois
insists that the government should, and I quote: ``submit any
decision to participate in peacekeeping missions to a vote in the
House of Commons, as rapidly as possible, where time allows''.
I think it is important to note that fact because it clearly
demonstrates that, as the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois is
doing its job conscientiously, adhering to highly democratic values.
(2030)
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs is demonstrating today,
members of the Bloc often make recommendations which are very
practical and reflect current events.
As a matter of fact, I believe that one of the main roles of
Canadian forces on the international scene must be to support
peacekeeping operations by taking part in them. Such participation
is undeniably an asset for Canada and one of its major international
accomplishments.
Canada must learn from previous operations. The case of Haïti
reminds us that our interventions must absolutely be based on the
legitimate democratic system that is gradually emerging in that
country.
As my colleagues on this side of the House and myself have
already said, the development of democratic institutions in Eastern
Europe and closer to us in the Americas is crucial to the
preservation of social peace and to economic development in the
world.
I believe that reinforcement of democratic institutions and
respect of human rights are necessary pillars to the security of the
new international environment.
This is a major foreign policy concern that must be shared by
stable democratic societies likes ours.
When something like the United Nations mission in Haïti takes
leading to joint action, that concern yields results.
The end of dictatorship and restoration of democracy in Haïti are
largely the result of the tenacity of the international community,
which put its democratic ideals above everything else.
We, as members of this House, must take good note of this fact
but we must above all make sure that Canada will give it a leading
role in its foreign policy and also in its domestic policy. We ought
to be able to practice at home what we want to implement
elsewhere.
I understand that cabinet has already agreed in principle to the
deployment of 750 peacekeepers from Valcartier, which means an
additional 250 troops and a six-month extension of Canadian
participation in the United Nations mission in Haïti.
This means Canada will take over command of the mission from
the United States.
As I see it, the presence of UN troops under Canadian
supervision for a limited time will undoubtedly be very helpful to a
country formerly known as the Pearl of the Antilles.
The new responsibilities taken on by Canada may also help to
restore a credibility that was damaged by the events in Somalia.
However, we can allow no recurrence of what happened in
Somalia. That would be unacceptable and an outrage in the eyes of
all those who put their trust in these missions and who send people
over there.
Our participation will help to rebuild democratic and economic
institutions in that country.
Our support for the newly-elected President of Haiti, René
Préval, and his brand new Prime Minister, Rony Smarth, is a
continuation of our support for the democratic process triggered by
none other than Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
In his quest for democracy, Mr. Aristide managed to give back to
the Haitian people their dignity and independent institutions which
are a guarantee of a lasting peace.
According to the Bloc Quebecois, the mandate of Canadian
troops should consist mainly in co-ordinating reconstruction efforts
and supporting the current process of democratic growth so that
there will be a viable system by the end of that mandate.
(2035)
Since this transitional mission will be smaller in size, it should
concentrate on training the new Haitian police and on supporting
civilian institutions. The military aspects of the mandate should be
substantially reduced.
84
If the government wants the Official Opposition to support its
decision, it should make it clear that this particular mission will
be carefully planned, that its objectives will be realistic and clearly
identified, and finally, that adequate means will be provided to
achieve those objectives.
In concluding, I want to say again that when Canada and Quebec,
because as you know we are still part of Canada, when we send
Canadian troops as UN peacekeepers, I think it is important, and
everyone in this House will understand, that these people are well
prepared and above reproach. After all, they represent us, and as
long as they do that well, we are proud of them. If they break the
rules, we all bear the blame.
And finally, I want to say that our young people, our young
soldiers who are over there, our young policemen who are over
there and who are helping a country that is discovering again what
democracy means, this is fine, we support and encourage them, and
we support the government's motion.
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the
opportunity to participate in the debate this evening. The
government has asked Parliament to convene to discuss how
Canada should participate in the extension of the United Nations
Mission in Haiti, UNMIH.
The government is requesting that Parliament support Canada's
participation in the extension of UNMIH with a leading role. Haiti
has requested this UN mission be extended. The Secretary-General
of the United Nations also has asked that the mission be extended.
In fact he has asked that Canada head that extended mission. As I
have said, I am very pleased the government has suggested that
Canada participate, and we wait this very evening for the security
council to finish its deliberations on the resolution before it.
I have some personal attachment to the debate tonight, having
served in my pre-political years in a capacity where I assisted in
some of the development programs that Canada supported in Haiti.
I am certainly very aware of the chronic oppression and poverty
that so many thousands and thousands of people in Haiti have
suffered for far too long.
Now that progress is being made as a result of the United
Nations' participation in the process of the development of
democracy in Haiti, it would be a sad day if Canada were to come
away from this mission at this time.
As we all know, Canada has had a long history of participation in
UN peacekeeping missions. We have been the one nation in the
world with the record of participating in all of the UN
peacekeeping missions around the world. We do so in reflection as
well on our new foreign affairs policy which states that two of our
objectives are to protect security here in Canada, security in the
world and also to project our values.
It seems extremely logical that with those two key objectives in
mind we would look to Haiti as a very important place for Canada
to play a continuing role, to make sure those objectives are
attained, that we are doing our part. Because we feel so strongly
about Haiti now that we have joined the OAS and are fully
integrated members of regional hemispheric organizations we
place a special emphasis on Haiti. This has also been reflected by
the visit of the Hon. Pierre Pettigrew, Minister for International
Co-operation, to the inauguration of President Préval shortly after
his installation in cabinet.
(2040)
It is also logical to participate in this mission because Canada
has a long tradition of supporting multilateralism in the world. We
do not believe, especially in a fast changing world, that Canada or
any other nation can achieve important objectives alone. Therefore
we support multilateralism.
[Translation]
We have in Haiti proof that a multilateral system can work, that
we can learn from past successes and failures, that the United
Nations can be efficient and creative. The UN mission in Haiti has
done an excellent job and the security of the people of Haiti has
greatly improved in recent months. Elections were held in a calm
atmosphere and democracy is starting to take root.
A new pluralistic civilian regime is beginning to emerge, based
increasingly on law and on respect of the individual, and this is
happening because of the courage of the Haitian people and the
assistance of Haiti's friends, such as Canada and the UN.
Haiti offers proof to the whole world-the USA in particular,
who made a constructive contribution to the multilateral efforts
there-that multilateralism works if countries are committed to
making it work. Canada wants that success to be ongoing.
There are several other reasons Haiti holds particular importance
for Canada. By working with the Haitian population to make the
development of democracy a durable and solid phenomenon, we
are demonstrating the importance Canada attaches to a broader role
in Latin America and the Caribbean. This is a region which has
made remarkable advances in the areas of economics and
democracy, and one which has provided Canada with immigrants
who make up an increasing large part of the Canadian social fabric;
it offers us new outlets for pursuing Canada's objectives.
As well, our assistance to Haiti also demonstrates our
commitment to partnerships between francophone countries.
Canada and France in particular, two of the key French spraking
nations, are working together in Haiti to ensure the establishment
of a
85
democratic and peaceful civilian society, one which can continue to
develop once the peacekeeping operation is over.
[English]
Canada would not go into this peacekeeping operation or suggest
that this operation be extended if the government did not feel that it
was important, if it did not believe that the troops were qualified,
adequately equipped and safe. We cannot always guarantee the
safety of our troops but the government can guarantee that it is
doing its best to assure that every precaution is taken. With my
colleagues around the House I can share as well my great support
for the remarkable work and the courage of our troops in the field.
I could go on about how Canada has been involved in not only
the training of police in Haiti, involved in the peacekeeping
mission in Haiti but how we have helped to restore energy services
to that country, how we are helping to rehabilitate lower court
buildings so that the rule of law can be provided. We have helped to
provide the basic human needs in that country.
The foreign minister referred to the fact that given Parliament
was not in session when this topic was much within the public
realm, we provided the facility for Canadians to provide the
government with their comments about our involvement in Haiti
via the Internet.
(2045 )
I thought it would be appropriate, rather than to go on from our
own point of view about what Canada was doing, to share some
comments from a Canadian NGO, non-government organization,
that Canada has been supporting in its important work.
The following statement appeared on the Internet from CARE
Canada:
CARE Canada supports the proposal that Canadian Peacekeeping forces play
a continued and expanded role in the United Nations mission in Haiti.
Canada should accept this leading role and exercise the knowledge gained
through its many international Peacekeeping efforts in general and build on its
specific recent history in Haiti. As a close neighbour, with intimate links to the
Caribbean, Canada has an unquestionable role to play in the security and
peaceful development of Haiti.
The establishment of democratic institutions is essential for the health and
growth of a nation. Such activities support and mirror the efforts of aid agencies
like CARE which are working with Haitians to improve economic
self-sufficiency and social services.
With support valued at $3 million Canadian from the Canadian International
Development Agency, CARE is managing the monetization of Canadian food
commodities which will be sold to private merchants in Haiti. The revenue from
the sale of the food will be used for an integrated development programme in
Departement du Sud. The programme will include activities in primary health
care, water and sanitation and agriculture and natural resources.
Development projects alone cannot ensure a secure social environment. In
situations like Haiti, emerging from years of turmoil and conflict, the efforts of
all partners of good will are required to develop a peaceful and secure
environment.
Canada must continue to play a leading role. CARE Canada hopes that the
government of Canada will accept the UN's request to take the lead in the next
phase of its very successful mission.
In the course of this debate my colleague from across the floor
asked a question about the role of the OAS. Last week I had the
opportunity to speak with the secretary general of the OAS in
Washington. We talked in general about security issues in the
hemisphere. Again, Canada supports the multilateral approach. We
encouraged the secretary general of the OAS in his efforts in
security. In fact he told me he had just returned from New York
where he had met and talked with the UN Security Council about
the situation in Haiti because he believes as we believe that the
OAS has an important role to play in the follow up to a
peacekeeping mission which we hope will come to a successful end
some day.
[Translation]
Finally, we hope to be able to show that our country, Canada, can
make a difference in the world and that not only the government,
but all Canadians can make this a reality. Tonight's debate, our use
of the Internet to get Canadians' comments on this question and our
other consultations indicate that the government is committed to
involving Canadians in major foreign policy decisions. In Haiti,
Canadian personnel, peacekeeping troops, non governmental
organizations and ordinary Canadians are putting this principle into
effect through their hard work and their devotion.
With the guidance of our government, our commitment in Haiti
will, I am sure, show that Canadians are still capable of doing great
things internationally when they work together.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as one who is somewhat
pedantic about the use of language, I look around this vast almost
empty Chamber and I wonder why what we are doing here tonight
is called a debate.
(2050 )
I would call it a series of monologues, commentaries on
decisions previously made by the government. I suspect that even
as we speak there are similar discussions going on in several bars in
Ottawa that would be equally productive and have equal effect on
the decisions that this government may ultimately make.
Haiti was the second nation in this hemisphere after the U.S.A.
to gain its independence. Unfortunately from that point onward
nothing seemed to go right. That was their last success. It has been
an unremitting history of bloodshed, brutality, poverty and misery
for almost two centuries. The only prolonged period of peace and
86
stability was during the occupation by the U.S. marines during the
1920s and 1930s.
Even when I was working in Haiti, which was only about 15
years ago, the infrastructure that we had was almost entirely the
legacy of the U.S. occupation and any that was left had been built
by foreign aid within very recent times.
It is a sad commentary but those are the magnitudes of the
problems which Canada or other countries will be facing trying to
pull Haiti perhaps kicking and screaming into the 20th century and
trying to build a democratic state there.
As Canadians, we do have a vested interest in maintaining
political and economic stability in the Caribbean. We do have a
vested interest in creating a democratic state in Haiti. There are two
very important reasons why we have this vested interest. One is
that we have trade and investment links in this area not so much
with Haiti itself but with its neighbours and most particularly with
the Dominican Republic which shares the island of Hispaniola with
Haiti. Therefore, if Haiti blows it up, it will have a direct influence
on our well-being in this country.
The second big interest we have and one we share with almost
every country in the hemisphere is the question of refugees. If Haiti
again does not succeed and everything turns upside down there will
be another great flood of Haitians trying to get out of the place in
unseaworthy boats going willy-nilly to whatever shore they may
find. These people, by the thousands or the tens of thousands, will
then become a burden on the recipient countries.
How much better to send some aid and a few people into Haiti to
try to straighten out the situation there than to end up with another
disaster equivalent to the one we had about four years ago? I do
support Canadian intervention. I do support our sending additional
troops there to take command now that the Americans have decided
it is time for them to leave.
Besides being in our national interest, there is a certain moral
imperative for our continued presence in that unhappy country to
preserve life and also to provide or assist in the provision of
humanitarian assistance.
Finally, unlike the situation in Bosnia, this is an assignment that
is well within the capability of our poorly equipped military. There
are no heavy weapons to contend with and no well organized
opposition. Although, like in any military operation there is always
a risk, that risk will not be high unless we do not have adequate
rules of engagement. If the rules of engagement are adequate and
clearly defined and if our troops will not be unduly restrained from
defending themselves, then we should be there. If they are going to
be unduly restrained then they should not go. We do not send our
people overseas as human sacrifices. That is my primary
consideration. The only caveat I would add to my support for this
project is that if our military are there they must be able to defend
themselves. I have that small reservation.
(2055)
I will at this time lend my support to the ministers in whatever
they have decided to do, whether they are going to send 500 or 750.
I know the decision has been made but we will give it our blessing.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
thanks to the minister and to the government for providing me with
an opportunity to participate in this debate.
I will begin by sending my congratulations to the new Minister
of Foreign Affairs, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I
had the opportunity to work with the new Minister of Foreign
Affairs when he was the foreign affairs critic for the official
opposition in a previous Parliament and I was as I am now the
foreign affairs critic for the NDP.
We had the opportunity to work together on the Standing
Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. We also
worked together as members of a much smaller committee, the
Special Committee on the Central America Peace Process, which
was created around the time of the peace process in 1988.
The special committee made recommendations for Canadian
participation in Central America with respect to the training of
police and to create in countries where the police have not always
had it, the political neutrality one would expect from police.
Canada had a role in training police forces in that part of the world.
By way of extending that conclusion we came to with respect to
Central America, I have no problem listening to the minister's
arguments being offered tonight about the need to consolidate and
to amplify what progress has already been made in Haiti with
respect to the training of police with a view to creating further
stability in that country.
It is a very new democracy which exists in Haiti in spite of the
fact that it has been independent for almost 200 years as a member
just mentioned. That new democracy when it first came into being
with the election of former President Aristide did not last very
long. One of the reasons it did not last very long was that the
political culture and civil infrastructure and all the things that are
necessary to support the democratic experiment were not there. It
was not long before the military, who were used to running the
country, decided that they did not like this experiment. The next
thing was that the new president was in exile.
87
I am convinced that President Aristide was in exile a lot longer
than he had to be. The Americans were not in any hurry to have
President Aristide back in power in Haiti because of his
ideological leanings. They took their sweet time knowing that the
constitution in Haiti prevented President Aristide from running for
re-election. The longer they took, the less time President Aristide
would have when he actually returned to Haiti.
I feel it was only in the final analysis that the Americans were
embarrassed into doing something about Haiti. As a result we have
had a new election in Haiti and we have a successor to President
Aristide, a man who I understand has served as President Aristide's
prime minister.
(2100)
In a way the will of the people of Haiti, which was expressed in
that first election but which was overthrown first by the military
and then by the delay in doing anything to get President Aristide
back has been expressed again. We hope this time around it can be
expressed not only in terms of the election but also in terms of
giving that government the opportunity to implement policies
consistent with what the people thought they were voting for in this
most recent presidential election.
We therefore support in principle the government's apparent
decision to respond to the call of the UN to take over command of
the UN operation in Haiti. Like others who have spoken here
tonight, we wish we had more details in front of us, some cost
estimates, rules of engagement. We wish we had specific numbers
as to what troops will be sent and how many in addition to the
people already there, all those kinds of things.
We understand it might have been difficult for the government to
come up with this information by now, although one wonders about
that. We do understand this matter has been in dispute at the United
Nations and therefore the government might not want to second
guess the outcome of the debate at the United Nations or at least it
might not want to second guess it until necessary. In effect we are
doing that tonight.
The government was in some difficulty with respect to the
timing which is why we were willing to co-operate with the
minister in order to permit this debate tonight. In spite of the fact
that member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia thinks
more productive discussions might be going on in bars somewhere
in Ottawa, this is nevertheless the beginning of a good tradition that
whenever Canadian troops are deployed there is an opportunity to
discuss it in Parliament.
We are discussing the issue in the sense that there is no real
proposal to debate and there are no real details to debate. There is
no motion to vote on. Nevertheless this is a worthy procedure that
perhaps if improved could be something we do with more detail, in
a more timely fashion and that we do not just do as a gesture to
parliamentary accountability. Rather, we should have something
more substantive in nature.
Having said we support this in principle, we enter the caveat that
we reserve the right to be critical of the government in future if we
come across ways this is being implemented that we find to be
inadequate.
The minister said he was thinking about having the committee
act as a sort of monitoring agency for this Canadian operation and
perhaps for others. I welcome that gesture on the part of the
minister. I am not exactly sure what he has in mind for the
committee, but certainly the idea of there being some kind of
parliamentary oversight on this kind of thing is worth exploring.
I regret to say that as much as I think it is a good idea, since New
Democrats are not allowed to be full members of committees, we
might not be able to participate in this to the extent we would like,
perhaps not at all. That is a shame. A number of us have had a lot of
experience in the House, in foreign affairs, on that particular
committee, and on special committees struck to deal with external
affairs issues. Yet we find ourselves frozen out of the process. That
is regrettable.
(2105)
As we commit these Canadians to this task in Haiti for six
months, presumably-although it is not clear exactly how long
because these things have a tendency to grow or to be
extended-we need to commit ourselves to a way of understanding
the situation in Haiti and in other countries that realizes the limits
of electoral democracy. It is not just enough to have elections.
The government has recognized that to some degree by saying
we need a police force trained in ways of policing that are not
politically motivated. Too often police forces and the military in
that part of the world are an extension of the political agenda of the
government of the day. To some degree the limits of elections in
and by themselves have been recognized by the government.
I also hope the government would be working not just with
respect to Haiti but with respect to a number of other countries in
that area of the world, particularly Central America, to do what it
can to put pressure on those governments which have been
legitimately or democratically elected but which continue to
permit, to encourage, to turn a blind eye to or however we describe
it, which would vary from country to country, human rights
violations in spite of the fact that elections have now been held and
the presidents of various countries are democratically elected.
I am thinking of Guatemala. Hardly a day goes by in my office
that I do not get a letter from some Canadian concerned about what
is happening to Guatemalan refugees returning to Guatemala.
There is a great deal of concern about some of the things that have
88
happened recently in El Salvador and in Nicaragua. These are all
countries which became democratic in the 1980s.
I hope the attention of the minister could be turned to what the
Canadian government could be doing in that respect as well. In the
meantime, what we are committing ourselves to in Haiti seems to
be something we all must collectively hope works out for the best
for the people of Haiti and for the future of democracy in that
region.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
followed this debate with great attention and I care about this issue,
because I come from Latin America, which is very close to Haiti.
That country has been through some very difficult times. All
Latin-American countries have had difficult years, especially Haiti,
which fought for years to get rid of the Duvalier dictatorship.
Second, I am the member for Bourassa, including Montreal
North, which has the highest number of Haitians per riding in
Canada. This vibrant community is very well organized and makes
a great contribution to the city of Montreal North, to Quebec and to
Canada, despite a few problems that we have noticed, especially in
the area of immigration. It is currently difficult for Haitians in my
riding or in Montreal, in Quebec, to bring their families over. Many
problems arise at the Canadian embassy in Haiti, which requires all
kinds of medical exams to prove that the people are related. These
blood tests are very expensive. Many improvements are needed to
help Haitians immigrate to this country.
(2110)
The Haitians in my riding and in Quebec in general remain very
attached to their homeland. They pay frequent visits whenever they
can afford it. It is close to Quebec, and they experience the events
in Haiti as though they were there. I remember that when
Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected President of Haiti, people in
Montreal North and Montreal were overjoyed because he had been
elected by a vast majority of the population and also enjoyed the
support of the Haitian diaspora in Quebec and Canada.
As you know, the armed forces were not happy with this very
democratic president who cared about the majority of poor people.
Haiti is the poorest country in Latin American, in the Caribbean.
There was a military coup and President Aristide had to go into
exile. He came to Montreal, where I had the opportunity of meeting
him. He also visited Ottawa.
Luckily for the Organization of American States, they did a good
job and actively restored democracy in Haiti, as did the United
Nations, Canada-it must be said-the U.S. as well as certain Latin
American countries. Many Latin American countries were
instrumental in restoring democracy to Haiti. I will only mention
Argentina and Chile today. While facing economic difficulties of
its own, Chile set up a special assistance program for the people of
Haiti.
I should also point out the outstanding help Quebec has provided
the people of Haiti. A person was named to oversee Quebec's aid to
Haiti because Quebec has close relations with that country, and it is
not only because they are both French speaking nations, but also
because there is a strong solidarity and an unfailing generosity in
Quebec toward the poorest nations of the world.
I was also very happy when President Aristide decided to
dismantle the Haitian army, a dictatorial army that did not respect
the regime in place, that did not respect the Constitution. We, in
Quebec, particularly myself, have also worked hard to get rid of the
army in Haiti. It was not necessary to have an army there, and we
followed the example of two other democratic countries that do not
have an army, particularly Costa Rica. That country has not had an
army for decades and it is the most democratic country in Latin
America. It has also been the case with Panama for a number of
years and I do hope that other developing countries will follow the
same path and do away with armed forces which have no
justification in the present context.
I must support the motion of the government. I agree to a six
month extension of the UN's mandate in Haiti. As my colleagues of
the Bloc have already said, I believe it is important to define
precisely the mandate of our troops in Haiti, the duration of their
mission and its costs.
(2115)
I believe Canada and Quebec have an obligation to contribute to
the construction of a democratic society in Haiti, a society
respectful of human rights, a society where everyone, including the
poorest, have opportunities and decent living conditions.
For all those reasons, I agree with this motion and I support an
extension of at least six months of the UN's mandate in Haiti.
[English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
participate in this very important debate on Canada's role with the
United Nations in Haiti. Haiti has had a very tumultuous past.
Canada has an immense national interest in the Caribbean area.
That is why it is very important for Canada to be associated with
the United Nations in the very important task of helping to
establish a permanent democracy in Haiti. The national interests of
Canada are served by what the Canadian Armed Forces are doing in
that region because we have a tremendous relationship with the
countries throughout the Caribbean and in South America.
89
I want to give an example of the respect with which Canada
is held in the eyes of countries in the Caribbean. I remember a
number of years ago when Lincoln Alexander, a former member
of this House and former Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, and I
went to the Caribbean to a meeting as Canadian observers.
There were about 64 delegates from around the Caribbean at that
meeting. At the beginning, one of the Prime Ministers who was
chairing the meeting said that he wanted Canadians to know that
not only were they welcome, but even though they were observers,
he wanted them to feel free to participate in the discussions at any
time they wished to do so.
The Prime Minister of one of the countries went on to say that it
was because Canada was its greatest friend in the world. Britain
came second and after that, he did not even enumerate them.
It is very important that Canada look after her interests in the
Caribbean. As we know, Canada is really synonymous with
peacekeeping excellence. Over the past 50 years, our peacekeepers
have served throughout the world and their experience and
expertise remain unsurpassed.
The Canadian forces are always combat ready. They are
peacekeeping ready. They are also diplomats when they go abroad
because they do so much good work while there on a volunteer
basis. They are well trained. They get along well with the people
wherever they are. They help those people out.
As we debate this issue, let us remember that every time a
peacekeeper goes abroad on duty there is a family back home. I
want to pay tribute tonight to the families that remain at home and
the challenges they face while a spouse, a father or mother, is
abroad with a peacekeeping force. Let us remember them as well in
this debate.
It comes as no surprise to any of us that the international
community is looking to Canada to assume a significant role in the
ongoing work in Haiti. Our peacekeepers have already shown that
they are well suited for this mission. They may now have an
opportunity to go a step further in assisting Haiti and its people
during a difficult period of transition.
(2120 )
My purpose today is to review Canada's peacekeeping record
and remind members of the superb qualifications that Canadian
forces personnel bring to this job. They have the skills necessary to
meet the demands of modern operations.
Peacekeeping began modestly for Canada. In the late 1940s the
UN began deploying unarmed military personnel to observe peace
agreements in some of the world's conflict ridden regions.
Canada's participation in two of these early missions continues to
this day. I am referring to the UN truce supervision organization in
the Middle East and the UN military observer group in India and
Pakistan.
Peacekeeping moved beyond observing and took on a more
demanding role with the Suez crisis of 1956. Lester B. Pearson,
Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs at the time,
recommended placing a UN force between the warring parties once
a ceasefire had been signed. The multinational force would then
police the ceasefire, setting the stage for a negotiated settlement.
Mr. Pearson argued his case with skill and determination,
overcoming the scepticism of some of the UN members. The
United Nations Emergency Force was thus born and Mr. Pearson
was awarded the Nobel peace prize.
The first commander of the United Nations emergency force was
a Canadian, Lieutenant-General E. L. M. Burns. General Burns,
operating in unfamiliar territory, was often forced to chart his own
course as he carried out the difficult job of keeping the peace
between Arab and Israeli. In the end he excelled in this delicate
task. Why? Because he was well trained for the job in the Canadian
military community.
Suez was an important precedent for the United Nations. Over
the next three decades most peacekeeping missions rested on the
principles established by the United Nations Emergency Force.
Peacekeeping forces were expected to be lightly armed and
impartial, and enjoy the consent of the warring parties. During this
period Canada established herself as a leader in the peacekeeping
field. We participated in virtually every UN mission and some
outside the UN as well.
By the end of the cold war more than 80,000 Canadian forces'
personnel had served in peacekeeping operations: from the Congo
and West New Guinea to Cyprus and the Golan Heights. Canada's
peacekeeping excellence did not disappear with the end of the cold
war. Indeed, in recent years our expertise has been more in demand
than ever.
Since 1989 the United Nations has become a much more active
and interventionist organization. It has become more involved in
interstate disputes and it has tackled human rights and
humanitarian issues on a greater scale than ever before. As well, it
has played a larger role in helping states embrace democracy and
recover from the ravages of war.
Our soldiers, while serving on UN duty, quite often on a
volunteer basis build bridges, roads, schools, homes. They teach
people trades and occupations. They teach people how to farm,
how to grow their food. This is all done on a voluntary basis. These
are the things for which our forces very seldom get credit in the
public media.
As a result, the number of UN peacekeeping missions has
increased dramatically because of all the ravages of war in the hot
spots that exist around the world in recent times. What is more,
90
these missions have become more complex and even more
demanding.
Modern peace support operations, as they might more accurately
be labelled, include preventive deployment, the delivery of
humanitarian assistance, peace enforcement and peace building in
addition to traditional peacekeeping.
(2125 )
These operations are multi-functional and multi-disciplinary,
encompassing both military and civilian activities. Whether it is
police officers, election observers, humanitarian workers or
engineers, civilians are playing an increasing role in peace support
operations. They are part of the new peacekeeping partnership.
Canada and in particular the Pearson International Peacekeeping
Training Centre at Cornwallis are helping pave the way for greater
co-operation between military and civilians working together in
support of peace.
Canada has taken other steps to help improve peace support
operations. Our study looking into ways to enhance the UN's
capability to respond rapidly to a crisis stands out. But our greatest
contribution remains our people in the field.
Modern peace support operations demand a full range of military
capabilities on the ground, in the air and at sea. Canada, with its
combat capable, multi-purpose forces, has been able to respond to
this demand and play an important role in many of these new
missions whether in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia or
Central America.
In the former Yugoslavia, for example, Canadian ground troops
performed a wide range of humanitarian tasks while the conflict
raged. Currently we have nearly 1,000 troops in Bosnia, many of
whom come from Petawawa, my home community. They are
serving there with the NATO-led peace implementation force.
In Cambodia we have personnel serving with the Cambodian
Mine Action Centre which is responsible for mine clearance
operations.
At sea, Canadian naval forces have participated in operations off
the coast of the former Yugoslavia, enforcing economic sanctions
and arms embargoes.
We also have had Canadian personnel involved in naval
peacekeeping operations in Cambodia, the Middle East and Central
America. In the air we have had personnel serving aboard NATO
airborne warning and control system aircraft, AWACS, enforcing
the no-fly zone in the former Yugoslavia.
At present there are about 2,000 Canadian forces personnel
participating in peace support operations worldwide. They
continue to carry out a broad range of activities.
In all these operations, Canadians carry out their tasks with skill
and professionalism, proving once again that fully trained soldiers
are the best peacekeepers. Combined with specialized instruction
in such areas as cultural sensitivity, combat training gives
Canadian forces all the tools required to meet new challenges.
Given this impressive record, there should be no doubt that
Canada can make a significant contribution to a mission in Haiti
operating under a new mandate. We have been an active participant
in attempts to restore Haitian democracy since 1991. Canadian
ships helped enforce economic sanctions in an effort to convince
Haiti's illegal regime to step down and Canadian forces personnel
have been participating in the United Nations Mission in Haiti
since March 1995.
Canada's participation in the United Nations Mission in Haiti
currently includes about 500 Canadian forces personnel with
helicopter transport and engineering support, and almost 100
civilian police to help establish a professional Haitian police force.
Canadians know the country, they know the people, they know
the challenges that must be faced. Canada is also no stranger to
commanding multilateral military forces. Finally, Canadians know
a great deal about being a civil, democratic society.
We could play a critical role as part of the international
community in helping maintain a secure and stable environment
and pave the way for the full restoration of democracy in Haiti.
Since 1947, more than 100,000 Canadians have participated in
over 30 peacekeeping and related missions, a contribution which
remains unmatched.
(2130 )
Over 100 Canadians have lost their lives in the line of duty and
many more have been wounded. Canada, in short, understands
peacekeeping like few other countries. We understand its
effectiveness in promoting international peace and security. We
understand its ability to help lay the groundwork for democracy.
Perhaps most important of all, we understand how it works.
The world has always looked to Canada for peacekeeping
experience and know how. In the case of Haiti it is doing so again.
We can help Haiti build a better future and in doing so continue a
long and proud peacekeeping tradition.
Tonight as this debate goes on, Canada's name has been carried
around the world in much of the good work that has been done by
the Canadian Armed Forces. Whatever the decision is we wish its
members well with the United Nations. I know they will do a good
job for Canada.
91
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I confess to not seeing the
clock too rigidly, particularly to the last member who spoke. I
admit in great part it was out of respect for his sincere interest
and expertise in this area.
I wonder, in the spirit the House has demonstrated all evening, if
I might seek your agreement to not see the clock so the member for
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca could be given the full 10 minutes by the
Chair. He will conclude the debate on this issue this evening.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the House for its consideration. I very much
appreciate entering into this debate on Haiti.
The people of Haiti have endured over 150 years of tyranny,
bloodshed and destitution under successive dictators and bloody
regimes. However, the Haiti we see today on the eve of the U.S.
pull-out is not much different from the Haiti of the last 150 years.
There is still a desperate population and an economy in ruins.
In this land that teeters between anarchy and hope we have been
asked by the United Nations to take over from the United States in
managing the peacekeeping force. However, the role the United
Nations has completed there is far from complete.
I am very disappointed in the government for bringing this
debate to the House in a less than meaningful fashion. If this debate
is to be meaningful it has to be votable. The people of Canada
through us as their elected representatives must have the right to
have these issues debated and voted on so their democratic rights
can be exercised. They must know when, if and how their sons,
daughters, husbands and wives will be sent to far off lands to
potentially lay their lives down in the name of peace.
There is no question in my mind that we should engage in this
role for a number of reasons. It is our responsibility with Haiti
lying within our sphere of geopolitical influence. The
consequences of inaction are huge. As my colleague from Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia mentioned, if we do not act on
this and Haiti descends into anarchy and bloodshed, there will be a
mass migration of people to other shores, not to mention the basic
humanitarian needs of these impoverished individuals for which
we as Canadians are known to champion.
Conditional on our involvement is that a few questions must be
answered: first, the length of stay; second, we must have
parameters in terms of the cost of the involvement; third, we must
have a well defined mandate. These three principles should be
applied to any subsequent peacekeeping operation we as a country
dare to entertain.
I have some suggestions for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
President René Préval cannot govern properly and bring peace to
his country if he cannot govern safely. Therefore law and order
must be restored to Haiti.
(2135)
We must engage in training a constabulary in the form of a police
force. The United States was engaging in training these individuals
not as a police force but as a military force. That is a can of worms
that will explode in its face.
There must be a stable judiciary in Haiti, and this is where
Canada can involve the United Nations and the World Court in
helping to train a fair, equitable and democratic judiciary in Haiti.
We must have a demilitarization of the army and paramilitary
groups. As we look at the history of Haiti in the last 150 years,
successive paramilitary/military groups have wreaked havoc in that
country and have driven it repeatedly into a state of utter
destitution and bloodshed.
We need the help of the United States. That is why we should
take the request of President Préval and ask the United States to
stay on for another six months. We will need it for that and also for
a number of other interventions if peace is to take hold in Haiti for
the long term.
We have to stop the shipments of arms that are clandestinely
taking place into Haiti. This has a huge destabilizing effect on the
country. We have to utilize international financial institutions, the
World Bank and the IMF, to involve an integrated international
approach for restructuring the economy in Haiti. If there is not a
viable economy in Haiti, then there is a desperate people. If there is
a desperate people, there is anarchy, bloodshed and it ends up
exactly where it started.
One may argue this is a heavy handed approach but even with
President Aristide before President Préval, moneys given to Haiti
for aid and development went into the pockets of corrupt officials
and were spent in a completely useless fashion. It will require very
much an interventionist approach from the international financial
institutions to make sure that economic restructuring and moneys
designated for economic restructuring go where they are supposed
to.
The restructuring of this land will be complex and will involve
the multifactorial approach with the IFIs and the Organization of
American States, as the secretary of state mentioned earlier. We
need to take a leadership role in this because nobody is actually
pushing these groups to take this multifactorial approach. We
should be pushing these groups to do that for the long term.
This issue is too large for any one country to deal with,
particularly ours. We must do our part because international
security, our security, is intimately entwined with the ability of
international structures to provide for umbrellas of international
and regional security. We cannot provide this on our own.
I recommend again that the government involve the international
financial institutions with a co-ordinated plan that involves
economic restructuring, internal security and the construction of
good governance and democratic institutions in Haiti if it is to get
on its feet in the future. If we do not, it will again descend into a
bloody mess.
92
All one has to do to see how unbalanced this situation is is to
scratch the veneer on Haiti today and see that democracy is only
skin deep.
As an extension of the problem in Haiti, I warn the Minister of
Foreign Affairs of an impending problem in the Caribbean,
particularly germane with the shooting down last week of the two
planes from United States by Cuba. Cuba will be a huge security
problem for Canada if we do not act in a preventative fashion. I
urge the foreign affairs minister to do all he can to convince Mr.
Clinton to defeat the xenophobic rhetoric forth by Jesse Helms and
Mr. Burton in the United States.
Their mandate is driven by the rich Cuban expatriate groups in
the United States trying to manipulate the situation in a presidential
year. It is definitely the wrong thing for the people of Cuba and
definitely the wrong thing for Canada. The implications of this bill
will have a widespread effect also on our companies trying to
operate in Cuba in a constructive way.
The quickest way to end the destitution and the communist
structure in Cuba is for Canada along with other countries in a
constructive fashion to build up the economy of the middle class in
Cuba. If they do not, when Mr. Castro dies there will be a power
vacuum left in a country that is economically destitute, which will
cause anarchy and bloodshed in exactly the same way as in Haiti.
I put that out as a warning for the minister. Again, I support what
the government is doing in Haiti and I hope in future we will have
further meaningful debates in the House.
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I noticed that
your vision had been obscured by the eloquence of the members of
the House in terms of seeing the clock at the end of the Chamber. If
I might suggest that hon. members grant the hon. parliamentary
secretary to the minister an opportunity to speak to the issue. I
know he intends to be very brief. I think it would be appropriate if
he followed up on the debate.
I ask the permission of hon. members to enable you, Mr.
Speaker, to have the obscured vision you were good enough to have
for the last speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It seems that my obscured
vision is coming into question again even after a long career in
hockey refereeing. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the House
for granting me this short period of time to wrap up the debate.
It is clear there is broad agreement on all sides of the House for
Canada to assume a leadership role and continue its work in Haiti
with the UN mission and to help restore democracy and security.
We on this side of the House have received some very valuable
contributions from the opposition to guide the government in the
decisions it will take on this subject. As the foreign affairs minister
announced earlier this evening, he will make sure the House is kept
informed of the government's progress in Haiti regardless of how
this unfolds in the next few hours or days, as the case may be.
I thank all parliamentarians who contributed to the debate
tonight for their interest in this very important subject. I assure the
House on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we will
keep Parliament informed of our role in this matter.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In the spirit of blurred
vision, as it is 9.30 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier this day,
the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 9.43 p.m.)